User talk:Eric Corbett

Plus ca change

I've been reading up on Farnworth and stumbled across:

"Halshaw Moor Wakes," a saturnalia which was first celebrated in September, 1827, when bull-baiting, badger-baiting, dog fighting, cock fighting, foot racing in almost a state of nudity, grinning through a horse collar, eating a dishful of scalding hot porridge without milk and feeding themselves with their bare hands, and even the more disgusting exhibition of eating a pound of tallow candles, and stripping the wicks through their teeth for wagers, were amongst the orgies on these occasions.

I passed through the place a few days ago and, well, I'm not sure that anything has changed since 1827. Do you think "grinning through as horse collar" mean gurning/girning? - Sitush (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

It must do. Eric Corbett 14:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

gurn/girn/grin are I think the same word written by speakers of different dialects. A horse collar is still used at Egremont for the Workd Gurning Championships. Presumably to identify the active competitor so that the audience are not mistakenly applauding the natural beauty of a non-participant.  pablo 07:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Ha! I've never yet made it to Egremont on the correct day, although I've been a few times for rugby or when hillwalking. Come the day of the gurning, I'm usually too busy flossing my teeth with candle wick ... - Sitush (talk) 07:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request

Request can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a fair cop, I didn't notice where I was posting. Eric Corbett 01:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

May you be shown the mercy, I continue to be denied. GoodDay (talk) 01:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not bothered really. I've got far more to offer to Wikipedia than Wikipedia could ever offer to me. Eric Corbett 01:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The drama police strike again. How the hell can anyone write content in this atmosphere? Montanabw^(talk) 03:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The memory of three years Precious will fall as a pleasant contrast in this week when we'll have to miss your contributions. Justice ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: have you not had the memo yet? Wikipedia is no longer about content. It's about politics and honour and moral crusades, all based on a fairly narrow US definition. The more people like the GGTF regulars draw attention to their "cause" in ways like this, the more people are going to kick back against it and the more outright idiots we will attract who are just here to fight a la Gamergate. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It's just more of the usual bloody nonsense. The thudding sound in the background is my head meeting my desk, repeatedly. Comments such as "As expected, Corbett's fanclub has arrived to extol his virtues" make me particularly angry: I cannot with civility say what I think of this comment and its underlying attitude. Eric, I hope you have a nice break, and feel like doing some editing when you come back. Please. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

These silly blocks make no difference to me, just a minor and temporary irritation. Eric Corbett 13:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir's comment that you are a "bald faced liar" (amended from liars when she also directed that personal attack against Casliber) is far worse and more blockable than your one comment foray into that venue, as you surely know.--MONGO 13:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

But conveniently glossed over. That GGTF has caused far more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Eric Corbett 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't stress too much importance on what somebody as generally clueless as EvergreenFir has to say. Evergreen believes all articles should be unsourced without ledes. Wikipedia would be better off without him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Another victory for the passive-aggressive bullies. And certain people have the audacity to wonder why quality continues to decline here... Intothatdarkness 14:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't blame us Americans, Sitush, it's only a subset of drama-mongering trolls that do this. And I have to say that EC must have wanted a vacay, else why go over there and poke the bear?  ;-) It was either a brain fart or a deliberate bit of mischief - or maybe a combo of both? Hey Eric- drop us all a postcard from the Bahamas or wherever you are spending your week! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 18:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Fair cop or not, the AE request is bullshit and the block is overblown. Evergreen could have just deleted and left Eric a note--but no, let's run to mommy. This atmosphere, in which we can't even fucking talk but resort to blocks (and to whining to ArbCom), is counterproductive. Speaking of ArbCom, I should go see if the WMF has had to buy additional server space for Lightbreather's comments. Drmies (talk) 08:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Extra space: I don't deserve the recent congratulations for 100k edits, because we should not count those wasted on arbitration, such as "Reach consensus" and "We start today". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Without wishing to blow my own trumpet, between this account and my previous Malleus account - which had made too many edits to be renamed - I've made almost 175,000 edits, created 143 new articles, been credited with 43 FAs and have done 595 GA reviews. And this is how I get treated. Is this really the way forward? Surely an honestly run project would want more editors like me, not fewer? Eric Corbett 19:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That rang an old bell, - I am a proud member of the cabal of the outcasts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

WP thinks it can do without us, but in truth it can't. Perhaps WP ought to be waking up to the possibility that we can do without it? Eric Corbett 22:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

You still think that "WP thinks"? - while I pointed out that expecting fairness and logic from AE is expecting too much. Disillusioned is a good thing ;) - we say "enttäuscht" which implies the loss of Täuschung = deception, also good, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Je suis Hafspajen. I look in vain for the GGTF sailing over the horizon. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• WP:AE often does more harm than good. There's a reason I never avail myself of it to enforce WP:ARBATC, no matter how bad the transgression. I think the sensible course of community action is to critically review, and restrain, WP:ARBCOM's ability to involve itself in purely WP-internal matters. ArbCom and AE are very useful for putting a sharp end to nasty behavior resulting from POV-pushing wars over content. These are frequent, often involve demonstrable bad faith on one or more sides, and generally devolve to an abuse of the encyclopedia to push false or skewed information. While ArbCom can't rule on content matters directly, it ropes in disruptive holy wars that have a negative effect on WP as a public resource and "the encyclopedia anybody can edit". See WP:ARBAA and WP:ARBAA2, to pick one example (inveterate ethnocentric WP:GREATWRONGS crap between pro- and anti-Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Kurd[istan] editors). The problem arises when ArbCom and its mercenary band of AE enforcers (some of whom do little but play wiki-cop) start interfering in how WP self-governs, and enjoining people from, or punishing them for, heated participation in WP-internal decision-making, like debating policies and guidelines, or wikiproject matters. This has been spiraling out of control for several years now, and is costing us valuable contributors. AE disproportionately enforces against certain sides of these debates. We don't need ArbCom and AE to regulate editorial and inter-editor behavior on wikiproject and policy talk pages. WP:ANI is perfectly adequate for this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching the GGTF topic ban (see this AE request), you have been blocked from editing for a period of one week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Callanecc, "The edit summary made is perfectly clear that Eric Corbett knew this was a controversial (if not a flagrant violation) comment due to the topic ban and I'm fairly sure we've had the it was a mistake excuse before (page title should have given it away)." Umm ... First, that sentence is pretty messed up just in terms of grammar/structure (really, it's incomprehensible). I don't know if everyone is supposed to guess what was your meaning?! (To be so unclear under the circumstances - rationale for an extended block - is really poor form.) Second ...

1. Your block rationale contains three unsure conditionals ("if not" & "fairly sure" & "should have"). Not exactly a firm basis for issuing such an extensive block to such a high-quality contributor.
2. Are we blocking editors now, not for violating their topic ban, but instead for making "controversial comment" in the presence of, but not necessarily related to, their topic ban (except in the minds of, say, the AE OP, the blocking admin, and the supporting AE commentators)?
3. When someone says something of the nature of "I might be blocked for this, but ...", do you think it means the person is confessing violation knowledge and/or guilt? Or do you think it is a simple expression of an uncertain confidence in the assessment capacities of those on this site who wield clubs (blocking bats)? (Me thinks the latter, duh.)
4. I think it's safe to say Eric can be taken at his word when he said the location was an unintentional mistake.
5. It's very interesting how the impulse to block seems to be prefaced on some sort of value of "The rules are clear, and we enforce the rules", when as above the violation is all but clear. (Plus, it isn't as if other rules aren't being egregiously violated and overlooked every day on the WP. That doesn't mean no rules s/b enforced, but it should mean that in cases like this one, you be a little more careful before declaring a breach and wielding your bat.) IHTS (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you really argue with AE in fairness and logic? - I learned that the only thing you can do is ignore it and stick to fairness and logic, decency and integrity, - as Eric does, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As in most places with mountains of vague and opaque rules and essays-disguised-as-rules, the "rules" only apply when someone with power feels that they should. Otherwise, they do not. Intothatdarkness 14:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the opposite. Only the simplest rules apply. Look at the second edit, indenting for clarity. That is an offense, it's a second edit. - Look at my last encounter with AE: I made a third edit! I am allowed only two. Who cares about the content of that edit (and if it has anything to do with the spirit of the sanction - if that exists)? Who cares about that it was possibly provoked, and about the number and content of the comments by other editors. Counting to three, that's all. "Content" is a word from a foreign language. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet even then it's a matter of who happens to break the rule. Again, rules are ignored or applied at random. Intothatdarkness 17:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

As is normally the case, someone that creates content is blocked by one who does not. For a BS reason, at that. GregJackP Boomer! 14:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

This is such a waste of Eric's and WP's time: unblock him and apologise already. Nortonius (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a horrible block. This AE request was serviced and closed in about 6 hours with a unilateral and undoubtedly controversial action without any other requests for alternative views, all of which occurred while I was asleep and hence had no chance to comment. The remedy was placed far too quickly without any time for any other administrators to give consensus and alternative opinions, and maybe try a more conciliatory solution that is best for the project. Eric, if I had unilateral authority to indef block Callanecc for stirring up trouble instead of improving the enyclopedia, I would - but I don't think I do, I'm afraid. @Drmies:, can you help? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I too think this block quite wrong. Few would automatically look to Eric for the soft answer that turneth away wrath, but I'm damned if I can see what's so block-worthy in the edit for which he has been banned here. – Tim riley talk 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Ritchie333, I'm a bit out of it--literally and figuratively--at the moment. I am rarely in the mood to block anyone, and I wouldn't want to indef-block Callanecc, whom I think of as a good admin and a net positive to the project. I also happen to think that Eric is a net positive, but saying that is just begging for more fan club comments. Come on Callanecc, please. What on earth does this accomplish? This is punishment for the sake of punishment, but you have nothing to prove to anyone, nor will this improve anything for anyone. Reading this, this morning, made me think of Wikipedia--and lo and behold, it happens. I don't think I know EvergreenFir well enough to say they're that kind of person, but sweet Jesus, a one-week block for a comment and a colon. Funny: the newspaper reported this morning that higher fines (for traffic violations) don't do anything but raise income for the state. We may have something similar going on here, though I have yet to see a single check for all the random, poor blocks I've made. Drmies (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I think Eric should be unblocked because he is in the middle of some FAC reviews. Who else could do those - very few. And of course I don't really want to indef Callanecc, it's just if I was supreme overlord of Wikipedia I could get away with it .... oh except everyone would leave and sound off about me elsewhere on the net. Maybe a terrible idea, actually. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Callanecc: I was planning on reviewing Denbies later today. Now it seems I can't as Eric is blocked for an entire week for what exactly? Never a good idea to block somebody when they have an article at FAC. It's more disruptive to the process than anything the person could have said to be blocked. @Richie, in fairness, Callan often has a fair outlook when dealing with arb cases and as Drmies says is generally a decent admin and guy, but he does see the need to be assertive with carrying out what is passed at arb. I think he's just following procedure, but in my opinion it's pointless blocking somebody like Eric like this while they have an article at FAC...♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Denbies is a joint nomination with Sagaciousphil, so she's holding the fort at FAC. Eric Corbett 20:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Both of them are in pretty good shape and the FACs should pass smoothly..barring any silliness. They're on my watchlist now too so I can always offer an opinion/solution/fix etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

That's very generous of you, and I'm certain Sagaciousphil will appreciate your offer of help too. We had intended to start work on another British feminist this week, but that's obviously going to have to wait now. Eric Corbett 14:38, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• This seems a nasty and unnecessary block. I am going on strike for the duration of this block, in solidarity with Eric and the needless shit he puts up with from utter numpties. That means at least two FACs will miss out on getting reviewed, but so be it. --John (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

  I'm touched John, but there's really no need. I'm quite accustomed to these daft blocks, and they don't bother me in the slightest. So go and review those two FACs. Eric Corbett 15:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Callanecc: is overall a decent admin, so this is a puzzle. My theory is that placing this utterly absurd block is a covert attempt to create a backlash of sympathy in favor of Eric. (Then again I've been reading a lot of spy novels lately.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Or, as is much more likely, the GovCom simply ordered him to make the block so that he'd take the heat rather than them. Some of them are well known for their dislike of Eric, and some like to view themselves as the kings of Wikipedia. My one thought is why didn't EvergreenFir simply remove the comment if it was such a problem rather than immediately jumping for the block / drama request. All the comment said was, "I can't talk here", which was, at the worst, unnecessary. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Now, I don't like to pass judgement on people I've never met, but with 2,100 "offensive" username reports and 2 created articles (for a total of 129 readable words of prose), it's really no wonder... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here for silliness. I joined to help write an encyclopedia, that's all, not to be some kind of policeman. Eric Corbett 22:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• hrmph .. figures. Can't say I'm surprised though. — Ched :  ?  02:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR article

Hi Eric,

I'm writing an an article on the Estoire des Engleis, a chronicle written in French. Since it seems that you have access to JSTOR, could you (or a talk page stalker) see if this paper has any important information aside from what is already in the article? I'm almost finished with it; I just need to add one more fact and all the citations. Thanks, --Biblioworm 21:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Biblioworm, if you want to email me I can pass along the article, but you are also eligible for free JSTOR access through The Wikipedia Library. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I sent the email. --Biblioworm 15:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

No one deserves to be silenced

You've got to laugh. Eric Corbett 14:24, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• You have been blocked for two weeks and your ability to edit this talk page removed due to this comment which is a violation of your GGTF TBAN and IBAN from Lightbreather. The post is from a mailing list which has been set up to discuss the "gender disparity among Wikipedians" and you are topic banned from that and "any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed" (quotes from your TBAN), as the post concerns Lightbreather you also have breached the IBAN (dot point three from WP:IBAN). As you don't have access to your talk page access can appeal this block to the Arbitration Committee through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Well, can't you see the irony, Callanecc? You've just added to it. I despair, I really do. And if someone says something there, where Eric has no chance of reply, then ArbCom cannot enforce any WP sanction that may be enforceable here. This is double-standards. - Sitush (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

From ErrantX, sometime on or before 8 October 2012:

I used to participate in the LGBT and Gendergap mailing lists, but had to leave due to bullying and obnoxiousness. I caution anyone wishing to get involved in those important issues: those lists are echo chambers, promulgate sexism, and produce no discernible benefit. There are better ways to combat key issues.

Nothing seems to have changed. - Sitush (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah... man it was such an echo chamber. No idea of the context here (I am way too busy to do anything but bugfix articles and occasionally be an overzealous admin) but man... that takes me back to some painful discussions. Any dissenting voice was 'not making it a safe space'. :( --Errant ^(chat!) 10:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• Callanecc...this looks like excessive zeal on your part. I too was accused of excessive zeal when I adminned but each instance I was overzealous it was to deal with useless now long departed and or banned editors, not against prolific content contributors like Corbett. I urge you to reconsider this escalation of penalties...the sentences are not commensurate with the offense.--MONGO 05:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor, Rosiestep, who made the comment quoted above, is a highly productive content contributor and, as far as I know, avoids drama most of the time. She is so studious in avoiding drama that she may have been unaware of the context of the underlying conflicts. I am deliberately not pinging her. Please, everyone, consider dialing this down rather than escalating it. Thank you. This too shall pass. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's unblock and move on. And keep Rosiestep out of it, she's a decent human being and overall nice person. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I made a mistake. It's human. Enjoy the irony of another quote: "AGF is simply not appropriate here — unfortunately we have assume the worst". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

ps: adding context, the quote was quoted in the arb case infoboxes, the original was from April 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want ironic quotes from 2013, I give you "I can easily envisage [Callanecc] supporting the content creators and maintaining Wikipedia's integrity whilst remaining largely in the background, politely pointing out the path to others". – iridescent 09:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately (but it doesn't really belong here) I assume in good faith that the quote was without irony in sincere fear (of people like me), - which is why I assumed the "toxic personality" title a while ago, following your example, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll see Gerda's quote, and raise you "There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice". Callanecc, your first block was at the harsh end but within the bounds of reason. (Blocking may have clearly been against the spirit of the arbcom ruling in question, but he did break the letter of the law.) This second block was twelve hours after the comment in question was made, on one of the most-watched pages on the entire wiki, during which time no other person raised any concern about the comment. To be frank, this second block coming out of the blue is either going to make Eric look like the victim of an IRC conspiracy (if you were canvassed to impose the block), make you look like a vindictive crank searching for a pretext to exercise a grudge (if you acted unilaterally), or make you look like the stooge for cowards unwilling to dirty their hands themselves (if you were asked to perform the block behind-the-scenes by Arbcom or the WMF); extending the block for reasons as spurious as this increases the chance of getting it lifted altogether which is presumably not the effect you intended. – iridescent 09:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be simpler for Eric to abide by his topic bans? It's not difficult not to read the Gendergap Wikipedia email list, must less post about it. In fact, I wouldn't have known about it if Eric hadn't included a link to it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice if Nigel Farage had a volume knob and George Osborne had some common sense, but in life you have to work with what you're given, not what you'd like to have. A "Hey, Eric, can you cut it out and focus on Denbies FAC?" would have been okay. A block followed by a 4 page drama-fest ... isn't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Liz, would you not get pissed off having to stand by while people were talking about you behind your back on a WMF list, in a situation where you have no right of reply there and if you mention it here you would be blocked? If so, you are living in some parallel universe. And that you did not know of the mailing list is simply astounding for an Arbcom clerk, even if perhaps a recently-appointed one. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably, but "don't read a site at which you know you're being discussed" is an easy piece of advice to give but not easy to stick to. (Why is it that whenever an Arbcom clerk's actions are challenged, the rest of them turn up? Since this is the first time you've ever posted on this page I presume it's not on your watchlist; you turning up out of nowhere is not doing the defence against the "IRC or clerks-l colluding to defend each other's actions" accusation much good.) – iridescent 11:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I expect everyone commenting here is being watched and probably talked about on IRC where ordinary souls can't see what's going on – which de facto makes this block a steaming pile of hypocritical shit. I think anyone who dismisses the opinions of others as coming from a "fanclub" is being far more offensive than anything I've seen Eric do. Lift the block and – well, I previously said "apologise", but now I think it's gone way beyond that. Nortonius (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm on IRC in the admins channel, and I haven't seen this block mentioned there at all. For starters, Callanecc is rarely on IRC at all. More than likely, it's being discussed on the private ArbCom / clerk mailing lists so that random editors and admins can't show up to comment. And, Gerda Arendt, I still think it's fairly likely that GovCom members ordered him to make these blocks, so, while he's not entirely absolved, it's not just him throwing weight around. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am German and (perhaps extra-)sensitive to people taking orders without questioning them. I didn't say anything about Callanec, right? I said that I made a mistake which is human. I think, Eric, you also made a mistake (and said so). Why are we all not creating content instead of talking here where you, Eric, can't even respond? (I only made this - another - comment because I was pinged, - hopefully the last one. I want to prettify a few articles before TFA Sunday.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Same difference, for IRC substitute the "private ArbCom / clerk mailing lists", clearly this didn't come from nowhere; I'm still creating content. Nortonius (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

And this points out the problem with that whole "broadly construed" lump of feces they tack on to all sanctions. It may be twisted into anything desired to prove a point. As for the whole "fan club" thing...I've always found that offensive and a convenient shorthand dismissal of criticism. But that's what happens when you have an effective police state and absolute, almost unaccountable power concentrated in the hands of a few. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Eric: thank you for quoting me. I've got this page watchlisted now so I don't miss other gems.
People: I live and breathe writing content on Wikipedia. I avoid drama as (a) it doesn't interest me, and (b) it keeps me from writing content. I oppose silencing content writers. I oppose those who silence content writers by harassing them, on- or off-wiki. There are millions of people in the world who don't have the means to build this encyclopedia. So it falls on us, those who can, to give it our best. I'm going to be working on some mining in Africa articles this weekend; how about you? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Me? I'm working on Minnehaha Falls which may turn out to be my fourth GA and second DYK. Eric assisted me, put me under his wing so as to speak because that is how it felt for me, with the DYK and I am deeply grateful to him. He has helped me out other times as well, especially with help to maintain the integrity of the To Kill a Mockingbird article. As for all this bullshit, I know next to nothing about all of the sideshows and under currents of this place. If I understand the current situation correctly, editor Evergreen felt that she had to leave an off-wiki group because Eric had somehow made her feel unsafe, and Eric has been banned for two weeks...surely I don't understand what's going on--that doesn't make any sense. Could anyone please take a minute to expain to me what is going on? Gandydancer (talk) 15:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A fair cop reported to arbitrary enforcement that Eric had posted something on GGTF (see above, correctly notified), which Eric is restricted not to do, at all. It would have been a mistake even if he said there how wonderful that project is. No edit. Period. - Now what would you do if you had noticed that "transgression". It could have been ignored. Imagine! - The fair cop, however, even noticed and reported a second edit, which fixed the indenting for clarity. Clarity, imagine! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Gerda, I get the first block, it's the second one that I don't understand. Gandydancer (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The second one is simply using the "broadly construed" sledgehammer to silence someone. Intothatdarkness 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The second one is because the linked text includes the word Lightbreather and is on the WMF-hosted gender gap mailing list. The irony that Eric was pointing out obviously didn't work for Callanecc. - Sitush (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on GA #43 right now, I have got a nice book on Camberley and I hope I get a few hours spare to improve it to GA. In a similar vein, I'd like to get some more sources to find out about the Jolly Farmer as I'm regretting never bothering to step in the pub until it closed, and have been (somewhat in vain) waiting for it to reopen ever since. Oh, and I did promise Blofeld I'd do some work on Sunset Strip and I do try and be as good as my word. However, the real work this weekend is helping put up a few drywalls for a new recording studio, and play at a few music festivals. Have a good weekend, y'all. Eric, if the weather's nice, take a spin up Snake Pass and admire the view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Female infanticide in India, although I'm struggling to work up the enthusiasm with all these events going on. Might be more a case of a journalist writing up "suicide in Manchester" at this rate (black humour - no need to report it as a genuine risk). - Sitush (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Waiting for The Destroying Angel FAC to go through, which should be FA #31, and doing the groundwork to complete Victorian painting which if all goes well will meet Jimbo's holy grail of a core topic going from redlink to FAC. Normally on something like The Destroying Angel Eric would be among the first people I'd approach, as I know he takes an interest in Manchester topics, but thanks to your friends on the GGTF I can't do so because it shows a pair of exposed breasts, which could cause it to fall under "any process or discussion relating to gender disparity, broadly construed". I've also cleaned out the CSD backlog, given that all the people who ought to be doing it are kvetching at the Village Pump about how how little work admins do. – iridescent 16:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not doing anything as I mentioned up the page. The political gender-driven nonsense that Eric has been subjected to is the main reason why I have backed away and have little to no inclination to edit. On the plus side my garden is thriving, I've read more and I'm enjoying the company of real people sharing my other hobbies, not that I didn't before, but I don't care much for watching tv and enjoyed contributing and most certainly enjoy working with Eric. I've seen some spiteful actions in my time here, this is among the worst. J3Mrs (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

With all seriousness, somebody should give Sitush the bit; Indian articles get tagged as A7 all the time (example) and I generally punt on them as I haven't a clue if they're salvagable or not. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I will never get the bit - too many enemies, including those who frequent GGTF and the numerous Indian sockfarms etc. However, I've redirected the article that you link. The related bit of spam - Vinoba Manohar Foundation, which apparently runs the hospital - should be deleted. - Sitush (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Ironically, Sitush, I've thought about doing a RfA myself, I'd particularly love to be able to help at WP:RPP and to be able to help good folks with revdel. I've been told that my "enemies" would also come out of the woodwork after me if I did. I think Eric is also topic-banned from RfA, so I don't want to poke a hornet's nest here if the topic is verboten, but I do kind of wonder if the place is becoming an Animal Farm. ("four legs good, two legs bad!") Montanabw^(talk) 23:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Becoming? I'd say it's already there. Intothatdarkness 14:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I know you're not bothered by this 2-week forced vacation you've been given, Eric. But, I hope you'll always appreciate the support you continue to get. PS- If only I had a strong support-base, too :( GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

• An overlooked angle on the "RfA is broken" meme: This is not the first time that a candidate passes RfA w/ nearly nary an Oppose and over 100 (in this case 138) Supports, and then as admin goes on about town w/ complete confidence but soon going "Frankenstein". At this point Colonel Warden's sole Oppose turns out like some kind of genius:

  1. Oppose The candidate's content creation is meagre. [...] Warden (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

[...]

the candidate doesn't do much article improvement either, does he? 99% of our articles are not of good quality and so there's no shortage of such work to be done. I reviewed all the candidate's edits for April and I only found one edit which seemed to be proper editing. It was to Clovis North Educational Center. In this edit, various things are done. Among them, the statement "It was established in 2007 with Norm Anderson as principal..." is changed to "It was established in 2007 with Scott Dille as principal...". This change seems to be incorrect because it appears that Norm Anderson was indeed the initial principal and Scott Dille was appointed in 2011. So, that's one significant content edit in a month and it was erroneous. This isn't wickedness — accidents will happen — but it indicates the level at which the candidate is operating when it comes to our primary activity and purpose. The candidate should not be presuming to oversee and control other editors until he has demonstrated a higher level of competence and experience. Warden (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody cares. Nick (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

IHTS (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

A food for thought

While I don't think Eric is a saint, I must say I'm disgusted with this whole GGTF affair from the outset; in particular, the ArbCom amendment to the topic ban which effectively legalized the hunting season on Eric (who won't let himself be silenced).
Anyway: I was thinking on demonstrating our ("the fan club's") support for Eric by quite simple means: as long as he is blocked, we don't produce any content, i.e. act as if we're all blocked. While, I must admit, I planned to go to a wikibreak anyway, so I don't think anybody should be obliged, I felt inclined to express that idea as a food for thought. No such user (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody in a position to affect the situation gives a damn whether you (or I, or others in this thread) go on strike. It will accomplish nothing other than the internal satisfaction of taking a principled stand. Sorry to be so blunt but that's how it is. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I can't comment on Eric's block nor GGTF as it would probably fall under my topic ban. However, I use a nifty user script that pretty much 'crosses out' and greys someone's username who is blocked. I think it would be useful as sometimes, you don't know when someone is blocked until you view the blocklog or see their username somewhere else but you'd like to know when someone's blocked--you know, for context. It's located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_scripts#Discussion_oriented <- It's called 'Mark Blocked'. Tutelary (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• And what relevance is this to anything here, Tutelary? As someone hinted in the ANI thread concerning Knowledgekid, you tend to pop up with rather unhelpful remarks at a wide range of venues. This looks rather like one to me. - Sitush (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it would be extremely insulting to use that for someone under a temporary block. Richerman (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Not forgotten

I await your return (June 11, 2015), EC. You've not been forgotten. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

forum
Thank you for content such as today's Chadderton, for adding quality to the articles of others, for speaking up to the point with "amore e studio elucidandae", and for running your talk as a fascinating forum of ideas and beers, - and yes, to quote you, "we need some perspective", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (30 September 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 139th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, - today we have in common that we have a TFA on 31 May ;) - I am proud to be in the minority oppose group with you, as one of estimated 13% women. - I just read again the forum of 2012 and invite to do the same. We still need a perspective. - Wickedly Welsh Chocolate for desert. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this was necessary or well-advised, especially given the lag between your ANI (which is what I assume you're referring to, since you don't link to a specific discussion at ANI) and your decision to place this notice here. Intothatdarkness 13:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's only fulfilling an issue I pressed him on concerning why he notified Coffee who he mentioned in one of his responses, yet did not mention Eric, even though he used the argument that he had to inform people who were referred to in AN/I discussions. The smart thing to have done would have been to withdraw the notice to Coffee, which he could have done. However, I admit I stressed the continued presence of the notice to Coffee and the lack of a notice to Eric. I consider, and in fact, I wrote, that neither need have been notified (because KK87 shouldn't have tried to bring Coffee into the discussion about KK87's behaviour.)  DDStretch  (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree. What I found concerning was the lag between their notice to Coffee and the one to Eric. I've also never been a fan of notifications like this going to people who are unable to respond. Intothatdarkness 14:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird harv error at All Saints' Church, Shuart

I hope Eric won't mind me shopping here for some advice. At All Saints' Church, Shuart, after a sentence ending "... Domesday Book does not say where in the manor they lived.", there's a ref number "26": clicking on it goes nowhere; but if you go down to the subsection "Notes" and click on note 26 to take you to it in the text, it takes you to ref number 35! There's also a harv error reported for the entry for "Eales, R." in the Bibliography, which is somehow connected: looking at the editing area for the article, the ref at the end of that sentence cites Williams & Martin, and Eales. I've gone boss-eyed looking at the formatting, would someone with a fresh pair of eyes have a look at it for me? Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

You can't put {{harv}} or {{sfn}} inside <ref>...</ref> tags. I'll try to extricate them for you. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh? Thanks for having a look RexxS, but there are zillions of refs like that at Reculver, and no problems – I've asked for help on the article's talk page and Primefac is having a look too. Nortonius (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, RexxS, you can place {{harvnb}} inside refs, but I think it's a different issue. As you've seen on the page, though, I'm going through stepwise to figure out what that may be. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? You can certainly place other forms of reference inside {{refn}}, but I've never seen {{harvnb}} work inside <ref>...</ref>. Anyway, I seem to be having some success in the Origin section by unbundling them. --RexxS (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Nah, I'm talking rubbish about {{harvnb}}. You're quite right - it's been so long since I've used them because I switched to {{sfn}} some time ago. Apologies. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

@RexxS: It seems that since you only placed one bracket before "{{harvnb}}", a large portion of the contents table has been deleted. There is also an error whenever attempting to directly edit this section and a few others. --Biblioworm 15:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

My knackered old eyes are greatly relieved to see that this issue at All Saints Church, Shuart, is now pinpointed – thanks to both RexxS and Primefac for their attention! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Now fixed, thanks Biblioworm. Many thanks to Primefac who spotted the actual problem was an unclosed html comment in the article. All Saints' Church is now in a good state of repair. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

The Wikipedia Library

Call for Volunteers

The Wikipedia Library is expanding, and we need your help! With only a couple of hours per week, you can make a big difference in helping editors get access to reliable sources and other resources. Sign up for one of the following roles:

• Account coordinators help distribute research accounts to editors.
• Partner coordinators seek donations from new partners.
• Outreach coordinators reach out to the community through blog posts, social media, and newsletters or notifications.
• Technical coordinators advise on building tools to support the library's work.

Sign up to help here :)

Delivered on behalf of The Wikipedia Library by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Manchester Guardian

Decided to make a start on this. Important article which should probably be at least GA quality in its own right. Any help from page stalkers will be warmly appreciated as it is cited by a staggering number of articles from the 19th century and first half of 20th.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, drat. I've just created a draft and haven't even saved it. Too bloody impatient ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Doc, that is pretty poor. It's what happens when crap is copied from one place to another and it takes us back to the Dark Ages of copy/pasting from the old, public domain ODNB etc. Did you really have to do that? WP:DEADLINE etc? - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted back, I thought it was best to start that way. Obviously you disagree, so use your draft and do what you like.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I've left it with the content I added myself. If that's still not good enough for you then you can kiss my ass ;-).♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/The Coral Island --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

For any car lovers watching...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mercedes-Benz CLR/archive2 was an interesting read. And I am a real vehicular neophyte.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I like the look of that. I currently drive a C63 which is a great car (but thirsty) and my father used to own a 450 SL, so I do know a thing or two about Mercs. It's also a common misconception that Henry Ford invented the first motor vehicle, but of course, in fact, the petrol heads among us will know that it was Karl Benz. Cassianto^Talk 16:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If only I could have a car that nice. I drive a 12 year old BMW 325xi. At least it's a stick, and drives well. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Classic BMWs are becoming very rare and collectable, much like the old Fords from the Dagenham era. I always wanted a BMW M1 but never got round to owning one unfortunately. Cassianto^Talk 22:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Would my 2003 BMW qualify as classic, or do I need 20 more years? :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

During my Ford owning days, I was told that if it had been retired from the production line then it could be considered a classic. Having said that, I've always found "classic" to be a subjective description; after all, who'd have though that 25 years on a Lada Riva would've been called as such. Cassianto^Talk 22:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

With that being said, Delorians can be considered classic. I wonder if they carry any value though. XD—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of German cars, which reminds me that I must get back to the restoration of our MGB GT. My Jaguar XJ-S will undoubtedly become a classic if it isn't one now, but it's stupidly expensive to keep on the road, so I sold it. Eric Corbett 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry we can't be friends now with that comment. J/K. Anyways, I'm a huge fan. Maybe it's because I'm German. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at it this way. Jaguar never built a flying car. Eric Corbett 23:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Is your MG the V8 version Eric? And does it have the lovely chrome or the rubber bumber blocks from America? I once knew a guy who owned an X-Type from 2001. He didn't own it long as he soon found out that it shared a floor pan with the Ford Mondeo. Not so much a Jaguar but a wolf in sheep's clothing. Cassianto^Talk 23:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the basic four-cylinder version with the rubber bumpers. We almost bought a V8 MGC instead, but it had a problem with the gearbox. We should maybe have bought that and got the gearbox fixed, but hindsight is easy. Eric Corbett 23:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The engine, I imagine, would not be that dissimilar to the XJ, so it would have been just as costly to run I would think. I had a TR3A a year or so ago but sold it as it was costing a fortune each year in repair bills. In fact, my Merc now at 6.3 litres seems better on fuel than that was and that was a 2.1! Cassianto^Talk 23:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The MGC has the Rover V8, the Jag has a straight six Jaguar engine. The Jag might do about six miles to the gallon on a good day around town, and it was difficult to find a parking space big enough for it. I loved that car, but I don't regret selling it. Eric Corbett 23:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Were they the same engine capacity or was the Jag a bit more than the MGC? Six miles to the gallon is diabolical, especially what with the UK's fuel prices being the way they are. I can imagine that the XJ would be very cumbersome to use on a daily basis around town, no wonder many of them were battered and beaten half to death whenever I saw them. I expect you remember the Jensen Interceptor. Now that was a big-engined car that I always wanted to own; I've always loved the Touring designs. The most recent of course being the new version of their old design of the Alfa Romeo Disco Volante. Cassianto^Talk 05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, my twenty year old white Toyota Corolla hatchback is, erm, a reliable motor vehicle that adequately serves the purpose of day to day transport. But, hey, I corrected a spelling mistake in Sunbeam Tiger.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

A spelling mistake in a featured article?!? Cyberpower678 stares at Eric. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bearing in mind that Dennis Brown isn't around much these days I think I'll blame my American friend for that. :-) Eric Corbett 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In that case... :D—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I had to look up "leviathan", so I'm guessing it wasn't me that put it in the article. Typical Brit, blame the Yanks for everything that you can't pin on the French. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The MGC is an inline six, a tired old truck engine that was obsolete when they first built them into an MG – and too heavy for a sports car. The MGB V8 was the aluminium Rover 3.5 that went into everything, an excellent engine and very tunable. "MGB GT" means a hardtop MGB, not anything about the engine, but for reasons of floorpan rigidity it was too expensive to build a convertible MGB with more torque, so MG only built two of them as V8s and never sold them. The MGB V8 was a hardtop GT. After-market conversions are easy, but unless the floorpan is stiffened properly (or a roll cage), they're as nasty to drive as a Fiat Dino. The Jaguar six is 3.6 litres, but usually a bit lower tuned than the Rover. It came in other sizes too, but the 3.6 was the favourite. The XJS engine is the 5.3 litre V12, another superb classic engine. The original doesn't work right except on '60s petrol, but the 6.0 XJS-HE engine managed to make a good engine even better (more power, less fuel, better emissions and all still built on the same production line). It's thirsty in an XJS because it's hauling around such a great boat of a Grand Tourer, but in a lightweight chassis it can reach 30+mpg. The engine itself is efficient. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

My XJ-S had the 4-litre straight six engine. Eric Corbett 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Erg...I can't compete with all these...as we had four kids we had to get a people mover. Settled on a Toyota Tarago (Tarago in Oz = Previa elsewhere...buggered if I know the reason for the name change...). Inherited a manual VW Polo from a friend of my mother's which I really enjoy driving though and did start me thinking about getting cars with really good handling in future....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this a good time to point out that I really want the Mercedes F015? Or that my dad had a really sporty Audi? Sorry can't remember the model. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:58, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

Cumulative apologies for introducing formatting problems (depth of my ignorance on smart formatting is such that I ask myself 'what is ir?') into an article you've obviously put a lot of effort into; and cumulative thanks for mostly putting up with them. Any thoughts on the Manchester Observer bit on this page? My view is something needs to be done if there has to be something said about the fate of the MO on the PM page: the concept of 'libelous court cases' flags up it's not quite kosher Rjccumbria (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think using too many contemporary sources and quotations has led to the article becoming difficult to read, editors should use modern terminology. It should not incorporate mini articles on newspapers and other linked material. Focus is being lost through over-detailed edits. J3Mrs (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Checking unreviewed FAs

Welcome back. A while ago I mentioned this message about tune-up work on the oldest unreviewed FAs. I have gone about as far as I can with Mendip Hills, Bath, Somerset and Exmoor. I was wondering if you (or one of your talk page stalkers) would be willing to look at the prose before I go back to Maralia saying they still meet the standards? I have some more still to add about hydrology and water quality to River Parrett, but hope to have that done in the next day or two. Somerset still needs the demographic section updating which I will get to when I can. That will leave Sweet Track and Buildings and architecture of Bristol in need of reviews in July (once I get back from Glastonbury Festival). As you improved the prose of many of these before their FA nominations I wondered if you were still interested enough to take another look?— Rod ^talk 11:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really back, just messing about. Eric Corbett 21:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

FA review

Eric, I'd like to ask you a big favor, if you don't mind. The article I wrote, Juan Manuel de Rosas, is suffering from lack of reviews, mostly because it's an obscure topic (at least to most Wikipedians who care only to WWII and Civil War). Rosas was a dictator of Argentina in the early 19th century, also a rival of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and both clashed in a war that led to his downfall. I can assure you that the topic is interesting and that you'll enjoy reading it. If you have any available time, could you review it? The FAC page is here. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but I can't promise anything. It's rather insightful that Jimbo Wales believes that I'm public enemy number one, so I won't be rushing to help anyone with anything. Eric Corbett 21:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Donner Party article

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

My name isn't Guy. Eric Corbett 21:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Grossly offensive

I find postings such as this one on WMF sites to be grossly offensive:

"The Ally Skills Workshop teaches men simple, everyday ways to support women in their communities."[1]

So what do I do, abuse women in my community?

Callanecc can block me again for as long as he likes, for whatever reason takes his fancy, but to my mind this is simply unacceptable. Eric Corbett 20:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

How many courses are the WMF funding on teaching men how to deal with women rather than on women how to deal with men? Are we all children here? Eric Corbett 20:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

False dichotomy, Eric. To suggest that one could 'increase support' is not to imply that previously one was an abuser.

Mind, as someone who does literally spend all day trying to focus lasers, I should probably make one of the currently fashionable complaints of "triggers" or somesuch. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a false dichotomy. Eric, you are actually an ally already even though you don't realize it yet. The proof is in your actual work and actual accomplishments. You can try to run but the reality is that you have basic respect for ordinary people and I've rarely seen you snark at someone who didn't deserve it. (Note, I said "rarely," not "never.") You have no idea how truly miserable a creature the under-30 troll who lives in his mommy's basement living on a diet of soda pop and porn can be once he is turned loose in a place like 4chan. You aren't that person and you don't want those people to suck you in with a false promise of brotherhood. Montanabw^(talk) 02:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request 2

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise, here you are again. Do you have nothing better to do? Eric Corbett 21:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly not. – iridescent 21:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fairly obvious that Callanecc will block me for at least a month this time, but really, who gives a fuck? Eric Corbett 21:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Last time I was cited to AE there was at least talk about clean hands, - is that for female victims only? - Now beware, the restrictions don't apply any more, I am out, on parole ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric, I have a lot of respect for your contributions. It is a shame that others sit waiting to pounce like vultures on any comment you make. I do wish to ask for you to evaluate a GA nomination for me, on a topic you might enjoy, as soon as this nonsense passes. No one deserves to be silenced, particularly not quality editors like you. There is more irony here than could be handled by Bethlehem Steel :-) Scr★pIron^IV 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I just wanted to lighten the mood, sometimes I see these complaints and I hear [rationales like this], warning it is completely hilarious. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision and for this comment, you have been blocked temporarily from editing. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Please note that this is not an arbitrator action. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)