User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/February

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of speech

• WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

1. List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Freedom_of_speech#Participants.
2. Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
3. Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
4. Join in discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
5. Notify others you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sports years

This has been hammered out at WT:MOSDATE before, sports years are displayed in the infobox as 1961–1964 and not 1961–64, this is to differentiate them from sports seasons which are written as 1961–62, 1961–63 etc. I'd invite you to revert yourself at Dave Worthington please. Please also read WP:BRD. GiantSnowman 18:35, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

And I invite you to take your nonsense elsewhere. Local project guidelines do not override the MoS. Eric Corbett 18:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as I've said, this was discussed at the MOS talk page! GiantSnowman 18:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting use of tense there. As far as I can see it's being discussed, without having yet come to any conclusion. Now, are you going to revert yourself? Eric Corbett 19:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Kudos on the equivalent of 'I know you are, so what am I?' there. The discussion I am talking about is an older one, as I participated in it a few months ago. GiantSnowman 19:09, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But as I said, it's being discussed on the talk page. How hard is that to understand? Eric Corbett 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

But as I said, it has already 'been discussed i.e. consensus is already in place. It might change, it might not, but until it does you should not make such poor edits. GiantSnowman 19:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

"Poor edits"? Rest assured that I will make every reasonable effort in the future to avoid you and any article you have contributed to. Eric Corbett 19:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Your revert at IEC 60320

Please see this section in the talk page. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Why? Ignorance is ignorance. Eric Corbett 21:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Q

Hey Eric, maybe you or one of your visitors can help. Sippi is writing a report on John Tyler (what luck! fascinating character!). His article is a GA. Throughout, "Vice President" is capitalized; if I read WP:JOBTITLES correctly, it's only to be capitalized if it points to a specific person occupying the office, but in the case of "Tyler became the first Vice President to succeed..." (opening sentence of the second paragraph) that seems tenuous. In the following sentence, "He was also the first person to serve as President", "president" is certainly used generically. Right? Thanks for the help. (Oh, when I point out something on Wikipedia, she asks, "did you write it?" I'm kinda proud of that.) Drmies (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You've probably already seen what the MoS has to say here. As you say, it depends on what "Vice President" is referring to, and in your example of "Tyler became the first Vice President ...", vice president is clearly referring to the position, not to a particular vice president, so it ought not to be capitalised. I think though that some people would always capitalise Vice President or President out a misguided deference for the position. Not me though. Eric Corbett 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ha, that sounds like it would be your opinion, yes. And I agree. I do wonder if that section in the MOS actually states that US capitalization (and possibly hyphenation) is different for those positions (and others?) than for others. Well, I made her go through and capitalize her instances, which were clearly to his position. Tyler was actually not that boring of a president and had some balls as well. She needs a picture too, and wanted one of him when he was six and fell into a lake or something like that. No such luck on Commons. Thanks Eric! Drmies (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Poor Sippi, as if having teachers at school criticising her work isn't bad enough. ;-) Only a matter of time I suppose though before Administrator is capitalised here on WP, out of deference for the position of course. Eric Corbett 18:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

One potential problem I see though is that some will complain about terms such as "vice president" or "king" being inconsistently capitalised, which is why I would rarely capitalise those terms unless followed immediately by a name, but they can burn in Hell. I bet Sippi's teacher will raise the issue for instance. Eric Corbett 18:52, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Prospero. (That was simple!) Admin should be capitalized, of course, and a second rank installed without the capital, for those who've been brought up or had a block overturned more than five times. Sippi got points taken off last year for, I think, correctly using an appositive. If I weren't convinced, from teaching Advanced English Grammar, of the insufficiency of grammar education among English teachers, having a child in school would have done it immediately. Well, thanks for your help, twice now in 24 hours. If you want to drive editors away you'll have to try a bit harder. Did you hear any reports about the Manchester meetup? I want to hear who came penniless, who went home with whom, and who got kicked out of the mead hall. And if anyone went to see Sitush or heard from him. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• I remember winning an argument with my third-grade teacher over how many syllables were in "California" (I said 4, she said 5 - she was, I think, originally from the south). Don't get me started on this topic! As for Tyler, the "Accidental President," he is, I believe, the only president who was not honored in Washington, DC at the time of his death, which occurred during the Civil War, as he had supported the Confederacy. Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Profumo affair

Hi, I've been working on the Profumo affair from the 1960s. I reckon you would have been pretty young at the time, but you might – just – remember it (as indeed I do, just). That's not true of many WP editors; if you have the odd moment to comment at the peer review, I'd be very grateful. Brianboulton (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I remember it well - I was 13 at the time. I've made one change to the article so far - Christine Keeler was a topless dancer not a topless model. Despite its name Tit-Bits was a mainstream magazine and there were no topless photos in magazines you could buy at newsagents in 1963. Richerman (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about the same age as Richerman when the scandal broke, but I hardly remember it all. Never took much interest, as my hormones were running rampant at the time and attracting my attention elsewhere. Lydia, where are you today? Eric Corbett 22:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

She's probably on a beach somewhere with Alette Postma. And Sandra--wait, I forgot her last name. Drmies (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a strange thing when I think back, given the modern obsession with paedophilia. She was twelve and I was thirteen or fourteen, yet she was a goddess as far as I was concerned ... anyway, back to Profumo. I'll be happy to take a look. Eric Corbett 23:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Ik was zestien, en jij was achtentwintig..." ("I was sixteen, and you were twenty-eight") Drmies (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, you guys are old enough to be the grandfathers of some of the child admins on here :-]♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:17, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I am! I remember the affair well. It happened soon after we moved to Cheshire; I had just left a job at St Stephen's Hospital in Fulham where Stephen Ward was finally taken. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think Profumo has to be one of the most notorious scandals in British history. Thanks Brian for taking the initiative.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I was 10. I founded a secret Christine Keeler Appreciation Society (membership 3) at my school – we called it KAPS to mislead the staff. We drew insignia on our satchels in the shape of a heart, with "KAPS" in the middle. Then some creep prefect informed on us, the society was banned (but we had grown out of it by then anyway). Eric & others, I hope you will find time read the article, anyway. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

 Drmies likes this.

• I can help source it; Andrew Marr discusses it in his History of Modern Britain, if that's any help. --John (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Huh, I should have looked first. It's already well sourced. Maybe I can help in some other way. --John (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
    • If you have access to any of the sources you could rewrite that bit that says "Christine Keeler, born in 1942 from a humble background" - that's a terrible mangling of the English language. She could have been born in humble circumstances maybe but I don't like this use of 'humble' anyway. I've found some references on the WWW that say she never knew her father as he abandoned the family during WWII and she was brought by her mother and her stepfather in a converted railway carriage. I've found a reliable source here for some of that but not the bit about her father, although I expect it will be in the other books used. Richerman (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I'll have a look in Marr later tonight. The Mail source leaps out to me as one to upgrade. Sorry Eric, we should discuss this at article talk really and not here. --John (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Inchdrewer Castle

Allen3 ^talk 16:50, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Fuck

There's a big debate going on at WP:TFAR about the suitability of showcasing this article on the main page. Which seems a little strange to me given that PoD and I had Gropecunt Lane on the main page slot four years ago. I've got a suggestion: transfer the management of WP from the Californian pansies to the north of England, where we call a spade a fucking shovel. Eric Corbett 18:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I made my statement there early, for freedom of speech. Remember lynching as TFA, with an image featured on this talk? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I do. That was a pretty horrific image. Eric Corbett 19:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Now compare, in disbelief (pictured here), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice dramatic picture. I'm afraid though that Wagner far exceeds my attention span. Eric Corbett 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I use the picture to make the point of disbelief when seeing something kafkaesque, like mentioned today to Giano, or on the Wagner talk in May, right after the discussion of Wagnerian proportions (including "treachery of images"), --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for George Ogilvy, 3rd Lord Banff

Allen3 ^talk 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I made a total of four minor edits, that's all. Eric Corbett 17:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, Eric, it was me who had your name added as this ended up being part and parcel of the Inchdrewer nomination. SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I was just puzzled as to how I got credit for something I hardly touched. Eric Corbett 17:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it's just I do feel it's only fair that your (much appreciated) help is recognised, even if the acknowledgement of it is only in a small way. Ogilvy ended up being rather cobbled together as the initial DYK reviewer suggested a stub should be done for him as part of the hook. It still has a lot more work to do on it yet so something else to add to my to do list! SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

If your to do list is anything like mine you'll never get to the end of it. Speaking of which I've got to finish off the tiling in the hall this evening. At least that'll be one thing I can cross off. Eric Corbett 17:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on these last night - the 'citation needed' and then '(see below)' edits were rather ... odd. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Cast off your chains

File:WBDiseased leaf.jpg

Demand the choice to uplpoad to Wikipedia only

You know how Canada has a maple leaf, New Zealand a silver fern, and America a whatever it has - I have been thinking - the Wikipedia freedom movement ought to have a grotty whitebeam leaf as symbol of the oppression and lack of choices under which we labour. It coudld be flown/grown on thousands of pages.  Giano  10:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

weed: "A herbaceous plant not valued for use or beauty, growing wild and rank, and regarded as cumbering the ground or hindering the growth of superior vegetation"

– New shorter Oxford English dictionary

And become a weed for our dear cuddly blocking admins to cull --Epipelagic (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not poison ivy? It might look good from a distance, but as soon as you try to do anything with it... Intothatdarkness 21:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Image size

From your edit summary on "Little Moreton Hall" it seems to me that you do not appear to be aware of the guideline at Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial#Thumbnail_sizes, which says "Lead images should usually be no wider than "300px" ("upright=1.35")". Snowman (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

It appears to me that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about. Go try and find your dictionary and look up the word usually. Eric Corbett 21:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

My I say that I think you could have phrased that better. See also Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#How_to_place_an_image, which says "Lead images should usually be no wider than "upright=1.35" ("300px")." I would say that the word "should" here implies on obligation. Snowman (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

[tps] But "usually" implies that there may or will be exceptions to that obligation. If it was a fixed obligation, "usually" would not be used in that sentence. Intothatdarkness 22:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

There may be exceptions, but I do not see any reasons to make an exception of the size of image of this building. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

[tps] You may not, but the policy clearly allows for it. And that means he's able to use the larger size until you drum up a consensus on that article saying he's wrong. Just how things work here. Intothatdarkness 22:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines says that the info-box image should not be larger than 300px and that it what goes here. It is implied that the guidelines have a consensus. Snowman (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

The guidelines say no such thing. Eric Corbett 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Believe me Snowman, I could have phrased that to far more accurately express my contempt for your position. Consider yourself one of the lucky ones. You need to consider the whole sentence, not just dwell on individual words, difficult as that may be for some. Eric Corbett 22:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• I see no justification for using your use of TW revert of my edit; see your edit. Snowman (talk) 00:55, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

  There are clearly many things you can't see. Eric Corbett 01:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I've thought for a long time that "improvements" to featured articles should have to gain consent before they are implemented. Isn't it odd that editors who have never written one always think they know best. Odd too that with so much drivel they only want to improve what's already good when there's millions of articles needing attention. PS that's an excellent photograph of Little Moreton Hall. J3Mrs (talk) 11:32, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

We have enough cliques already, without inventing an "Article Guardian" hat. Changes already (per BRD) require consensus if they're to stay. Transient changes aren't a problem (even if wrong), we just revert and move on.

There are also the problems that Good Article doesn't always mean a good article: it will have the sections in the right order and probably decent copy-editing, but completeness and accuracy aren't checked well by the GA process. Even FA doesn't mean infallible, yet raising this with the person who OWNs that FA star all too often becomes a personal battle between an established editor invested heavily in the prestige and a new set of outside eyeballs with something content-based to improve. Guess which one is already the regular winner? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This question (and the infobox) was extensively discussed at talk, and I think in the FAC, and the larger version has a strong consensus - though personally I still think it too small. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP sanction notification.

What are you, an idiot? How can I be under a BLP sanction for commenting on someone who's dead? Eric Corbett 06:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

BLP policy also applies in the case of recent deaths, and suicides are mentioned as a specific example. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You live in your world and I'll live in the real world. Have you read the discussion that Gorman takes such exception to? Are we all to become psychiatric nurses? Eric Corbett 06:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Show some common decency Eric. If you need to rant, rant here. Don't gravedance on Jimbo's talkpage about a recent suicide victim. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you just shut the fuck up and think about the real issue here? Eric Corbett 06:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that if you weren't Malleus you would've been blocked a dozen times over for this talk page section alone, right? Just stop participating in that one specific talk page section that you've already said you don't care about, and there will be no further drama. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Why should the fact that I once edited under the name of Malleus make any difference? Eric Corbett 06:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I still frequently call you Malleus in the same way that I still frequently call Bwilkins Bwilkins rather than Dangerous Panda. The point stands: if you were any other editor you would be blocked for the personal attacks you've launched on this page, as well as for your conduct on Jimbo's page.Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What personal attacks? On what pages? Eric Corbett 06:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the time to make a full list, but referring to another editor as a 'fucking idiot' in an edit summary as well as telling an editor to shut the fuck up would get pretty much anyone who isn't you blocked. Do you not consider the phrase 'fucking idiot' a violation of WP:NPA somehow?... Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. If you object to being referred to as a fucking idiot then stop behaving like one. And remind me. On which article page or article talk page did I violate your hallowed BLP/BDP policy? I realise that you scrotes go searching for any excuse to have me banned, and quite possibly one day you'll succeed. But not today. Eric Corbett 14:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no desire to get you banned, Eric. You're a terrific content contributor and a great copyeditor (as you just proved on one of my recent unpolished articles,) which is why you don't get blocked for WP:NPA violations like anyone else would (and yes, calling me a fucking idiot is an NPA violation.) I want to see you continue to edit Wikipedia, but I want to see you do so in a way that doesn't drive off other contributors, and doesn't potentially cause grief to the family of recent victims of suicide. Your actions last night managed to turn a memorial thread for a valued contributor in to a shitfest, and certainly fell under the purview of BLP discretionary sanctions. If I see you do something like that in the future, I will be using arbcom's BLP discretionary sanctions to stop your behavior. And please keep in mind: you can normally get out of blocks because for most blocks to stick requires consensus at ANI. If I end up having to block you under AC's BLP sanctions, it doesn't require consensus at ANI to stick - it requires consensus at WP:AE that my block was wrong, otherwise it sticks. (And anyone who steps in to reverse a block imposed under those sanctions before that consensus is established is in line for a likely desysop per policy.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Bloody hell admins are boring aren't they! Might I suggest that you take your sanctions and your sysops and go and do some good with them somewhere. Frankly, you are making yourself sound like a complete jobsworth, or is pissing Eric off part of the administrators initiation ceremony? -- Cassianto^Talk 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you're making yourself look utterly ridiculous. You've been an administrator all of three weeks, just slow down and be more cautious. Your threat to place Eric under BLP sanctions is out of process and one which I have no hesitation in telling you is wrong. Your interpretation of policy is worryingly lax and I would strongly urge you to apologise for your petulant behaviour here today. If you don't, at the very least, go away and learn policy more clearly before posting absurd threats. Nick (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've sent you an email because I'd rather not continue this discussion on-wiki significantly, but am responding briefly here to say: I fully stand by the interpretation of policy that I have set forth here, believe that shutting down last night's discussion as I did was in the best interests of Wikipedia, and am fully confident that if a similar situation occurs in the future where I actually have to take action, my action will be upheld at WP:AE. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm replying to your e-mail, but the scale of how wrong you are is making it difficult to know where to start. If you think your out of process, completely nonsensical threat to block Eric would be upheld at AE, you need to resign, and quick. Nick (talk) 18:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)RTFM. BDP is a subsection of BLP. BLP extends to the recently deceased, especially suicide victims etc. I'm not going to block you for calling me a fucking idiot, but if you make another inappropriate post on that thread, I'll redact it, and if you restore it, I'll ban you from the discussion. If you ignore that ban without consensus at WP:AE that I was in the wrong, I'll enforce it with a block. It's a thread about a valued community member who recently committed suicide, lay off of it. I know blocking you is almost never a good idea, but in this particular instance, I will do so if needed. Please don't make it needed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

  OOh, big scary man threatens to ban me from a discussion I really don't give a fuck about. Just one more example of what's wrong here. Eric Corbett 06:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't give a fuck about the discussion then don't participate in it further and any drama will be avoided. I'm not okay with the idea of the victim's parents reading a thread about their son on Jimbo's talk page (which is not unlikely) full of grave-dancing. Imagine how that would make them feel. Thus, I'm going to avoid having that happen to the best of my ability. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The OP did not call for Wikipedia to be a psychiatric hospice, Eric. You read something into the discussion that wasn't there. They advocated kindness and understanding, others agreed, and then you chose to jump in and stir up a storm. Why not drop it and move on? It isn't worth a fight. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll decide whether it's worth a fight or not, not you. Eric Corbett 06:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What Cullen said. This is where you want to stake your flag and hold your ground? Of all places? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably not, but the point needed to be made nevertheless. Eric Corbett 06:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This is hopefully my last comment about this issue. Eric, I know you consider yourself generally unblockable, and I know that in the past this has generally been true. I would like you to know that if I ever see you engage in the type of behavior you engaged in in that context again, I will not hesitate to block you, and I'm relatively confident the block will hold. You're a prolific, valued content creator, but you cannot act in this way if you expect to be part of Wikipedia's community. I'm taking your page off my watchlist, ping me if I need to respond to something. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you've demonstrated is that you know fuck all, a common trait among administrators. Now run along along and block a few vandals. Eric Corbett 06:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I just read that thread and don't really understand the outrage. Unless a bit of circlejerking was going on. Parrot of Doom 18:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I am puzzled too by what all of this is about. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 19:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Parrot: I emailed you a brief explanation a little while ago. Everyone else: there's some info in bits and pieces on my talk page, and I'll be making a more comprehensive statement there later today. I believe my actions were fully policy compliant and stand by them; I spoke with multiple longtime admins about the situation before doing so, and took what I believed was the course least likely to result in emotional harm to Wikipedians and to family members of the deceased. Please also note that I told Eric not to participate in a single section on Jimbo's talk page, and did not threaten any further sanction if he agreed to not participate in that section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks like someone got hold of the wrong end of the stick and still can't drop it. J3Mrs (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother making any statement beyond "I massively overreacted and now realise that people have a right to their opinion. Next time, I'll simply offer my opinion and move on." Parrot of Doom 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

People may have a right to their opinion. However hen their opinion is likely to cause emotional or mental harm to people and presents no tangible benefit, they don't have a right to express that opinion on Wikipedia, however. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Didn't you take this page off your watchlist? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously not. You have completely missed the point Kevin. I found the tenor of that thread to be deeply offensive, but for a different reason than your shallow interpretation of events. What I took objection to was the notion that the suicide of a Wikipedian was in some way considered to be more important than the suicides of non-Wikipedians, and that as a result we all needed to be trained as psychiatric nurses. Eric Corbett 23:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll jump in, shiny admin badge and all. I was tempted to do something about that thread on Jimbo's talk page: I found the initial post deeply offensive. It's the equivalent of Sarah McLachlan showing up on your doorstep with a dying puppy telling you that decent people would take it in, and with the TV crew from the local news filming your response. There is no right way of responding to that message since, somehow, everyone on Wikipedia was made culpable in that young man's suicide. One should realize that the young man had nothing to do with that thread, that it was only posted to gain some emotional traction.

It's understandable (maybe I disagree with you, Eric, I don't know) that someone would post something on their own user page here; after all, some of us are heavily invested in this community. But one simply cannot expect that somehow that's as good as getting professional help, and what the IP did, blaming all those who saw it and didn't know what to do, is unacceptable. And of course Eric has to be the one to point that out, since no one else does; I saw the thread when there were only two or three responses and didn't know what to do: I guess I was hoping that Jimbo himself would step in and find some tactful way of responding and closing, and then I had to deal with some of its fallout (using a very special admin tool), and then it was bedtime, perhaps.

So, Kevin, I strongly disagree with this template you pasted here. I accept your good faith (I've known you for too long to doubt that) but this was not the right thing to do: more heat, less light. Whatever we do is not going to bring that poor boy back to life or help his parents and loved ones one way or another, and pretending that we matter that much, or could have solved something (the IP's argument), is not doing anyone any good. Eric, Kevin is one of the good guys. This was misguided, I think, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he is one of the good guys even with that shiny new badge. I'm sure he thought long and hard before warning you, and he's clearly not enjoying the shit storm he raised. I understand you're miffed and I would be too: maybe put it down to youth and much good will. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm completely appalled by this situation - is Eric not allowed to comment on anything without others immediately turning on him? From what I can see Eric highlighted that WP really could not help in the tragic circumstances referred to by the IP.  His comment was then immediately set upon by others (ironically using profanity, something Eric would likely have been blocked for). The matter was then escalated with accusations of BLP violations, threats of blocking and a continual mantra that emotional distress might be caused to others. Has no one considered Eric's feelings? He is a diligent, productive Editor and is very helpful - yes, he is and he does a lot for editor retention - yet he is hounded at every turn and his help to others is seldom acknowledged. This scenario demonstrates the worst of WP and several people really do need to drop the stick and stop trying to goad Eric at every opportunity. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

@SB: due to the number of emails I'm still getting mentioning Eric's talk, it's still on my watchlist for now, though hopefully not for long :). @Eric: I understand what you are saying and understand your theoretical point, however your posts were still significantly likely to cause mental/emotional harm to Wikipedians or to the family of the deceased had they stumbled across them, and that clearly violates BLP. Context matters: I'd be totally fine with you having a conversation whether or not we treat Wikipedians with undue weight (as we frequently have re: Wikipedians who have articles) in most circumstances, even if it was in regards to the value of their lives/deaths, as long as it was in a context where it wasn't likely to cause significant mental/emotional harm to the other participants in the discussion. The subject matter isn't the issue - how it's framed and how likely it is to cause significant mental/emotional harm to people is. I may not have managed to convey that point to you previously, but it's an important one. If you act in a similar way in a context likely to cause harm in the future, expect to have the same thing happen to you, even if it's implemented by an admin other than myself. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Look. Take your shiny new admin cudgel and stick it where the sun don't shine. I've really heard quite enough of your threats and sanctimonious nonsense for one day. Eric Corbett 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As the warning is no longer relevant anyway as the section has been archived, feel free to delete this whole thing if you feel like it. I've never threatened you, I've only pointed out that the more often you violate BLP and NPA, the more likely it is you're going to get an AE block or an arbcom case (since it's been established normal blocks won't stick on you.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly becoming an administrator has gone to your head; one can only hope that you won't be one for much longer. In the meantime you need to kick that habit of telling others what to do. Just who the Hell do you think you are, granting me permission to archive something from my talk page? And for the record I have never violated BLP, no matter how many times you claim that I have. Repeating a lie doesn't magically make it become the truth. Eric Corbett 00:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I see he's still manfully hanging on to the wrong end of the stick. What utter lack of judgement thinking the IP's post was a memorial, and why would anyone hang around Jimbo's page looking for one. He'd like you to sweep it under the carpet just like he's done on his talk page. Eric, you're rarely wrong about people and that's what they don't like. J3Mrs (talk) 09:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

At least the asshole detector is still working at 100% efficiency. I guess that's something. Intothatdarkness 14:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin Gorman misrepresents a mawkish, guilt-tripping post as a "memorial", harasses Eric with groundless threats, baits him with accusations—malicious, vile, and utterly false—of gravedancing; and bangs on about an overriding concern to protect readers from "mental/emotional harm"—another fantasy which, unsupported by an iota of evidence, maligns Eric as a heartless sonofabitch who endangers our readers' psychological health. All this we know about Kevin Gorman's modus operandi. So we know he's not fit to be an administrator. We can also be pretty sure he won't do the decent thing and resign. More's the pity. Writegeist (talk) 01:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Summary available on my talkpage of previous section for those interested

See [[1]]. Happy to answer any questions about my actions, and I stand by them 100%. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly you've learned nothing then. Eric Corbett 23:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

• Coming back after a weekend away, I just can't believe this Admin is so out of touch and woefully misinformed on the basics of the place. Something soon has got to be done about these admins (Commons and here) - there needs to be some sort of written examination to gauge their understanding of the policy and rules they are supposed to be regulating, and if they don't score 90%, then they should not be allowed to even have an RFA.  Giano  09:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I am also concerned that we seem to be having IRC backchat [2]; if these untrained and ignorant waste of space Admins can't say something on Wikipedia, it would be best if they were not saying it at all.  Giano  12:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm on IRC (using the nick Rihan); occasionally I can help someone in the help channel, a bot there gives me a list of open help templates, I've occasionally received advice there on dealing with technical issues and with WMF technical asininity - and the format throttles back the verbosity of the 74 IP as well as my own, so we can talk about editor retention '-) But I've never felt a need to seek access to the admins' channel. The admins' noticeboards are bad enough. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bramshill House

I think it might be worth a shot taking this to FAC. User:Yngvadottir had the books on it and said it is comprehensive as it is.♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have requested a case for arbitration which involves you. It's a pity it's come to this, but Admins cannot be allowed to behave in such a fashion because they believe an editor has erred in the past and need punishing anyway.  Giano  21:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's convenient to see everything organized and laid out chronologically; makes it all the more obvious who is at fault here. Perhaps the first rule for new admins, once they've dug themselves a hole, should be: stop digging! DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• Joe, your correct, facts can become lost in the smoke. However, this is not just for Eric; it's for all the little, lesser-known editors who are treated like this that no one ever hears about. The problem with a case like this will be keeping it on subject and within defined parameters, that's something Wikipedia 'court cases' never seem to manage, so again everything becomes lost in smoke. All there is to decide here is: Did an Admin insult Eric unjustly and refuse to retract and apologise?  Giano  23:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• • Yes. Next question? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 01:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

@Giano: Were Eric here he might advise you that your use of infer was incorrect in the second sentence of your statement. It should read either “Its apparent purpose was to imply that …” or “Its apparent purpose was to cause the reader to infer …” (or something like that).—Odysseus1479 02:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Odysseus, that's the problem when you allow two dime foreign lawyers to represent you; Eric should learn that "if a job's worth doing...."  Giano  09:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you did a fine job. Your case is very clear. Still, it probably won't amount to anything. Everyone seems to be recusing. It's a clash of sensitivities. I don't think Kevin is going to apologize. I don't think Eric will encounter any legal or other real-life interference. I hope Eric returns, for the sake of that part of the encyclopedia I enjoy reading. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This is really about has Wikipedia declared Eric to be an outlaw (a person declared as outside the protection of the law, with all legal protection withdrawn, so that anyone is legally empowered to persecute them). That's something we can't allow on Wikipedia, no matter how much some people may dislike Eric he has the same rights as everyone else here. Outlawing would be a slippery slope to go down.  Giano  16:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Outlaw, outcast or scapegoat, and Eric is not the only one, there are several other people who are outstanding contributors but not without their quirks who also get drummed off of wikipedia, it can be a Lord of the Flies situation. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Naw...it's usually full-on enemy of the state treatment for people who are cast out of the closed society. There are any number of contributors with less stature being driven off through such practices, and the request preceding Giano's (relating to Toddst1 and his longstanding patterns of abuse and then ducking to avoid the consequences for said abuse) shows that the state itself is completely unwilling to act against its chosen enforcers. Intothatdarkness 15:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The Arbcom has trashed any civility policy far more than any individual editor ever has

I think you'll find that from now on, things will be very different. We now have cast iron proof that the Arbcom and some Admins think that the likes of us non-admins are dirt; this view is enforced by Administrator Gormless escaping without even an official reprimand. The thing to do now is treat them with the equal contempt and then when the useless wankers ban us stick a finger up and walk away with a smile. What insults can be worse than the ones levelled at Eric? By being too scared to take this case, the Arbcom have trashed any civility policy far more than any individual editor ever has.  Giano  15:32, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

"The thing to do now is treat them with the equal contempt and then when the useless wankers ban us stick a finger up and walk away with a smile." That would probably be my natural response to this situation too, if I were still 15 years old. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 15:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah Scottywong, are you really over 15? You must feel like a grandfather amongst your peers. I'm very much afraid that Administrator Gormless has done you all a great disservice. Now, as we are all to be treated like naughty children here, shall we play a game and see who can guess what Eric would say to you now? Run along.  Giano  15:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like it's time for several editors to "walk away with a smile" then. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah another Admin who can't stay away from this page! looking for custom?  Giano  16:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, I've probably posted here fewer than a dozen times in the last nine years. You and Eric seem intent on self-destruct, all I've said is good luck with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that is far from the truth, we are just ridding our pages of parasites and other nasty infestations. Did you actually want something, or are you just passing through?  Giano  17:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not the case, you just said you'd walk away with your finger held high and smile about it. So, I'm Just curious if you and Eric &c would make good with the ongoing retirement threats or if it's just a load of bluster. After all, it's happened so many times, what makes this any different? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps you don't have mislaid your lorgnettes, or have reading and learning difficulties, but you might note that I say: "When when the useless wankers ban us, stick a finger up and walk away with a smile." the last time I pressed 'edit' I was not banned, and now that we have no civility policy or rules that looks likely to remain the case - so it would appear I am here to stay.  Giano  17:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake. So the entire thread is a waste of time, forgive me for not realising that sooner. Good luck with your ongoing constructive edits, no doubt we'll see Eric back in due course since nothing will come of the plea to Arbcom. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, nothing will come of the plea to Arbcom, but at least it has clarified matters, and should Eric ever return (and I hope he does) at least now we know that no one can ever block him for incivility - he's been given carte blanche, which can only be a good thing as it will stop him be trailed by pathetic little low lifes trying to bait him. Now, if you'll excuse me I do have some productive edits to make - perhaps you do too.  Giano  18:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, as ever. I look forward to seeing yours! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• You may have made a career from baiting Corbett, but you'll find me an altogether different fish. He has big teeth; I have a very nasty sting, only fools try to land either. I would really advise against it.  Giano  18:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, I've made a career elsewhere. I edit Wikipedia, and have done since 2005, for enjoyment, mostly. I've edited on this page a handful of times. I spend most of my time elsewhere. Your "threats" are so sadly childish they don't deserve response. Get on and improve an article or something. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Good we understand each other, now piss off.  Giano  18:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Are you Eric in disguise?! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The end of this matter is could be in sight (thanks to the Arbs)

I'm looking forward to hearing confirmation of the secret evidence that justifies Kevin's behaviour which is now apparently in the hands of the Arbcom. Doubtless the Arbcom will confirm the nature of this and end this affair - so it's over to a comment from the Arbs to defuse this situation.  Giano  09:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Giano poked me about this by email. I'll point back to Kevin's latest statement "I have explicitly informed two arbitrators and Maggie and Philippe of the cause of my action, and will write a statement to the full committee when I have time." The committee has not had a full statement, and I'm not one of the two arbitrators. Furthermore, I should mention I'd recuse wrt Eric due to my name appearing on this list. Worm^TT(talk) 15:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• You're too hard on yourself Worm, you are quite capable of being fair - even if Eric is not you favourite dish of the day. Kevin's was a pretty horrible allegation to make. If Eric really has inadvertently caused major upset to newly bereaved parents, as Kevin has inferred, that's terrible, but if it's just a lame justification from a new Admin that's not even true, that's really not good. I know Eric's comments were meant in general (I actually agree with them) and not directed at one particular suicide. Eric may have some faults (who of us don't), but he's not a monster like that - it needs to be made clear. Eric (stupidly in my view) uses his real name; this sort of allegation can carry on into real life, and that's not good either. Perhaps, Worm, you can find out who the Arbs are and ask them to clarify - we don;t need to know who sent kevin this information or even its full content, but we do need to know is Kevin's behaviour was justified.  Giano  15:36, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

  I'm sure I could be fair, but it's not just about fairness, it's about being seen to be fair. The very fact I appear on that list can add a perception of impropriety and I don't want that. I've argued both for and against Eric over the years, I don't think I'd describe my relationship with him negatively. From what I've seen, his comments were upsetting but pertinent. Given the location and the subject matter it's not surprising that people over-reacted. Worm^TT(talk) 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm on that list too, I see. Yes, appearances count for a lot. Drmies (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Gents, I've seen some ArbCom stuff where the recusals were so out of control that the only people left to vote were all the ones with a blatent bias for the opposite side, whatever the opposite side happened to be. You both are solid, Worm, I know I got pissy at you a couple weeks ago, but you do at least try to be fair most of the time. Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Come back please, Eric. Help us get The Who through FAC and ignore all this dramah fest. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• Secret communications? IRC discussions? Wild allegations? Not the sort of admins we need here. I apologise for voting this person into a position where he could primp and prance like this. Very disappointing. --John (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh come on. Most editors here have "secret communications" and use IRC. Many admins apparently do that too, and have done for years, they have their own channel. Very disappointing (and surprising) that with your experience, you have only just realised that. I'm prepared to bet most of The Rambling Boy's inheritance that Eric will be back, fighting, within a week. In the meantime, shall we just move along? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I haven't "only just realised" that and I am not sure where you got that from. I have never used IRC and I distrust those that do. This is seemingly a case in point, although who knows. I have acquired a very poor impression of young Kevin and I have no faith we will ever hear the truth about the matter. As to Eric, that is up to him to decide, and I don't know why you would joke about it. He's had a very serious and false allegation made against him by someone in a position of power who accompanied the false allegation with a threat and is now employing politician-speak to avoid apologising for his harmful acts. I'd be upset too. --John (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
      • You supported him, so clearly your position is upset now, and I can't comment on that, it must be disappointing that someone doesn't live up to your expectations. However, the fact that there's an admin IRC channel and that there are email exchanges on a regular basis between editors (including admins) makes me question why you think that "secret communications" and "IRC discussions" are something to bring up like some kind of revelation. Also not sure what you mean by a "position of power", do you simply mean admin? I can't comment on Kevin's "politician-speak" etc, but I can sympathise with a newly-flagged admin trying to "do the right thing". (And despite this 25th [etc] retirement, if Eric isn't back editing in a week, I'll eat my hat, my cat and my bat). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
        • • • Well I have never used IRC and am have never felt the need to be an Admin and seldom support these vainglorious juveniles in their efforts to promote themselves. However, having clawed themselves up the Wikipedia ladder, I do feel Admins (more so than others) have a duty to set an example - what other point is there to them? This one has cocked-up big time, made spurious allegations, and is now scraping the barrel of history to justify his own errors. If that's an example of good admin behaviour then God help us.  Giano  20:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
              • IRC is (I assume) a shithole of nefarious negotiations. I tried it once, but like Morris dancing, I was appalled and sickened by it. I'm not sure anyone has ever claimed Kevin's behaviour, the use of IRC or email, etc to be "good admin behaviour". Most admins spend most of their time answering shitty questions from indignant editors. Perhaps those indignant editors should become admins, or at the least, campaign to allow themselves to admin Wikipedia without the pointless torture of RFA, by simply stating, "I don't give a shit what any of you think". Somehow, I get the impression that some think that being an admin gets you bonus points for heaven or bitcoins or something else. It doesn't. It just lands you with a world of shit, usually embellished with a universe of shit from people who continually piss on those who happen to be admins. Now then, time for a sherry and for most of you to fuck right off (as I'm sure Eric would say, if he hadn't retired for the 329th time). Or at the very least, for me to "fuck off" which I'll obligingly do. See you in a few days Eric. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, that is all a dreadful pity. Nevermind I expect the admin tools compensate for having a small penis - from what you say, there seems too be little other apparent benefit.  Giano  20:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, the penis thing, well you're right. Those who flash the admin tools maybe in need of advice. Not sure which admin tools were flashed here though. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Threatened to block here, along with a lot of misguided twaddle about BLP. Actually click on the diff, as it's quite instructive in a "how-not-to-do-it" sort of a way. --John (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, got that, thanks for the guidance on how to view the diff. Misguided, enthusiastic, whatever. A "how-not-to-do-it" to a new admin, who you supported? I suppose all you can do now is make swathes of whining about how you wish you hadn't voted for the candidate, to clear yourself of any involvement, and then perhaps look for a de-sysop? Well bang, there it is. Start a de-sysop discussion if you (or Giano, or Eric, or anyone with the energy) feel that way inclined. If not, just suck it in. Really, there's so much whining the community can tolerate before something active has to be done. If you, Giano, Eric etc care that much, do something about it rather than just bitching on a retired user's talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. You still here? Thought you were off for a sherry a while ago. Don't let me detain you. --John (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Sherry? You wimps, this drama deserves Vodka! Cheers! Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

For the tiring, Jägerbombs all round. Prost!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I drank one to the memory of Audrey and Eric Corbett, and one to the tiring, cheers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Rambling, for the record, Eric asked for a block (not a de-sysop). For me, I asked Kevin to simply apologize to Eric for his lewd accusation. (Kevin's reply: it's a bit hilarious that anyone thinks an apology to Eric is warranted. And: even if it were an inappropriate description of his behavior, I find laughable the idea that anyone should apologize to Eric over a perceived personal attack.) I don't think an admin has ever been de-sysopped over simple arrogance, have they? (I mean, besides Kafziel?) I've witnessed more than once an admin become abusively uncivil and then excuse themselves with: "So go de-sysop me then. Or else shut the fuck up." (Is that your take too? And how becoming is that for admin, role model and all!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you and Eric and Giano et al have a group of admins who they would consider worthy, and I'm sure they'd be happy with Eric/Malleus telling people to fuck off and Giano hanging alongside applauding, etc, but it's really irrelevant. Eric does some good editorial work but from time to time calls someone a shit. Giano currently hangs around. Whatever. They both believe admins are evil, and if they're not evil, there're pointless. Who cares. We all have our roles. Giano gets blocked, Eric gets indignant and retires every week, I get dragged to ANI periodically (although not by the esteemed Eric/Giano duet), and shit continues. Other editors lurk around drama boards. Pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem trying to deflect what is the conduct of one admin w/ some kind of fuzzy generalized moralizing. This admin, who received a plethora of 'Support' votes at his recent RfA, and is supposedly held to conduct of "a higher standard", is defended w/ desperation by you and others (mostly thru attacking the characters of those objecting to what went down). You yourself got over 100 'Support' votes and no 'Oppose' votes at your RfA. Do you think your attitude and expectations expressed by your It just lands you with a world of shit, usually embellished with a universe of shit from people who continually piss on those who happen to be admins. might have any impact on perpetuating said expectations? If you had to run for RfA again would you say those things in your self-description introductory remarks? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, give me a break. Everyone knows that RfA is essentially analogous to a political election. You do what you have to do to get votes. Once you make it through the beauty pageant, then you can eventually return to being yourself, speaking your mind, and using your best judgment to make (sometimes controversial) decisions. Once you pass an RfA, you're not required to treat every subsequent interaction as if you were still at RfA. Yes, to some minor degree, admins are role models of sorts, but they're also humans who have opinions, make mistakes, and in the end they are fundamentally no "better" or "worse" than non-admins (and should not be expected to be). They are merely more well-versed in the minutiae of WP policies than most, and perhaps slightly more likely to be mature and level-headed than other editors. They are trusted to be mature enough to handle the responsibility of a few extra tools that non-admins don't have access to. That's it. Sometimes they fuck up when using those tools. The best quality an admin can possibly possess is the ability to admit when they've made a mistake, learn from it, and move on. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Once you make it through the beauty pageant, then you can eventually return to being yourself. Well not quite, perhaps you're missing the personality modification those having held only limited power in RL might undergo after finding themselves in position to overpower and humiliate a more accomplished individual that irked them by merely pressing a button. (Don't you think that could make such a person feel better about themselves?!) It takes a strong individual to not succumb to the classic "power corrupts", and for instance User:Montanabw has showed his smarts by intentionally sidestepping the temptation. Mostly power corrupts, because strong individuals are rather rare.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You rang? Gorman is tempting me, actually. I mean, seriously, I'm tempted to apply just to see if an editor who accumulates "snarkives" on her user page has a snowball's chance in hell with a RfA! LOL! (And FWIW, it's "she" but no worries, mate, I like to keep it ambiguous so people stay on their toes... heh). Montanabw^(talk) 03:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

"The abuse itself is not a surprise. Power leads to power trips. The problem is that Wikipedia, systemically, doesn't care. It has principles to protect against popularity contests and admin abuse, but the principles are enforced by.... popularity contests and admins. Mindbunny (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a lot of point

A typical Wikipedian, yesterday, on hearing that Eric wasn't around to help them get an article to GA status anymore

Eric, I'm not going to be commenting further on this case because it's apparent that there isn't going to be an answer. I've made a final request for information here [3], but I expect it will be futile. Nobody in real authority is going to make any effort to find out why this Admin behaved so, let alone censure him if he's found to be in the wrong. I've asked several Arbs if they know anything of this case, and none seem have the information that Kevin claims to have provided. It's a pity, but it seems it's OK for Admins to insult the plebs and then justify a lack of apology on the grounds that the plebs must have committed past misdemeanours which makes them fair game for any passing punishment; that's a dangerous path to go down. However, in such a totalitarian, secretive climate, I really don't think there's any more I can do. I hope you're back before too long, but I don't blame you if you're not. So long.  Giano  08:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• Giano, the only reason I am replying here is because I am on the page for a different reason, and since your post seems to be implying I'm lying about talking to arbs: one of the arbs who has an explanation of why I'm not discussing it on-wiki is Worm. I sent it to him after seeing him engaged here, and he hasn't yet had time to read it. If you didn't get positive responses from other arbs, then you didn't ask the arbs I had already spoken to. All arbs are now have at least partial information about why I acted, and will receive more complete details over the weekend. More than one of them have expressed misgivings in their personal capacity about the way I handled it, but of the arbitrators who have expressed opinions in their personal capacities on the issue of me leaving certain things off-wiki (to be clear: most arbs have not expressed opinions in their personal capacities about this in particular,) all of them have concurred that the particular details I am leaving off-wiki should not be discussed on-wiki. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Yet another mistake—Giano's above comment does not imply that you were lying. Having deleted all attempts to seek an explanation from your talk (diff), why post here to offer an ex cathedra assurance that there are magic reasons for why you misinterpreted blunt commentary, but ordinary editors are not permitted to know them? The initial post was from a trolling IP—one in a series of attempts to spread muck on Jimbo's talk, and there may well have been a reason to remove the entire thread due to sensitivity regarding the subject matter. However, that has nothing to do with Eric. Johnuniq (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • But Eric is the only one who chose to chime in then in a disruptive way, and stir the pot. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
      • And I agree that was unwise. But it was also unwise for the newbie admin to choose Eric to flash his new badge at with his inaccurate statement and his heavy-handed threat. Striking the stupid threat several days later without apologising, while making it clear that this was part of some orchestrated off-wiki agenda, and falling back on the crap defence of "it's a sekrit"; this is the stuff of desysops I'm afraid. --John (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • So, we have "unwise" and "unwise". Let the supporters and the detractors of both Eric and Kevin keep those judgments in mind, before mounting and spurring the high horse. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
        • (ec) This is Eric's talk page, please talk to him. - Eric, you factually mentioned the violent death of close relatives. That is disturbing, yes, but not disruptive as I know the term (perhaps I don't). I have good faith and see it as trying to get to facts, and to get things in perspective. Eric, I like that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
          • It was my own simple attempt at a compassionate remark directed Eric's way that resulted in what have been one of his most disturbing remarks in response, Gerda Arendt. Eric made the point that Wikipedia is not a hospice for suicidal types, simultaneously with spilling his guts about his own deeply disturbing family tragedy, without context, explanation or any real opportunity for anyone else to reply empathetically. I could spew some of my own family's personal tragedies to try to make a point, but what would that accomplish out of context, other than to make people upset? I won't. Wikipedia isn't a hospice, after all. Eric taught us that. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:31, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
            • Wikipedia is not a hospice, true, no? Eric didn't gravedance, true, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
              • "Gravedance" was definitely the wrong term to describe Eric's behavior. I am not sure what the right term would be. "Provocative" comes close, but is perhaps a trifle too gentle. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
                • (ec, belongs here) I usually don't describe, but stick to the facts. I would just hope that someone who used "definitely the wrong term" would apologize for doing so. See also, "Whatever gets you through the night", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
                  • In response to Kevin's continuing arrogance, I can only say that I cannot believe that even when he does finally furnished the Arbcom with a full account of his secret information, it can possibly justify Admins insulting editors and failing to apologise on the grounds that the editor must have committed past misdemeanors which makes them fair game for any passing insult. Amusingly, on his talk page, he has disposed of all mention of this lamentable affair, but left the barn stars he was given for his part in it. I think that tells us much. Kevin has set himself up as a leading Wikipedian, but I am failing to see exemplary behavior in any form.  Giano  07:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
                    • If you ask me, this is grave dancing. It's despicable that a bunch of loonies can be allowed to slap the back of someone who has just lost the project a fantastic editor. Cassianto Talk 09:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
            • @Cullen, simultaneously with spilling his guts about his own deeply disturbing family tragedy, without context, explanation. Eric brought up his own personal tragedy to give example how people handle personal issues differently. He further said the idea of posting such matters on his User talk was in his opinion an extremely poor idea -- that personal matters s/b handled appropriately in RL and not attempted to be brought into the WP spaces for handling or support by Wikipedia editors -- that expectations and motivations to furnish support or help for serious personal issues is a misguided notion on the WP. So I don't understand how you say his comments were "without context, explanation", or that he "spilled his guts", when Eric kept his own facts well in line to make a very limited point with them. He felt the discussion of WP editors' involvements in other editors' serious problems had careened in a seriously misguided direction and his contribution to that discussion was to present a clear counter-voice, which he did. Eric's original post was to the OP as indenting shows, and when you brought up your condolences about his father, he clarified to you why no condolences were necessary. So when you said he is the only one who chose to chime in then in a disruptive way, and stir the pot I think that is an incorrect and unfair characterization of his contributions to that discussion thread, to offer a counter-view and prove his sincerity by supporting with a meaningful example is simply making a strong argument for his view, not "disrupting". Because you might have your own personal reactions and sentiments to associate to Eric's remarks and example, that is about you, not Eric, so you cannot rightly "attach them" when evaluating. Besides that, if you read that thread, Eric took pains to be well-sufficiently clear what his points were. (Not surprising of course, considering his immense writing talents -- Eric neither minces words, nor wastes them. [Ever!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Against my better judgement, but without any official guidance, I think we are heading here towards arbitration.  Giano  10:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you all realize that by now you've probably generated several megabytes of discussion about 5 or 6 sentences that Eric wrote a few days ago? And now you'll take it to Arbcom and generate a few more gigabytes of drivel. I fear if that if there was a tabloid dedicated to Wikipedia, and the front page had a picture of Eric on it, and in big letters, "Eric Corbett pisses on the grave of beloved editor; self-aggrandizing newbie admin overreacts; Arbcom smells blood", all of you would immediately snatch it up, drooling, and read through it furiously. What has this place become? ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 15:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorrow

I realise that he didn't piss, not even dance, said as simply as I could, - I will return to drinking now, this time to you, Eric! Did you know about An Ethics of Dissensus.--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

ps: finally, recommended reading about hopes on arbitration, thank you, Eric, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

What Gerda said – though I'm not drinking right now, maybe later. Nortonius (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My sorrow is now pictured on the German Main page, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

My sorrow is now pictured on top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've said it many times before - if the people responsible for all this hand-wringing actually put their efforts into improving articles, Wikipedia would be a much more reliable source than it is. Parrot of Doom 20:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Scottywong hasn't edited an article since 1 January, but he has time to post here. Go figure. --John (talk) 21:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, and he has also added to the "megabytes of drivel" of which he speaks by participating in this thread. Brilliant! Cassianto Talk 23:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Meh

Just popping in to say "Meh". --Dweller (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Just passing

and thought I'd say hello. I wondered what had happened to the hammer of fools. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Notification of case being declined

Hello. An Arbitration Case Request that you were listed as being an involved party to titled Kevin Gorman—Eric Corbett has been declined and closed. If you would like to read the arbitrators' comments you can do so here.--Rockfang (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Yelp, Inc.

Hi Eric. I just glanced over at the administrator's noticeboard to see if I could spot an admin I've never had any interactions with before to avoid any appearance of canvassing.

I was hoping someone could do a formal close of the RFC at: Talk:Yelp,_Inc.#How_should_Yelp_be_described and make whatever edits are appropriate as determined by consensus of the RFC, presuming you feel it has run its course (it hasn't had any new comments over the last 10 days or so).

The reason I'm making a special case of bugging you about it is because a couple editors besides myself seemed very passionate about this particular issue and I cannot make any bold edits on account of having a COI (I am affiliated with Yelp). And I felt in this case it would be prudent to make sure the RfC gets a formal close and doesn't just fizzle sort of speak, so we have a clear assessment to go on.

I've only done a few RfCs and I don't know if there is anything wrong with asking a specific admin if they are willing to close it? CorporateM (Talk) 18:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

[tps] Eric's possibly retired, and he's also not an admin. Intothatdarkness 18:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

A swing and a miss! user:Mirokado pointed me to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Ending_RfCs. Based on those instructions I would normally just close it, but as the instructions aren't necessarily intended for COI situations where an editor must act more cautiously, I'll go ahead and submit a Request for Closure. Thanks much! CorporateM (Talk) 19:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you all luck

My continued participation in this project has really become impossible, time for me to move on. Eric Corbett 00:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Eric Corbett, I wish you luck as well.—John Cline (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Aw, stick with us, Eric, you know this is all just the usual shit. Besides, your talk page is the only place I can say stuff like "shit." We need ya, man! Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Come over and edit at Wikia, we have the dark side and cookies!. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If you leave Eric, the admins have won. It's what they want. If you stay and stick to your guns, it'll piss them off even more. I know what I would choose. ;) Cassianto^Talk 04:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I say do whatever is best for your life, but I think Cassianto makes a strong point about not positively reinforcing that long-term label bulling will drive almost anyone away. On the other hand, I'm certainly not implying that you "owe it to Wikipedia" to persevere; you don't owe us anything. Either way, thanks for your legendary contribution to the project. Remember that even if you do leave, your influence on this place will remain. Not just in article space, but at the core of every creative content editor's identity. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Coming very late to this and after reading the closed AN/I section, asking you to please reconsider (and unwatch Jimbo's talkpage, from which I have never known anything good to come). This was a nasty mess stemming from a couple of editors (an IP and an admin who is still feeling his way in the role) generalising their own manner of dealing with grief and expressing respect; please don't let it affect what you do for the encyclopaedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll reconsider if and when I see Kevin Gorman blocked for his ongoing personal attacks. Eric Corbett 06:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

C'mon Eric, Kevin is an earnest lad trying hard to be the man, and getting it all confused. Just let the lad be. We all know what our admin system amounts to, and taking it seriously is not the way to go. Wikipedia is much more than our dead-end admin system. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

FGS Eric, just read this edit [4] and realise that not quite all Admins are fools (although 90% of them are power crazed infants overdosed on synthetic orange juice) and let's get back to normal. Admins do not get desysopped for insulting, you, me or anybody else, so rise above the little twerp, which is frankly not very hard and let's get on.  Giano  08:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Echoing the above: Kevin is "a recent graduate" of a US university so is probably a young American. Wikipedia needs mature non-American editors to redress the balance, and it needs knowledgeable content-contributors. Don't go, despite his crass remark and your ultimatum. PamD 08:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Mistakes by non admins result in blocks. Mistakes by admins result in so much hypocritical bollocks it would be hard to know where to start. Malleus Fatuorum, 25 June 2010" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel partly responsible by having put a laser on Gorman for him to clarify and take responsibility for his egregious statement and perhaps apologize. But the WP is a demonstrably responsibility-free zone so what was I thinking?!? I believe your instinctive reactions to Gorman at your Talk were the best/healthiest, and I want to encourage you to follow your own misgiving re ANI ("Nothing good ever comes from that place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)") and never open a thread there. If you leave the WP will experience a measurable dip in overall IQ, so please don't. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Expecting hell to freeze over is more likely than getting an admin blocked for not dropping the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 08:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Also late: Eric, you didn't gravedance, there wasn't even a grave, and you hate dancing. It was plain wrong to say you did. Nothing will make it right, not a block, not an apology, right? - You can join my red cat, - I decided a while ago that I don't let circumstances and other people decide if I stay or go. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

see also other views, - as Giano pointed out above, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric, I have glimpsed your contributions and would like to add my opinion: You're a good editor. Seen from afar, Wikipedia is a glorious achievement, a great collaboration of tens of thousands of editors who don't know each other. Up close, like any great institution (Cambridge University? the BBC?) it's full of vindictiveness, jealousy and paranoia. Rise above it & go on editing. Mick gold (talk) 11:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

That's true Mick, but in such organizations it's rarely guys barely out of nappies calling the shots and lecturing the elders on civility..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You are a gentle person. "Lecturing on civility" is a euphemism for saying something hurtful that is wrong. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Kevin knows how Eric is going to respond and does come across as if he is taunting him and trying to win brownie points for challenging him. Nothing good is going to come of it so I don't see the point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is the problem. There are real graves involved. I better stop now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's the rub...in the shortish time I've been here Eric has quit at least three times, only to come back a week or two later. Why does anyone think this one is anything different or special? Maybe it is. Maybe this is the last straw, although history seems to indicate otherwise. And if he does walk away, maybe he's right to do so. Is anything that goes on in this little closed society really worth the effort? Is it worth the pain that many of you seem to express on a regular basis? If it's so "wrong," so "broken," why stay? If Eric's actually serious about leaving, he should. And Godspeed to him for making that choice. If he's not serious, maybe he should consider forgoing the ritual rage quit in the future. And maybe, just maybe, the collective outrage should be focused on fixing the system and destroying the shadow bureaucracies and OWN of policy that turns this place into a closed society and dysfunctional social network. Or not, if that's what people are more comfortable with. There is, after all, a comfort in the familiar. Intothatdarkness 22:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I have long viewed WP as a dysfunctional anarchy akin to that of The Dispossessed; "consensus" is too often "bully people into doing it my way." What we need is a true rule of law structure here and abolition of the silly NOTDEMOCRACY concept, as clearly, the pendulum swings too widely between the little fiefdoms here and mob rule. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

It won't change, though. There's too much OWN of policy. Anyone who tries to change that is almost immediately labeled an enemy of the state. Delta Bravos will continue to rule the day. Intothatdarkness 14:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh Eric, please come back, whatever shall we do without you? *wince* ‑Scottywong| spout _ 05:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of gravedancing.GJC 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric--truly, friend, it's not worth the drama. It really just isn't. There will always be those at whom we shake our heads and say "really? can they possibly be serious?" and know full well that yes, they are. But just because that flavor of injustice runs rampant, it's not enough of a reason to abandon the good work you've done here. After all, think of all the injustice in the real world, and we have to keep living in THAT, don't we?GJC 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric: I don't check my watchlist much these days, but I happened to today and what do I find? GoodBye! You know, you're probably approaching a decade of repeatedly quitting Wikipedia. This talk page has quite literally become like a bad sitcom or reality TV show (593 page watchers, good grief). Almost everyone is well aware that you're not going anywhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just want to say that this is unfortunate all around, and I hope it blows over, like a fresh cool breeze dispersing my Mom's damn cigarette smoke. But if not, then whatever alternative community Eric finds will be most lucky to have him, mostly.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

"The truth is that I would be embarrassed to be held to the same standard that administrators are held to, which is basically no standard at all. Malleus Fatuorum 03:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been saying for ages that Wikipedia needs an equality policy, e.g., "All Wikipedia policies and guidelines shall apply to everyone alike, except as provided otherwise; every competent administrator and other editor will oppose sanctions and the like which violate this policy and will support sanctions and the like which implement this policy."Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric

I am sorry that I misunderstood your comment as gravedancing, and of the consequences that doing so ended up causing the community. Kevin Gorman (talk) 07:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you're entitled to your opinion, but you clearly are very aware of Eric's history and editing on wikipedia and to me it really looked as if you were intentionally winding him up. You should have known that no good would come of it eventually. That you've admitted fault in misunderstanding his comment originally though is commendable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• It's really up to Eric what he does with this 'apology.' My view is that it's too little too late. However, Gerda penned it very well, It's just a shame Kevin couldn't even be bothered to put it into his own words; let's hope he has not choked too badly on it. For those interested, I have made a permanent record of the proceedings here The day the Arbcom trashed the civility policy in order to shaft Eric Corbett. I know how easily these things can be deleted and lost on Wikipedia. Especially, as the Arbcom can now no longer be trusted.  Giano  11:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
• Eric, it's clear to me finally that Gorman isn't evil or bad or even nasty. He's just ... incompetent. (I don't know how he passed RfA w/ nearly no Opposes. And now Arbcom is stuck with him!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Arbcom has exactly what it deserves.  Giano  14:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Updated slogan (not a joke): "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ... and sometimes end up administering!" Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, The Peter Principle comes to mind here. When I read that melodramatic twaddle on Jimbo's talk page I was disgusted and felt happy that at least someone had the brains and the guts to mention that it was in very poor taste. I hoped that I would have had the good sense to say something myself, and when I read Kevin's highly inappropriate edit I was as furious as if I had written it myself. I've had a couple of brushes with the law around this place and they left me with a feeling of contempt for the admins who decided I should be banned. I hope that Eric leaves it at that rather than to let them dictate whether or not he will continue to work here. Gandydancer (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

In a post Kevin Gorman deleted after banning Eric from his talkpage, Eric asked Kevin Gorman not to post here. I can only imagine what Eric thinks. I know what I think of Kevin Gorman and the arbitrators but it's unprintable. As an aside what exactly is the point of arbcom because I'm sure I can't figure out what it's for. And Ihardlythinkso, it's not just arbcom who is stuck with him, it's all of us and we're also stuck with the trolling admins that visit this page in an attempt to rub salt into wounds. Kevin Gorman was elected by the toadying mob who hang around drama boards hoping that one day they too can be admins. One of them said above, play nice until you get the mop and then you can do whatever you like. J3Mrs (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• J3Mrs, I also voted "support" in Kevin's RfA. I've known him for a long time and trusted him. I've said in a few places already that I strongly disagreed with his response and comments. I've also known Eric for a long time, and my gratitude for how he's helped me and others improve as editors is on the record too, in various places (which means I can't be bothered to look for them). So I'd be part of one blind pro-Eric posse and an oppositional toadying mob supporting Kevin--or, it's not that simple.

  Kevin apologized here; that's not an easy thing to do given how much shit he's had coming his way (the critique was valid, the shit not so much, maybe). So, him swallowing his pride and leaving a note here should be welcomed, not laughed at. It is possible, indeed likely, that things between the two will never become rosy, but I give Kevin credit for not slamming the door shut. Is it too late? Maybe. Will Eric come back? Maybe--I hope so. But it's just not true that as admins we can do whatever we please: Kevin may not have been desysopped or whatever (is he? I've not kept up) but he's persona non grata for a lot of people and has probably lost a lot of respect. In all fairness, give him a chance to earn it back. As for Eric, it's not the first time that he gets his feelings hurt and I can't blame him if he never comes back, if he never feels welcome here anymore, and that would be an immense loss. But let's not forget that Kevin wasn't the first one to, without justification, step on Eric's toes (or kick him in the groin, however you want to phrase it), and in this case he wasn't the only one either. I apologize, Eric, for splitting an infinitive on your talk page but hey, Huddleston and Pullum don't believe in infinitives anyway. I hope you and Dr. Corbett are doing well. Plenty of people here want you back, and don't let the "Eric is such a diva" comments phase you. (Is that "phaze"?) Drmies (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom exists mainly to preserve the status quo among the shadow bureaucracies and vested interests that dominate Wikipedia. It's composed of Admins, and thus will look at their actions with a more lenient eye (the fluff surrounding Toddst1's case is instructive in this regard). Most of them also exhibit very high OWN of policy, so will resist any attempts to rationalize or change the core elements of this system. From time to time they do step up when there are disputes, and there have been individual Arbs with strong character and convictions. But the system itself works to water down their influence. Intothatdarkness 16:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Eric disclosed personal information and that gives me the courage to post some of my own personal history... My dear sister Judy died a few days ago, so she has been on my mind. Judy climbed to the top of her profession and was so distressed by what she saw that she was on the verge of a so-called "nervous breakdown". In her words, her fellow administrators had lost all touch with the real world of nursing--they had sort of gone nuts. She could not become a person who she was not and took an early retirement. This is what happens at the top and I have yet to see it fail--including here on Wikipedia. It is only the very small minority that do not fall into the trap that "success" presents, be it the administrator of a large corporation or an administrator of Wikipedia. Which is not to say that they all get sucked in--my sister didn't and there are plenty of good admins here on Wikipedia. But almost always, they do not, perhaps they can not speak out. It is up to the "little people" to continue to moan and groan, bitch and revolt, perhaps? Gandydancer (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@J3Mrs, thx for that view. What's troubling, is there were lots of !voters at that RfA. Wannabees can't account for all. How could so many have been misled? It's plainly obvious that reasoning w/ Kevin is not in the cards; attempts to do so perplexingly futile. It'd be sad if it weren't so laughably dumb. A strange and pernicious competency issue. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What's sad is that you all are so blindly loyal to Eric and so willing to forgive his garbage that you don't see he and his following have made a shambles of the very civility policy he now demands be enforced when he finds himself on the receiving end of the unpleasantness. There's a word for that. --98.154.164.80 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think we're so blindly loyal? Content happens to be far more important. Eric has helped promote countless articles to FA and GA. And he's helped me at times when next to nobody else could give a shit and he's really put his time and effort into them when he needn't have. I'm sure @Vensatry: would vouch for this. That sort of thing is pretty rare on here. While at times he could be a little less aggressive in some of his responses if you'd had much experience of having him copyedit your articles and help promote things you'd realize exactly why he has so much support here. It does concern me how often he's at the centre of this sort of thing and the backlash which always follows which wastes a lot of time, but when it comes down to it we really can't afford to lose him and most of us who have experience working with him are willing to ignore the "incivility". Few of us are really directly supporting everything he says on here, even Eric's closest friends like Giano admit that he isn't perfect, but we have our heads screwed on and are here to build an encyclopedia and realize what is more important.Everybody's different and each of us has our strengths and weaknesses, the sooner we accept this and stop this sort of thing happening time and time again the better. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also a word for an anonymous IP who trolls a talk page by pointing the finger of accusation at a group of people who are casually chatting amongst themselves. Cassianto (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

IP you don't get it. The issue is uneven enforcement of CIV. Which in turn reveals how inept CIV is. The hypocrisy is believing anything other than that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Postludio

I mentioned drinking above (twice, look for the nude). It's getting worse, singing "his hat, cat and bat" in delirio pöpcørniensis (pictöred, not for the fainthearted) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Here's one to mess around on your keyboard while you're typing away on something other than Wikipedia articles. Take it easy.

Drmies (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Go for a stroll, find "chin up", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's something to take your mind off it all.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It reminds me of my drinking problem, mentioned above, also the position in sorrow is getting a bit uncomfortable, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Humorous aside

Just saw my above post on my watchlist: "User talk:Eric Corbett‎; 08:17 . . (+666)‎ . . ‎Giano (talk | contribs)‎ (→‎Grammar)" I do hope certain editors don't see it, or I shall be taken to ANI because I'm now posting in code to Eric using the Number of the beast. I do like this time of day (8.33am); the children are all tucked up in bed and the rest of us can get on with some work, which is what I'm about to do. Giano (talk) 08:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	We certainly haven't crossed our paths before, but I've always seen you making many valuable contributions to Wikipedia. A great contributor to many good and featured articles which I always respect! Thank you for your hard work and service over the years :) I look forward to learn many useful things from you in the future. Best wishes! -TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That's very kind of you GU but your user page box "This user believes in civility" might ruffle a few feathers here including mine. Obsession with civility on the website has caused Eric and a lot of us here with a lot of unnecessary problems. Of course it's advisable to be courteous to fellow editors but there are die hard civility merchants on the website which cause far more trouble than the odd bleep comment which somebody might say. I'm glad as you say though you place more emphasis and respect on actual contributions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You misjudge me dear Doctor; I think civility is important, but not as it's defined here on WP, which is more suited to an infant school than a project run by adults. Eric Corbett 20:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment Dr. Blofeld. Yes, I always believe in civility because an uncivil environment doesn't make a proper collaboration. Sure, we all can agree to disagree on many things and everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and It's not up to me to change anyone's personal opinion or thinking. I just came here to award Eric what I believed he deserved irrespective of anything else. -TheGeneralUser (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Those who believe that I'm uncivil ought to examine their own behaviour. Honestly. Eric Corbett 20:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about civility in the wikipedia context Eric, in exactly the infant school code you say, not in the general world sense. In the real world, yes, treat one as you'd expected to be treated. In principle it should apply to wikipedia but on here it's difficult to be "civil" all of the time, it's a stressful place and at times people can be incredibly irritating. There is a belief among many on wikipedia that civility is far more important than content and it's a sort of obsession. I don't like hearing the word on wikipedia, there's something preachy about it which I dislike.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

There are many ways to be uncivil, but only a few of them are punished here. And I don't want to hear any more nonsense about punitive vs. protective blocks thank you very much. Eric Corbett 20:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, we all know what goes unpunished on here. But it is differences in what constitutes as incivility on here which cause half the problems on here and people overreact over things which are really minor or not important and certain people remain unpunished for things which are far worse than anything anybody might call somebody. Anyway, apologies General User for intruding upon your good gesture towards Eric.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)