User talk:Eric Corbett

"Lager, so much more than just a breakfast drink"

— Sign in the Pheasant Pluckers pub in Southport, England

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 [1] 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)

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 [2], 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)

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)

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)

Meh

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

Will the Rambling Man be as good as his word?

"(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) 8:02 pm, 12 February 2014, Wednesday (8 days ago)"

Will you be posting a video of this amazing feast Monsieur Mangetout or will we just have to take your word for it? Richerman (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, if you eat a cat I shall notify the authorities. I gladly permit you to eat your bat if it is of an inanimate variety; if it is of an animate variety, refer to my notice regarding your cat. For alternatives, should they be necessary, might I suggest your flat (if you own one), a pat (find one on your nearest dairy farm) or a rat (wild, of course). Nortonius (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

...or a prat? ;) -- Cassianto (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

 Nortonius likes this.

I ate the lot, and have regretted doing so as it's caused me no end of gut trauma. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Especially mixing the three. Individually and properly prepred they can be quite tasty (especially with a little Kethcup). Cat doesn't go well with bat unfortunately. Been there, done that! :-( 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

TRM: Of course, He returned 26 February 2014. Blessed be. I hope you didn't eat anything bigger than a kippah; certainly nothing out of Seuss. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No chance. My bet failed, but only by a few days. Still, rejoice, for he has returned. Again. [repeat]. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 10 March 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)

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)

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)

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)

Arbitration request motion passed

A motion that was proposed for the Arbitration Request initiated on February 17, 2014 that you were a party to has passed. The motion can be found here. The following is the text of the motion:

• The committee notes that it is not in dispute that User:Kevin Gorman has acted out of process and in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held.
• The committee notes and accepts Kevin Gorman's assurances that he has learned by his mistakes and will not repeat them.
• Kevin Gorman is strongly admonished.
• The request shall be filed as "Kevin Gorman".
• The request for a full case is declined.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rockfang (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm

This being Wikipedia, it's likely that no one will be happy with the decision, but I think it's appropriate given the circumstances. Eric, you're probably not totally happy, and no doubt you'll think to yourself that this was to be expected. I think that for ArbCom to strongly admonish someone is a strong statement. Anyway. I hope to see you here again, one of these days. Drmies (talk) 02:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Nonetheless, this landmark decision is the first time in its history Wikipedia has ever admonished an *** ADMINISTRATOR *** [humble genuflections] for acting towards a mere content builder (who is not an admin) "in a manner which is incompatible with the standards to which administrators are held". I understand some luminaries feel this is likely to lead to the immanent collapse of Wikipedia, so I guess we must now brace ourselves. Alternatively it just might restore a wee measure of morale and self-esteem to the downtrodden content builders (who are not admins), and Wikipedia might start to flower instead. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to see Gorman desysoped. He hasn't been. I'll reflect on whether an admonishment is a sufficient substitute given his various comments elsewhere. Eric Corbett 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think his subsequent behavior suggests he doesn't get it but at least this is a positive development, and another motion which formally withdraws his warning / threat will follow. Kevin can also never act towards you in an administrative capacity again, and even he admits that. I hope you will return even though I don't agree with you at times, because you are clearly a substantial net positive. EdChem (talk) 05:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Glad to see you've made at least this one edit here Eric. I completely agree with all Ed is saying above. This has been a horrible, upsetting episode compounded by Arbcom deviousness and incompetence. That despite all this subterfuge and open reluctance to support an ordinary editor over an Admin, that Admin has now been admonished and in the circumstances the admonishment speaks volumes. The facts are in the open and most people are not fools and can draw conclusions. I think we should allow that to give us closure.  Giano  09:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom has made it clear (and official) that it understands who definitely was at fault, and who definitely was not; as a compromises go, this ain't a bad one. You also have an apology, albeit halfhearted, and after much prodding. Giano is right: Drop the stick, forgive and forget, carry on. Life's too short. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I never presume to forgive, but I do often forget. Eric Corbett 21:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Glad you're back :-). All the best, Miniapolis 20:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy that Kevin Gorman was only admonished, but that'll have to do. For now. Eric Corbett 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Public housing may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "{}"s and 3 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Look Eric, a nice little bot asking you to make a simple, little edit. Looks like the perfect opportunity for a gentle comeback. The champagne (or beer or whatever it is you people north of Watford drink) is on ice and waiting to celebrate your return.  Giano  20:32, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I seem to have forgotten how to do citations during my spell away. Merlot is my current favourite drink, and I raise a glass to you and to HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) for your principled stand on the recent unfortunate events, which hopefully we will have no need to speak of again. Eric Corbett 21:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

To stop my heavy drinking, could you tell me what steward means here? Reward: pöpcørn, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It means that Foliot administered the property of the Earl of Huntingdon. Eric Corbett 22:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

pöpcørn

So "Verwalter" (administrator, was my guess) seems right? Next: could you go over the outcommented parts and delete detail that certainly is not needed in German? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think my German's up to that Gerda, I'd probably just make a mess of it. I'm not sure that Verwalter is the best translation for steward as the steward wasn't just a regular administrator, he was placed in complete control of his lord's property in the latter's absence. Perhaps it more closely corresponds to Statthalter? Eric Corbett 23:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll think about Statthalter (Pontius Pilate the most famous). - You misunderstood my question, nothing that would require German. They "import", meaning the complete original article is there, with the history. Now, I'm not going to translate all of it ;) - you could delete in the hidden text all less important details, - take your time, I call it a day, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, it sorta means that. It was also an office ... he could have been the steward in the earl's household, since the earl was also heir to the Scottish throne and would have had a more elaborate household. (Probably best to ask the main author of the article for advice...) Given that this is the bishop's father we're talking about - it's a bit hard to say exactly what was meant by the term - it was a bit fuzzy at the time. If you just say that the elder Foliot was an official of the Earl of Huntingdon ... you're on safe ground. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, author! (see also, 16 Feb) I suggest Verwalter und Stellvertreter, - Verwalter is quite a strong position now. Possibly the Germans had a more specific term at that time, but it might not be understood. Should they (de-WP) have a little de-article on Steward (?), instead of a very vague description on a dab page? - Feel free to go over to the bishop and reduce as well (I was just too tired last night to also ask you.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

What about Truchsess (usually translated “seneschal”)? A similar office in the early HRE was that of majordomo or Haushofmeister. But Verwalter would probably be fine.—Odysseus1479 10:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Precious again, on the Main page. Reminds me to work on the translation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So I did, please check if I missed something important, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

$64,000 question...

Here's one, at Grus (constellation)...I have "100,000" and "64,000"...elsewhere in the article there is "3000"...should the last have a comma in it to conform with the others...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

The modern convention is only to use the comma for five-digit numbers and above, so I'd say no. Eric Corbett 23:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Aah ok. Bird articles seldom have this problem..but astronomy ones often do....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Eric’s remark above, but if it were me I would write the longer distances in kiloparsecs (respectively thirty and twenty—or perhaps abbreviated to 30 kpc & 20 kpc). As for the planetary nebula, I would prefer “three thousand”, in part because the distance is probably more like 800 parsecs, which converts to about 2600 LY. Bigger units make for smaller numbers, and more often suit the precision of the measurement. Imagine reading that a marathon course is “about 46,000 yards” long, rather than “about 26 miles“. Not only is the former figure harder to grasp, it‘s more ambiguous in precision. And if you were to measure birds in angstroms, your figures would be just as astronomical.—Odysseus1479 02:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pity we don't talk in megalight-years - feel a bit funny about switching from lightyear to megaparsec...feels a bit like flipping from metric to imperial mid-article.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not know this, although I see it in our MOS This Medical Transcription Desk Style Guide Reference agrees. I've been adding attendance figures to some tables, which are commonly over 1000 and under 10,000. I'll have to change my practice.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

Can you tale a look at what I am doing here [3] and answer the question in the edit summary. If you've the time, please have a look at what I've written, but not not too much time, as I shall probably alter it all again. DDima got it to GA and I have probably completely wrecked that, but he's looking over my shoulder with a kindly eye, and we are hoping for an eventual FA. Might it just appeal to you? It's in the Ukraine (the Crimea) and that country could certainly do with something that's good news! The plus for you is that it's too far off the beaten track for some of the other editors who like to "opine" architecturally!!!  Giano  19:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

On a google search most newspaper articles seem to favour 'Crimea' or occasionally 'the Crimean peninsula'. Richerman (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Richerman; definite articles and countries always trip me up; when I was small and learning English, Argentina was The Argentine, and it was definitely The Ukraine too. Funny how things change. I wonder if the Isle of Wight is still a the.  Giano  20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think most of the British are too sure either - I think, to be honest, either Crimea or the Crimea are acceptable. And it must be 'the' Isle of Wight - the Beatles said so :-) Now, perhaps you can tell me if mezzanine should be pronounced 'mezanine' as it is spelt, or 'metzanine' as in 'intermezzo'. Richerman (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Well I'm told that my spoken English is even worse than my written, but when speaking English I just say the "zz" sound. I always think the 'tzz' sound pretentious in English, but than I say 'pitzza' and 'metzzo' soprano, so I'm not consistent. If speaking Italian, it's definitely me't'zzanino. Giano (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

PS: I copied your sig; I hope you don't mind. I thought it was quite cool. I need a change of image. Giano (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Pretentious - moi? Of course you can pinch the style of my signature - I pinched it from someone, I think it was Parrot of Doom. Richerman (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh poor old parrot, there'll soon be a flock of us - all different colours. Thinking about the mezzanine, it probably should be 'zz' because it's a word derived from Italian, but not the same word; whereas mezzosoprano is the same word. I bet Eric has an opinion on this. Giano (talk) 22:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked it up and according to this, once again, either are correct. I suppose it depends on how pretentious you're feeling :-) I don't know what the world's coming to, you used to be able to rely on the Oxford dictionary for a definitive answer but now they tell you anything is ok - it's democracy gone mad! Richerman (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Funny how all the geographical terms are dropping "The" - so 20 years ago we'd still say and hear "the Ukraine" ("The Gambia" too?) and now they are all "Ukraine", "Gambia" etc. (d'oh, missed your post above Giano, that'll teach me to read more carefully else I come across as some loud person who talks more than he listens...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I probably notice language changes more than native speakers because something suddenly shrieks at me as being wrong (ie: not what I was taught). The latest thing was during the Olympics, why has the 'British Team' suddenly become 'Team UK.' I just sounds like something dreamt up by Tony Blair's PR people.......and that's another thing; why have 'staff' become 'people' as in "I will tell my people to do this" as though every business executive has become a sovereign. Giano (talk) 08:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sadly that is probably not far from the truth with some corporations having budgets bigger than many countries.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"The Ukraine" is apparently now a somewhat politically loaded term, since it mainly referred to a region of the USSR back when the USSR existed. So referring to it today as "The Ukraine" is sometimes taken as casting aspersions on Ukraine's current status as an independent country. I haven't seen similar things said about Crimea or Gambia, but I could imagine the same situation existing. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The world has gone crazy. Is The Netherlands still called The Netherlands? Eric Corbett 23:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ukrainians find “the Ukraine“ particularly galling because it means something like “the marches”, seeming to define the country by its geographic relation to others rather than naming it in its own right. (And its status as a province of the Russian Empire long predates the USSR, in which it ostensibly had more autonomy & cohesion than it did under the tsars–albeit little in practice.) There certainly are a great many politically charged place-name variants, though; it seems quite arbitrary that we now write Beijing and Sri Lanka–which were Peking and Ceylon for perhaps half my life—but not Moskva or Italia (let alone Bharat, Maṣr or Sakartvelo).—Odysseus1479 02:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have an article Name of Ukraine with a section discussing "Ukraine" versus "the Ukraine". Heh. Also I didn't know the term March (territory) (see particularly the "Russia" section). TIL. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Netherlands vs. Netherlands is often used quite interchangeably. The Wikipedia article is titled as Netherlands, but in conversation and lectures from my professors, there is a "the" in there. The reason this happens is because part of the world goes crazy, but the other parts don't. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Gambia is still in use too. In fact our article is Called The Gambia and says the official title is the Republic of the Gambia. Richerman (talk) 11:29, 1 March 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)

Help please

Eric, if you are available for advice, could you please help me out? I recently learned that the Saguache Crescent, a small newspaper in Colorado, is the last paper in the US, and perhaps even the world that is using linotype to set their type up for printing. We had a very small article and I expanded it a great deal. I don't write very well, but never the less I thought it was so interesting and at least fairly well written that I wanted Wikipedia to honor the Saguache Crescent by listing it in the "Did you know" section. I've never submitted an article before.

At this time it is being considered and the use of "The end of an era" and the phrase "All the news..." is considered not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I'd like to keep them, however it may be that all the sources were done in sort of a lighthearted manner, and that may have influenced me to do the same. Please let me know what you think as I trust your judgement as the top authority. Gandydancer (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It is my best guess that most of the editors here that write similar work were fairly good at it before they came to Wikipedia. I'm just the opposite in that I have never been able to write very well and the work that I do here usually involves a great deal of angst. On the other hand, just because I can't write does not mean that I don't recognize good writing when I see it. When a good copy editor comes along and improves something I've written, my heart just sings. Eric, I've been following your writing here for some time and when I'm writing something I'm always thinking, "Oh, I wish Eric would tell me how to write this..." and wish I could ask you. Of course I don't actually ask you for help, but this time, due to my new attempt at a "Did you know" article, I needed the best of the best to convince me that the criticisms about my choice of wording were correct. Thank you, thank you for your help. Hopefully once the refs are fixed it will be ready. Gandydancer (talk) 14:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The references are fixed, so it looks good to go now. Just one thing though. The masthead clearly shows that the paper is called The Saguache Crescent, not Saguache Crescent, so I think you ought to move it. Eric Corbett 15:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels

Welcome back. Today I started Winter flooding of 2013–14 on the Somerset Levels but it was a bit "thrown together" as I thought we ought to have an article on it - if you fancied taking a look at my poor grammar etc that would be great.— Rod ^talk 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit tied up with Enid Blyton right now. Eric Corbett 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

No worries -although I'm having trouble getting my head around Enid Blyton bondage.— Rod ^talk 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a section I've yet to write. Eric Corbett 22:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview

Hi, Eric Corbett. I'm working on a minor college assignment where we have to write a report on a community, and we needed to interview some members of that community. Basically, I'm trying to figure out how articles are created and improved to become some of Wikipedia's best articles. I saw you're one of Wikipedia's top contributors to featured articles and was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few questions about your involvement with and how the article development process works, particularly concerning the ideas of discussion and consensus. Anyway, I put the questions up here. It's totally optional, but if you're willing, feel free to just add your answers to that page. I would really appreciate your help. Thanks. Stj6 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Stj6: As your project requirres you to talk to "some" members of the community, I wonder why you have only approached one editor? PamD 06:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I technically only need two for this project, I was hoping to get a content-creator and an administrator, but more input can't hurt I guess. I have a second set of questions drafted that are angled toward the administrative side, but haven't had a chance yet to post those. If you want to participate, feel free to leave your answers there too I guess; any editor's opinion is welcome. I couldn't think of a better way than asking editors individually, but if there's a community page that's relevant, I'm all ears. Stj6 (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In that case you could interview Eric and Gorman at the same time in a face off on content vs adminship :-]. On second thoughts, probably not a good idea...♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be a great idea: Eric and Kevin, who worked on the article on a philosopher who wrote An Ethics of Dissensus. I would love to watch ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• What about content creators who are administrators? What few there are... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose I could just argue with myself then....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Considering your RL line of work, I don't think that's a safe path to go down... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay there's an administrator set now here if someone wants to answer as an administrator. I think there's only one question that's different, but whatever. Any help would be appreciated. Stj6 (talk) 08:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Do you want people to write on their own subpages, or? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I figured they could just edit my subpage. I was only planning on having one person for each set, but if multiple people want to answer you can either mark each answer with a signature or recopy the questions further down the page or use your own page, whatever works. Stj6 (talk) 08:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, I've left you about 750 words. Hope it helps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
      • It's great, thanks so much. Stj6 (talk) 09:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In your study of WP community I'd think you wouldn't want to leave out the role and issues surrounding subcommunities (i.e. WP subprojects). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Agree. You don't necessarily have to interview, either. Check out the Signpost. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

<knocks repeatedly on door> Malleus! Malleus! Come on, Malleus, we know you're in there!

If you're reading this, Mrs Fatuorum, erm, Dr Corbett, could you possibly wake up your husband? There's a crowd outside that want to talk with Eric, and for blessedly once it appears they don't have torches and pitchforks. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• So you want to write a report on my opinion of WP's community? I don't think so. Eric Corbett 14:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
• POPCORN! Who has the popcorn?? Montanabw^(talk) 18:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I gave the impression that the report is focused on your opinion specifically. The report is on how Wikipedia develops articles to become a successful encyclopedia. My thesis is that this is achieved mainly through collaboration, discussion, and consensus. I'm using a variety of research, such as outside sources, observations of talk pages (does anyone know of any article talk pages with a good amount of collaboration?), and interviews. Truth-be-told this is just for a really minor first-year composition class project that basically nobody will ever read, and it required two interviews. Anyone's opinion isn't the focal point of my project, I'm just using it as one of many sources to support my thesis. Stj6 (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's some time ago but have a look at talk:Peterloo Massacre and the collaboration that took it to FA. Richerman (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre is definitely the best example of a successful collaboration I've ever been involved in here at WP. I'm still amazed at what was achieved in just a few weeks. Eric Corbett 22:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that was the Greater Manchester Wikiproject's finest hour. Richerman (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This talk comes to my mind: Talk:1950s American automobile culture, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Are you looking for a counterpoint to that thesis? I'm sure we could all give you a link to that (Talk:Information technology and Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness [see the archives] come to mind). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Capitalisation question

Eric, Would you (or any of your talk page stalkers) have any MOS guidance about the capitalisation of rock types? At Talk:Wookey Hole Caves#Another look a question has been raised about the correct form for Dolomitic conglomerate, Carboniferous limestone etc in the article Wookey Hole Caves. Any advice or edits appreciated.— Rod ^talk 20:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Those examples are different: Carboniferous needs the capital because it’s the proper name of the geological period in which the limestone was deposited, but dolomitic is derived from the common noun dolomite, referring to the mineral content of the conglomerate, so should not be capitalized.—Odysseus1479 20:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - copying your response to the article talk page.— Rod ^talk 20:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AN/I Notice

FYI: [4] Vox Brevis (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Strange. A totally new account is created and so far its only action is to post a complaint about Eric which was dismissed in short order. Obviously this "new" user is anything but a new user, and could quite clearly be a sock for some other user. If that doesn't begin to seem at least like a (disruptive) SPA then what is it?  DDStretch  (talk) 22:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

That's very unfair. The new account has actually managed an impressive four edits which is easily two more than they needed to bring Eric to a screeching halt and get him banished forever into Outer Darkness™. One edit actually puts a nice Virgil quote about, ahem, integrity on their user page, so, I mean, that's good, isn't it? Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Missa Brevis was moved to Missa brevis, the expert Latin Vox should shortly follow, - a trumpet is pictured now here, to return the wishes, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

"brevis" it was, and gone the above-mentioned "Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito." - Quantum potes tantum aude, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Not strange at all, a commonplace occurrence, and one we're all expected to put up with. Eric Corbett 23:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather than mucking around with "VE", perhaps the dev team should develop software that would charge $0.50 per post on AN/I. The budget for the fundraising banner department could probably be eliminated completely. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I think there ought to be a graduated scale, as my scalp is surely worth more than 50 cents. Eric Corbett 00:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree on it being not strange at all. After a bad block that that left two administrators with egg on their faces, I was accused of being Kumioko's sockpuppet or Kumioko being my sockpuppet. The editor who did that of course didn't get blocked for his idiotic accusations. I'm just supposed to put up with it and administrators like Orlady who are clueless about what constitutes WP:NPA....William 00:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The predicted outcome of the AN/I case

For your information: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sock_puppetry_by_an_admin. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I believe we know the probable outcome. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, the result was decided fait accompli by our betters before the 'principled' post was posted. Rather like the Arbcom case was hurriedly swept away so as not to give Gorman's new paid appointment negative publicity. The surprising thing is that we continue to be surprised. Giano (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am not surprised that no one saw fit to stick a feather up my arse for that block. And to think that I even thought about it for a moment, as if there were any doubt about the editor's intentions. I think I'm going to make a habit out of blocking new accounts run by people who are obviously too smart for their own good, and this new "Crown Regent of Wikipedia" should be first. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling all prose-warriors

Well, I think I (somehow) kicked an own goal. The externaliser in me would just blame it on being esoteric and being quiet...but the internaliser in me wonders whether the prose was less than riveting and yet I am all out of ideas - all input welcome at the post mortem....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What to do

I've been away for a bit and am rusty, but recent events have inspired me to do a bit more around here. Is there an article you'd like to see improved, something with a bit of murder and torture perhaps, or some good old 18th-century weirdness? I'd like to fix Elizabeth Brownrigg as she sounds like a real nasty piece of work, but I'm as yet undecided. Parrot of Doom 21:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see you back. Baby farming springs to mind, lots of murders going on there, notably Amelia Dyer. Eric Corbett 21:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I could do it in record time, ready for 1 April. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it as a potential April 1 candidate, but FAC is terribly slow these days. Eric Corbett 21:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Amelia Dyer was a renowned Victorian baby farmer, one of the most prolific of her generation. Born in Pyle Marsh, she became an apprentice corset maker and later trained as a nurse, a gruelling but respectable position in Victorian England... Parrot of Doom 22:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

• Right, I'm spending the day searching through JSTOR to begin with, seeing what I can find. The BMJ appear to have been very heavily against the practice, there's a lot of editorial from them. Parrot of Doom 16:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  There's obviously an awful lot of work needed on that article. Eric Corbett 16:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  I'm not even going to bother with what's there, I'm starting from scratch. Parrot of Doom 16:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  A wise choice I think. Eric Corbett 16:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  I don't suppose you have reference 65, from Wife selling? Parrot of Doom 21:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Do you mean our wife selling article or Kaldari's piece of shit? Eric Corbett 21:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  I meant the linked citation, I thought you might have something similar, having written the real deal... Parrot of Doom 22:18, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Sorry, I don't have the Menefee book. Eric Corbett 22:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

  Having just read a case where a doctor, presented with a toddler who had very serious vocal chord inflammation, diagnosed the cause as being the result of the child being locked in a room when a baby and allowed to cry almost continuously, completely ignored, for close to a year (the vocal chords had separated as a result and were just flapping loose) - I'm wondering if this is "funny" enough to be a 1 April article. I shall persevere... Parrot of Doom 22:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I've never thought that 1 April articles need to be funny, just unbelievable. Think of wife selling for instance. Eric Corbett 22:20, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

  (talk page stalker) It's only brief, but I wondered if this could be helpful? Cassianto^talk 22:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Ewa Ziarek

The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Calling stalkers

Anyone here interested in providing a peer review on another race horse article I hope to take to FAC: Mucho Macho Man. I need both horsey and non-horsey eyes on this to see where I may need to improve the article. Please feel free to give it a very critical eye; I will most certainly get a critical eye at FAC and would prefer to fix any obvious problems before I get there. The peer review request is here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Mucho Macho Man/archive1 . Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:18, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If you'll take a look at my Enid Blyton PR I'll take a look at your horse. Eric Corbett 21:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm on it. Montanabw^(talk) 01:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of Blyton you may be interested in this Eric. Richerman (talk) 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting, thanks very much! Eric Corbett 00:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

If I look at Blyton, will you try your lead artistry on BWV 172? (Thanks for recent edits in the matter, I had to defend one of them.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Can't speak for anyone but myself, but I will. I'm coming to the conclusion based on the comments so far that the Blyton article is a crock of shit, so I wouldn't recommend wasting your time there Gerda. Eric Corbett 17:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Not in the least; she's really quite fascinating; just needs a bit of work to get to FAC, don't be discouraged! Montanabw^(talk) 02:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked and commented a bit, Fünf Freunde müsst ihr sein ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know Eric, Tim riley gets a huge amount of comments at peer review, and his articles are usually top notch. I think it's probably a good thing to get such a response. Thanks Gerda for taking a look at it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

By the help of more than five friends (some mentioned above), the spirited cantata is now a FA, but improvement of the lead's flow would still be appreciated ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Found a third-party source for why that horse kept stepping on his own feet, and more details on the solution, can you pop over to the PR and see if I have addressed your concerns? Montanabw^(talk) 22:30, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Eric and anyone else interested, I have "Macho" at FAC now if anyone is interested in either reviewing or watchlisting the review. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 20:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"?

Can you help with this question at Talk:Somerset Levels#"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"??— Rod ^talk 13:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As it's a single area I'd suggest that is is correct. When a place name ends with an "s" it often seems to cause confusion; I see that the Himalayas article has exactly the same problem. Eric Corbett 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to be guided by you - but there are several areas each named as the X Levels (and more technically some of the areas we know as the levels are "moors").— Rod ^talk 14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm reminded of an area close to me called Chat Moss, which is similarly made up of a number of "sub"-mosses. But because it's not called Chat Mosses there's no singular/plural confusion. What it basically comes down to is this: is the term Somerset Levels the name of a single area or of a collection of levels? The capitalisation suggests that it must be the former, otherwise it would be called the Somerset levels. Eric Corbett 15:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to put your thoughts at Talk:Somerset Levels#"The Somerset Levels is" or "The Somerset Levels are"? as there are now several others involved in the debate, each with different ideas.— Rod ^talk 15:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Already done that. Eric Corbett 16:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Oi've orlways used arrr, but that's Wessun usage. Could refer to the style guide in "Krek waiters peak Bristle". Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Some curry for you!

A curry to you................................here. Hafspajen (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Manchester

Hi Eric. Just FYI, the next Manchester meetup is on 23 March (a week on Sunday). I still have Drmies' money, with which I'm instructed to buy you a pint if you can make it. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to be away on holiday that week, Sunday isn't a good day for me anyway. Eric Corbett 18:08, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Murdered people on display for fun

Wow. I was genuinely repulsed when I linked to and tried to assimilate that Snuffsters site. It seemed astonishingly immoral to me. (Hard to believe someone would make such a site.) And later when Kaldari said he was "proud of it", well ... that response was nearly as unbelievable as the site. Now Jimbo on his Talk seems to say anyone having reaction like mine is faux, or that I have some agenda for said reaction? The site is identified as "parody of Friendsters", and indeed I believe it is/was, but, I never ever saw Friendsters before (have never gone to that site) so for Jimbo to identify the site as parody as a preface to making his comments about some of the responses to it ... doesn't that fall into just those who would have that "insider's information" (as there was no footnote I'm aware of on the site explaining same). (I guess my point is that it seems defensive, and unreasonable, to defend Kaldari by starting off with essentially "Why did you get upset over a simple bad-taste parody" when I think there would be a limited circle of people of all those happening upon that site to even know or understand that fact.)

I sensed that your reaction was of genuine disgust too, not faux, and not the kind of disgust Jimbo is mocking, i.e. disgust over a bad parody.

(In other words [because am having difficulty expressing myself I think], if someone told me I'd be seeing a site that was a parody of Friendsters site, and showed me Friendsters site first, then perhaps I'd have the reaction Jimbo seems to think we all s/ have [i.e. "Hey, that's a parody OK, but not a great one, and not very funny either."]. But that would be the only scenario I can think of where Jimbo's admonishment makes some sense. [He thinks we can be genuinely shocked, then after-the-fact undo the reaction, by thinking "Oh! ... Didn't know that. Now I get it. Eh. Not funny."? Are our emotions supposed to be like computer tape, able to be re-written!?])

Am just trying to make intellectual sense of this. (It's possibly my first-ever criticism of Jimbo, public or private.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

My disgust centred on the fact that the site featured the murders of real children; only a moral bankrupt could see that as just a bit of innocent fun. Eric Corbett 00:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Whatever, you, I, he, she or it may think of that site, I can tell you now that attempting to make Jimbo condemn it is a waste of time - he won't - now or at any time in the future. He obviously likes Kaldari and that is that. Per my edit on his page yesterday - nothing is going to change, so accept that's the way things are, and make the best of it on Wikipedia, or spend you hobby time elsewhere. I am one of the site's biggest battlers, but one has to pick one's battles and know when there's a good chance of winning and beleive me, on this one there's no chance. Trying to convince Wales otherwise is a lost cause. To right thinking people, that site and its contibtors are repugnant, but because you can't change things here, you must either give Kaldari the benefit of the doubt and get on with your own things, or if one's moral conscience forbids that, then for the sake of your own sanity you should go. Sorry this sound blunt, What I'm saying is, although J Wales' failure take a stand has, in my eyes, damaged us all and the project: "what can't be cure must be endured." Giano (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

List of National Trust properties in Somerset

I've been doing some work on List of National Trust properties in Somerset, including trying to copyedit some of my prose, and have found some of my sentences in the descriptions are overly long and complex, but I'm having real problems clarifying and shortening them. If you (or your talk page stalkers) had the time or motivation to make any improvements that would be great.— Rod ^talk 21:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Cancer pain

I wrote this a couple of years ago, and I'm still noticing fuzzy thought and poor expression and punctuation. Would you like to run your expert eye over it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. I'll have to refresh my memory of whether you're friend or foe. Can you give me a few links to where you've helped me? Eric Corbett 16:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Delicious Smoked Herring!

	Røget sild!
	I think you've earned some scrumptious Danish smoked herring. Duke Olav Otterson of Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Please do not attack other editors, as you did on User talk:Sagaciousphil. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Corbett--"bog snorkler"? Has thee lost thy marbles? You cain't go round sayin' shit like that! Mr. Administrator and Civility Enforcer (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even know what a bog snorkler was, but I know now. Eric Corbett 19:41, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You just said it again! Drmies (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Well F*** it all, Eric you C***! What a M***** you are to use such language! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 01:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what a bog snorkler is either, but I'd bet it's a damn sight better than a snog borkler..."GJC 16:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

What is the plural of cannon

I'm currently working on Wellington Monument, Somerset and there is a long story about military guns for the site. One source I'm looking at says "cannons" and the other "cannon" even when talking about 24 brass guns. Does MOS (or you as my preferred expert) have any thoughts?— Rod ^talk 20:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Should obviously be cannons, but there's a lot more wrong with that sentence than just singular/plural. Eric Corbett 20:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec) My Concise Oxford English Dictionary says "cannon" for the plural. Similarly "Cannon to the left of them, cannon to the right of them." [5] Or was that just poetic licence? Bencherlite^Talk 20:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(ec)English Heritage NHLE listing agrees with you (cannons) but Byford (the book I'm currently reading, uses cannon. Which sentence{s} have I mashed as there is a while paragraph on them?— Rod ^talk 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Poetic licence. Eric Corbett 20:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

(tps) Rod, I think the general consensus is that there isn't a general consensus, so you should probably use whichever you prefer (as long as you do it consistently). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - I think I had come to that conclusion (particularly following the posting of this link on my talk page which suggests "The unchanged plural is preferred in Great Britain and Ireland, while North Americans tend to use the regular plural cannons") and therefore a couple of hours ago I standardised it to include the "S".— Rod ^talk 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Judging by the quotations in the OED, even in British English the plural of 'cannon' is 'cannons' if you simply mean 'several guns'. However 'cannon' is also used as a collective noun meaning 'artillery' as in the Charge of the Light Brigade 'Cannon to right of them, cannon to left of them'. John O'London (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Jenna Jameson

I looked through the day's edit history, and noticed you have made quite a few recent copyedits to improve the article. Thank you. It is appreciated.--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another thing I noticed in that same history - those "In XXX she did this" sentences that you consider grounds for removal of FA status - you know who added the most recent ones? Harizotoh9. The person who nominated the article for FA review. :-). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 04:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to see the article delisted, but some of those who've commented so far need to start listening to what they're being told, or it will be. Eric Corbett 12:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you are referring to my co-respondent, so to speak, in the plural. We are mostly anonymous here, but I do not think he is a crowned head of Europe either. From his signature he seems to be a cowboy, which is a legendarily valiant breed, so he can not be expected to be ... as meek as a mouse, shall we say; but I do think that his heart is in the right place. As is yours, oh former hammer of fools, as you have shown by your help. Thanks again; you are one of the best wordsmiths in this place, and I especially appreciate it when that wordsmith's hammer is used to craft a plowshare rather than a cutting sword. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:45, 21 March 2014 (UTC)