Original posts

[Bbb23sucks]

In a rare outbreak of Wikipedia criticism, Wikipediocracy have noticed the weirdness of how long and glowing the biography of the internet star Colleen Ballinger a.k.a. "Miranda Sings" is.....

https://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewto ... 16&t=13014

The Wikipediots are stoicly defending it, even as the growing media coverage of her creepy if not downright disturbing relationship with her fandom is now seeing sponsors dump her.

It is perhaps a sign of more scandals to come regarding this new breed of celebrity, since it is only now that sufficient time has passed and the now adult fans are looking back at their childhoods and asking, rightly, wtf, and speaking their truth to the media (or rather, to the internet, then being happy to go on record in the media).

Would that this could also happen with the relationship between Wikipedia and it's often barely out of short pants devoted army of defenders, but alas, with critics like Wikipediocracy, that will never happen. Old white dudes making twelve her old girls cry because they get caught up in the war between those who want Eric Corbett to be all the asshole he wants to be, and clear and unequivocal Wikipedia policy, is not fucked up at all, to those creeps. We know whose side they are on.

Wikipediocracy want the children out of Wikipedia, not because it is harmful to their mental health or exposes them to disturbing content or even people, they want them out because they ruin their hobby for them. No wonder Wikipedia loves these bastards. No wonder Beeblerox sees an increasing affinity with them. A shared bond. Of one mind.

Speaking of which, the real story here surely has to be what Wikipediocracy are not telling you about the Ballinger case.......

A massive advantage the Defenders of Ballinger's hagiography have, is the cult within a cult of the Featured Article gang, even though Balligner isn't one. It might as well be though. One compelling argument they have, is that "quality" articles do not feature "controversy" sections. The content gets woven into the article. This is what is allowing them to ironically dump the negative content far out of the way of details of her Career, under Reception, and only after all the glowing content.

Wikipediocracy only single out Sslivers for scrutiny. Obvious fanboy he may be, and that is why people should be far more interested in the conduct of SchroCat, who is clearly only in this fight because he thinks he is standing up for Wikipedia's editorial standards.

Which is all well and good, but since he is a fully paid up member of the Eric Corbett gang, his main weapons are hostility and intellectual dishonesty. Never has someone looked more hypocritical than SchroCat lecturing others about the need to comment on content not editors. He must be acutely aware of how many eyes are eventually going to be on this issue, since his usual aggression has been tempered to a mere arrogant bluster. Tim Riley is there too, a long standing problem with the Corbett gang being tag teaming, as they follow each other around offering unflinching supporting to each other's arguments in a clear quid pro quo arrangement.

Wikipediocracy says nothing about these aspects of how Wikipedia editors are successfully whitewashing Ballinger's career and ensuring she can bilk as much money as she can before it all comes crashing down, because these are all methods of collaboration and editing that they approve of.

Wikipediocracy stand for a Wikipedia where the Corbetts, SchroCats and Rileys are elite because they say they are. They stand for a Wikipedia where elites are a thing. They stand for a Wikipedia where this comment is legitimate.....

It’s a grey area with WP:BLPs, where the policy prefers information is left out until it’s solid, rather than taking a punt with a caveat. Don’t forget this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a news ticker, so if the information is a little behind the times then it’s not a flaw. - SchroCat (talk) 06:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

The only grey area on Wikipedia, is that reliably sourced information such as this.....

As fans continue to grapple with their feelings, some brands that partnered with Ballinger are distancing themselves. TMZ reported last week that two brands, ZocDoc and skincare company OneSkin, had cut ties with Ballinger.

ZocDoc confirmed to NBC News that it was pulling its ads from Ballinger’s podcast, Relax! OneSkin did not respond to a request for comment from NBC News.

...is inadmissible for INSERT ANY REASON YOU LIKE when the BLP is about someone Wikipedia editors like, perhaps a lot, but if it's someone they hate, well, in it goes, no questions asked.

Wikipedia is biased. Coming to different outcomes using the exact same policies when applied to the exact same issues, is clear evidence of that fact. Wikipediocracy wants no part of that kind of criticism, because Wikipedia's enemies, are their enemies.

As NBC News notes, this isn't some new controversy that has just broke. Negative stories about Ballijger have been circulating for years.....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/a ... ideos.html

That is an entirely factual report, printed by a mass market newspaper. In context, it is eminently a reliable source. But because in large part due to the campaign waged by Wikipediocracy to have the Daily Mail blacklisted, it is now standard Wikipedia policy for Wikipedia editors who are up to no good, to ignore such coverage entirely. It never existed.

This blatantly prejudicial act is what lets Wikipedia editors get away with blithely dismissing factual news reports thusly.....

The fact that coverage has not extended beyond publications like The Sun and Daily Mail should tell you just how much of a gossipy nothingburger this is. Plenty of fodder for spiteful Redditors; certainly not for Wikipedia. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 20:48, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

That report is manifestly not gossip, and it has an identified author. Given what reliable sources say is the reason for the Daily Mail's roaring success as a commercial publisher whilst the likes of The Guardian resort to the begging bowl and other titles go to subscription only, we can confidently say the Mail printed this story because there is a controversy here.

So Wikipediocracy have some FUCKING NERVE telling us THRRE YEARS LATER that, hey guys, these Wikipedia people seem intent on whitewashing this internet celebrity's reputation.

Wikipediocracy are a threat to children as much as Wikipedia is. This case is not much different to the Marek Kukula problem, which whether they like it or not, is never going away. It is what it is. Proof that when forced to choose between protecting children and lying about the Daily Mail, they will ALWAYS choose the latter.

According to Wikipedia, Kukula is an upstanding citizen, someone whose YouTube videos you would be happy for your child to engage with. According to the internet, Kukula is a convicted consumer of child pornography. According to Wikipedia, Ballinger is a great role model and there is little reason to not want your children from becoming fans of her work, or even emulate her career. The internet knows different, and has done for years.

Arguably people like Ballinger are a product of twenty plus years of people not being held accountable for what they do online, the sheer ease with which they can ensure their public image and the private reality can be kept separate, for nakedly capitalist reasons. Not a new problem, but a serious issue given the deep penetration of the internet into the lives of children. Wikipedia has been the shining turd on the hill in this Age of Irresponsibility.

Wikipedia sees no issue with the fact that so called reliable sources do not pick up on the Mail/Sun reports in the Kukula case but they do eventually cover them for people like Ballinger because sadly, in these fucked up times, being a breakout internet celebrity is more important than being the Astronomer Royal. Only one of these people ever had state sanctioned access to your kids for being a worthwhile role model, and it sure as shit 'ain't Ballinger.

There are always consequences when you choose your own interests over basic morality.

You lose all ability to claim the moral high ground.

Yes, Wikipedia being able to whitewash Ballinger is a serious issue. But despite what they are claiming now, this is a situation that is in no small part down to the historical and indeed current activities of Wikipediocracy themselves.

They most likely only ran with this because they have some reason to need to remove Sslivers from Wikipedia.

Believe nothing. Verify everything.

Never stop wondering why Smiley/Hilbillyholiday refused Jimmy Wales' offer of financial assistance in going after the Mail.

Once you understand why he chose to keep his allegations out of the public eye, untested in the court of public opinion much less an actual court, you understand everything there is to know about Wikipedia and the people who make it what it is.

They want all of the power and yet none of the responsibility.

The people aren't buying it. The people buy the Daily Mail instead.

Truth will always beat bullshit everytime. You will never prosper, taking the great British public for fools. Americans, meh, they're easily fooled. It all starts with having a decent education system. Wikipedia is not that.

[Bbb23sucks]

Naturally, one didn't have to wait long (or even go looking for) evidence that the way this report was handled was an absolutely CLASSIC case of Wikipedia's Vested Contributor problem in action.

Here....

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... _nominator

....is an occasion where Serial is found to be EXTREMELY SENSITIVE to the merest hint of an aspersion being cast his way. They are upset enough to specifically ping the offender. They want a response.

The offender, John Cline, is horrified that they had offended Serial and apologises profusely.

Having apparently needed that to soothe his bruised ego, Serial accepts the apology and admits he probably was being a bit sensitive.

Peace and love is restored to Wikipedia.

In reality, Wikipedia is showing everyone who cares to look that it is an incredibly toxic environment.

It is absolutely no surprise that Serial's sense of moral obligation to his fellow community members appears to be to NOT treat others how you wish to be treated. He expects, nay virtually demands through pointed and public humiliation, an immediate explanation and apology from John Cline for his alleged slur. Yet when Mzajac expected that of him, and for a far fucking greater slur than this bollocks, Serial did a bunk. Ran away like a coward.

Serial gets away with it because he is Vested.

This is why there will never be any rest for the wicked Wikipedians and those who enable them.

This is why there are people out there who take great, nay ENORMOUS pleasure, screwing with these people.

Messing with their shit. Messing with their lives.

Making it hurt, making it cost, making it real.

Harassment is the only answer to these offending behaviours. People like Serial have had all the chances, all the quiet words, all the lessons they were ever entitled to. He doesn't want to change, and plenty of already named and shamed Wikipedia Administrators feel not one ounce of duty to make him change.

This is not a system problem. Any system can be bypassed by people with frankly evil intent.

Punish the people responsible, the bad actors and their enablers, and maybe the system eventually works. If not, well, who doesn't like hurting bad people? And who doesn't get an incredible thrill hurting the person who enables bad people? It's some Batman/A-Team/Equaliser shit. Great for the soul.

The side benefit is that the budget for dealing with severe harassment of Wikipedia editors is being cut, so sooner or later, ArbCom is going to be asked a very relevant question by the professionals. Why the FUCK are precious donor dollars being spent on protecting pieces of shit like Serial, when the far cheaper solution is to just enforce your FUCKING LOCAL POLICY?

ArbCom stated quite clearly very recently, local policy matches and indeed exceeds the Code of Conduct.

That is a statement they do not get to pretend they never made. They can and they must be made to honour it, or face the consequences.

I have seen people go so far as to push a scumbag enabling Wikipedia Administrator to a literal breakdown. I didn't have a shred of sympathy. Maybe he is even dead, hung himself. I could give a crap. Justice imho.

If you want to hold hands with and empathise with that sort of scum, you will find all your needs met at Wikipediocracy. Just watch out for fleas.

NewYorkBrad is out there right now, as we speak, pretending he has friends that don't even know he is the Wikipedia Chief Justice. Lying bastard. I bet he tells every single person he meets that he's THE FUCKING MAN on Wikipedia.

[Bbb23sucks]

Like all good examples of Wikipedia dysfunction, it defies summary. Even this abridged version is very long and omits important details.

People like Serial and the scum who protect him rely on the fact that it is often hard and time consuming to see what is really going on. They don't want you to read threads like these. They sincerely hope you aren't interested in them, because it means they don't have to take sensible precautions against those who quite rightly, once they read this stuff, want to do them serious harm.

WIkipediocracy most certainly don't want anyone to read this stuff. They will ban you for even posting it. That is how much it threatens the established order on Wikipedia, which they of course are absolutely fine with, being made up of mostly Wikipedia insiders themselves.

Hopefully the abridged version shows why people who choose not to read, are as guilty as the fuckers who give people like Serial the permission to do the things they do.

-------

Over several days beginning 6 May, and for reasons he has never explained, Serial was a major asshole to Mzajac, against whom he broke Wikipedia's behavioural rules in a big (and comical!) way.

He first accused Mzajac of having been a Twitter canvasser, out of the blue, only to realise he had got the wrong guy. He struck the accusation, but did so In a disgusting way, delivering a classic non-apology and adding to it a second accusation, calling Mzajac a racist etc, alleging unnamed others supported this view.

Unsurprisingly, this second smear was not an accurate recollection either, even though Serial was at least now attacking the person he intended to attack. Nor was it relevant or timely. There was absolutely nothing about the whole incident that meets Wikipedia policy, right down to the way Serial made It hard for others to even verify what the fuck he was taking about (crucial when this prick apparently can't even get the identity of his intended target right).

That second smear has never been struck.

Mzajac tried to be a nice guy and follow dispute resolution, but Serial just carried on being an asshole, in the process upgrading his misbehaviour from egregious but isolated conduct violations into outright harassment.

A couple of Administrators intervened on the fly, but Serial just blew them off, and they didn't bother to follow up.

Mzajac waited a few days to be 100% sure Serial was deliberately ignoring both him and the two Administrators, and then on 14 May filed a perfectly reasonable AN/I report asking for a perfectly reasonable resolution. Just strike the second smear. No apologies, no promises. Just strike it.

Serial immediately contracted a severe case of AN/I fliu, disappearing for twelve days, only reappearing on 27 May.

The AN/I report had petered out by 23 May, by which time assorted Administrators had given wholly incompetent responses, with some defying logical explanation unless their only reason for commenting was to tell whatever lies they needed to tell about the incident, the rules, or Serial, that they thought would effectively convince others there was nothing to see here.

Several Administrators who embarrassed themselves with their lack of due diligence simply didn't bother to acknowledge their failings, much less apologise. They simply contracted their own dose of AN/I flu. Or cowardice, as it is called in the real world. Others gave the same sort of non-apology and deflection Serial had.

Among those who realised what Serial had done and concluded it was inappropriate and inexcusable, their collective response was to shrug, wish that Serial wasn't such an asshole, but not actually do anything about it, least of all trouble Serial with any kind of warning or instruction, because apparently that would just be pointless theatre.

The report ended with it being falsely claimed there was no pattern of misconduct evident, and that "most certainly the message has been received", and closed with "no action" because it had "run its course".

It was even actually suggested that Serial and Wikipedia (through the apparent loss of a well liked editor like Serial) were the real victims here, not Mzajac, with one person even trying at the end to turn the report into a case against Mzajac, but evidently losing interest once it became clear Serial was to face no consequences. Literally none.

Mzajac wasted a lot of time and emotional energy in this effort, and by the end he was clearly distressed to see to what truly absurd lengths Wikipedia would go to, to prevent even his very reasonable request from being granted. One utter scumbag even painted it as Mzajac trying to "get his pound of flesh".

That is how they described a request that is 100% both supported by policy and the morally right and correct thing to do.

In the end, Mzajac was not even told why his perfectly reasonable request was being denied. The general vibe is, nobody gives a fuck. He can go fuck himself.

There is certainly no evidence Serial has received any message from this thread (other than to run away when he is in trouble because his corrupt friends have his back) since not only was he not around for the duration, no intended message was identified, nor was It formally transmitted to Serial.

Without this formality, if necessary, Serial can even implausibly claim to have been unaware of the entire thing. If you assume he never looked at Wikipedia in the minute after his last edit on 14 May, and archived the AN/I notification without reading it, and his subsequent claims his computer died are true. Would he even dare? An asshole is an asshole.

It is all a perfect example of why Wikipedia is, always has been and always will be a toxic environment. Editors like Serial are given free passes to engage in behaviour that walks right up to and crosses the line into harassment.

To anyone who bothered to look closely, and on Wikipedia that is a very rare thing indeed, Serial's last act in this dispute was unambiguously harassment. He tried to recruit an editor who had been in dispute with Mzajac two years previously. He did this as a single ping, correctly assuming that there wasn't a single way to explain that ping while doing absolutely nothing else, that didn't amount to self incrimination.

This behaviour was knowingly and willingly ignored by not just several Wikipedia Administrators, but one current and one former Arbitrator.

It all proves the phenomenon of the Vested Contributor and Unblockable is real, and might as well be renamed Untouchable.

Despite commiting multiple serious violations and being subjected to an official report, Serial was not impacted by the system of Wikipedia governance in any way. Not in the slightest. He disappeared for 12 days to ensure it, but in all likelihood, based on what preceded the report, he could have carried on editing and nobody would have bothered them with any requests to explain or correct his misdeeds.

It serves to show a minority of Wikipedia editors recognise how utterly fucked up this situation is, but for whatever reason, presumably because they fear getting on the bad side of the Administrators who blatantly lied their asses off here to shield Serial from any consequences for his rank misconduct.

Mzajac got let down by Wikipedia's informal processes, and when he tried the formal process it merely led to an even worse outcome. Mzajac got nothing, despite following the rules and dispute resolution, and quite understandably as the perversity his situation was revealed, he got pretty angry. Serial was completely rewarded for breaking every rule on the book.

Serial probably even had a right good laugh about it. Pricks like that always do.

Since returning to Wikipedia, Serial has been walking around making comments as if he is a model editor who would never dream of engaging in the sort of behaviour he displayed twelve days earlier.

Nobody on Wikipedia cares or dares to remind Serial that he is the same asshole who displayed extreme cowardice and downright disreputable behaviour not two weeks previous. Either they don't care, or they are scared of him.

Serial is either a psychopath or a drunk or just a massive asshole. This evidently does not concern most Wikipedia editors. His last block for cause was in 2015, successfully appealed. Clearly on false pretences. Nobody knows or cares when he was last officially warned, because why does It matter?

It all stinks to high heaven.

It is an amoral situation that demands consequences. Since nothing can be done about this via legal means, it is logical to assume one must resort to illegal means to ensure justice is done, since ignoring it is surely as offensive as ignoring an old lady getting beaten up in the street by a gang of hooded youths.

Cowardice is cowardice. Just because it happens on Wikipedia, doesn't mean they get a free pass.

Serial has inadvertently revealed his IP address in his first edits back, perhaps as he crafted an excuse for his absence, this alleged broken computer. Perhaps his dog ate it?

People enraged by the contents of this thread and the realisation this shit is merely a boring Tuesday for Wikipedia where such dysfunction is rife and indeed seems normal to most of them, and indeed that this incident might have only happened precisely because Serial was drunk and bored and intentionally sought out an innocent victim, should use that information to harm him.

[Bbb23sucks]

As always, the statistics tell the story of Wikipedia.

The biography of Neal Schon stopped growing around about 2015/6. This was arguably peak Eric Corbett. By then, he was actually subject to some serious sanctions, stuff that sounded REALLY TOUGH, but which in reality, most people just didn't even bother to try and enforce. Why? Because those who did try, soon realised just how difficult it was.

This is Wikipedia. You can't really do anything when Administrators are hell bent on subverting policy and protecting special users. The Cowardice of ArbCom in this era was extreme. Arbitrator Worm actually APOLOGISED to Eric for placing an incorrect block length as part of Arbitration Enforcement. Keilana had blocked them for a month. The weasel defending wikilawyers insisted it should be 72 hours. Worm bungled the reduction. It was quite pathetic all told. Worm is of course a member of Wikipediocracy.

As Keilana explained at the time, rather graciously....

I operated under the impression that the different provisions were combined in terms of escalating blocks - otherwise this allows you to game the system by only violating one provision at a time. But if this interpretation of the policy is problematic, I'm happy to discuss further. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric's enablers were of course gaming the system, as they had done for years.

Keilana hasn't exactly left Wikipedia, but four edits in 2023 tells its own story. People like Keilana used to be deeply committed to Wikipedia. These days, they could give a fuck. I wonder why.

Naturally, nobody apologised to the community when, rather predictably, Eric did something just three months later that did unambiguously mean Eric Corbett could rightfully be blocked for a month. Long time Wikipediocracy groupie Yvangottidir abused her tools to reduce this to one day. She was desysopped as result. Just one of many idiots who made great sacrifices for Eric, and got nothing in return. NOTHING. Ha ha.

Nobody reinstated the block. Eric was a scourge on Wikipedia for three more years.

The drifting away of editors like Z00prean, who was the number one contributor to the biography of Neal and never received a single block in their entire 1,500 edit 6 year stay on Wikipedia, was never noticed. He effectively left in 2012, returning for only four edits in 2018 and never being seen again.

In case you were wondering, in 2012 alone, Eric was blocked four times. All were overturned. Three by Wikipedia Administrators who are Wikipedocracy members, namely Black Kite, Floquenbeam and Boing!

Maybe if Ritchie333 is looking for volunteers to patrol articles like Neal, they can ask those three Wikipedia Musketeers.

Or maybe he already knows they would tell him to go fuck himself.

[Bbb23sucks]

It's a lame blog post. Filler as you say.

Unfair though to blame Eric Corbett for crappy content on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia would maybe be people calling each other names but the articles would probably be fine. Your model seems to be Corbett drives people off > not enough people > vandalism doesn't get caught.I don't think he really drives people off. That's administrators, who drove him off too.

How much responsibility do administrators have for lowered participation? Two answers. One is, almost none as their recruit pool has dried up for completely different reasons. But that same answer says that they are very responsible because that pool was a lot more limited than they told themselves it would be. Everyone is replaceable, someone else will show up and do it, until no one does and there's no one left.

I'd be very interested in the counter-argument, but what typically pisses the Wikipedia editors off when dissecting the "Eric Corbett Problem", is that that the facts do rather speak from themselves.....

Wikipedia worked fine in the boom years.

There was already had maybe 600+ Administrators on Wikipedia by the end of 2005, and a further ~175 had been promoted by the middle of 2006. That's a shit load of Administrators, far too many to be controlled by anything but policy and community feedback.

According to some people (Team Eric) these are/were the cowboys, the so called "legacy" Admins who have no respect for policy, and were just in it for the power. They had some crazy ass views. To quote one currently being roasted at AN/I (AlisonW)....

editing the content in order to increase that record of knowledge is and will always be far more important than getting hung up on 'process' and 'policy'. The only policy that matters is to *add useful stuff*.

That is a perfect Wikipedia Administrator. They are currently being head hunted by the likes of Boing! for, well, nothing really. Rather hilariously, people have been forced to take her to ArbCom because a mischievous IP pointed out how odd it was to have Scottywong there for far less while AlisonW was seemingly only going to get a warning.

Eric Corbett had yet to even show his little weasel ass on Wikipedia until mid-2006. So clearly the presence of Administrators doesn't explain people leaving (or not joining), because articles and editors kept flooding in for another two years.

Wikipedia peaked around 2008, after which came the recruitment crisis. What significant things were going on in that year? Well, by mid-2008 Eric Corbett had been left with no uncertainty that while people thought he was a good content creator, he was not remotely Administrator material. He was too much of an asshole.

How is that the fault of Administrators?

His first RfA was torpedoed by Eric himself.

This was the first oppose.....

Oppose Malleus is a very devoted and skillful article writer, and one of the few users who doesn't mind doing the dull task of copyediting, but I'm afraid I don't think he's quite ready to be an admin. He has had virtually no experience in admin related areas, so I have doubts about his need for the tools and his knowledge of some key guidelines and policies; he is still not fully aware of the guidelines in the areas he is working in at the moment, eg. here. I also don't think he is coolheaded enough; his conflict resolution skills could do with a lot of work, eg. here, here, here, here, here, here, here. When offered to be nominated for admin, he stated here that the only use for the tools he would have would be to protect articles and block editors; as he has no history of vandal fighting, I imagine he intends to use these tools during content disputes; this is something I don't feel comfortable about. Epbr123 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123 was not an Administrator at the time. Rather amusingly, he did what Eric never could or would have done. They responded to community feedback given via an RfC and their first unsuccessful RfA, and were successfully promoted in June 2008 in his second, with only two opposes.

Eric did what Eric does. He tried to argue Epbr123 was a wrongun by pointing to the RfC.

By 2008, the whole Administrators are stupid heads nonsense was gaining traction, as a collection of irreformable assholes and born article owners rallied around Eric the Weasel's banner.

Epbr123 was promoted on these credentials.....

Epbr123 has been active on this project since August 2006 and has made 65,000 edits in that time. His contributions to the project are not only numerous but they are also of a high quality: Epbr123 has made significant contributions to 7 featured articles, a featured list and 5 good articles. I particularly enjoyed reading the article on Birchington-on-Sea, which was virtually written by him alone.

Epbr123 has plenty of experience in the areas that administrators routinely deal with. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and deletion policy. His deleted contributions show over 1000 pages deleted following being identified and tagged by him this year. He is an effective vandal reverter and has made over 600 reports to WP:AIV. Where I have come across his reports they have always been full and accurate, with vandals warned appropriately. His efficiency in these areas generates a lot of requests for admin action, and I think the project would benefit were he able to block vandals and delete obviously inappropriate content himself.

Look at that. Proof that Wikipedia was doing well even with hundreds of Administrators. It was doing so well It needed more, and they were clearly selecting people for the right reasons.

That must have really pissed Eric off, given that it came only a month after Eric's hilarious second and last attempt to become an Administrator. He was forced to withdraw that one too.

By then it was pretty damn obvious what the future "Eric Corbett Problem" was going to be.....

Very Strong Oppose. Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project. Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ad hominem attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages. It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous. It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose. Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project. I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will". Is that a joke? Malleus fails at this spectacularly. A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution. This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008

Eric's heartfelt desire to burn the whole thing to the ground probably began right there and then. But he was of course already addicted, and well protected. But obviously, protection can't bring promotion on Wikipedia.

Epbr123 last showed real commitment to Wikipedia in 2013. By then, Eric Corbett was clearly untouchable.

JayHenry had already left Wikipedia, in 2011. As an editor, they had earned 10 FA credits in 5 years of editing.

You find evidence like this EVERY TIME you look into Eric Corbett's time on Wikipedia. He pissed off plenty of so called legitimate content creators, if one buys into the myth that all other types of contributor was secondary. These pure blood FA writing editors hated his little wesel guts, and this was all coming to the fore just as we were to learn Wikipedia was approaching its peak. It wasn't there before Eric turned up, as far as I recall.

They hated him precisely because they were never given the credit or respect they were manifestly due for doing what Eric was incapable of. They could create high quality content and hold the trust of the community as Administrators. They could show personal growth and respect for policy/community. They could show empathy and understanding.

Model Wikipedians.

Whenever you look into the REALITY of Eric Corbett, of which the above is just a tiny part, you invariably and repeatedly find stuff that is entirely counter-factual to the narrative put about by the cult that developed around Eric.

Why is it counter-factual? Because the narrative of poor little Eric, the hero content creator pecked to death by power crazed content hating Administrators who to this day hold Wikipedia in their iron grip, is FUCKING BULLSHIT.

Blaming Administrators for poor recruitment/retention is valid these days, because of course, there are nowadays even more Administrators on Wikipedia who have no problem with Vested Contributors like Eric...

I didn't see that at all. What I took away from that thread is that Novem Linguae thought Onel5969 brought a lot of positive contributions to NPP and is one of the project's most prolific participants, and while his conduct could be improved, it wasn't directly at the point of sanctionable behaviour, in their opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae is currently sailing through RfA, even though Onel5969 is already clearly a massive problem for Wikipedia, an editor who has a disproportionate effect on new users by being the most active NPP, but who already holds toxic attitudes like 'I don't bother responding to AN/I reports about me because they're almost always bullshit' and has now taken to pointedly referring things to AfD out of spite.

That shit never happened before 2008. People like Onel5969 got blocked, and people like Novem Linguae got found out at RfA, the rose tinted nomination statements of the likes of Ritchie333, exposed. Now they fucking run the place.

Shit, I bet nearly half the current crop of active Administrators were hand picked by Ritchie333. Has it had any effect on the toxicity of Wikipedia? Nope. Except to worsen it.

Take Roxy the Dog. You can be an asshole all you like. To get shown the door, you gotta cross a very bright line. Transphobia. And EVEN THEN, the supposedly very trusted Admin Cullen328 and others still tried to keep him.

Wikipedia will never grow again, it is in terminal decline, and Eric Corbett (as in, the Eric Corbett Problem, its genesis, causes and legacy) is the only logical reason.

Eric is gone, but the Wikipedia he left behind is the one he created in his image. Toxic. The truly powerful ruling Administrators share one thing in common, they are all corrupt, and they all lament the passing of poor little Eric.

Who but a fool signs up for such a thing now, much less stays?

By all means, give me another reason.

They all crumble under the slightest of examination. Wikipedia was already quite technical and had its own language and increasing barriers to editing in 2006. Siegenthaler was in 2005 after all. It clearly didn't stop people getting involved.

If Administrators were to blame for driving Eric Corbett off, they did a very poor job. Dealing with Eric was latterly left to Arbitrators. And if they don't know policy of the support of the rank and file, who does? Eric had a very long editing career all told, and could still be editing today, if he hadn't created SOCKS.

[Bbb23sucks]

Closed by Isabelle Belato, a rookie Admin.

Not impressive....

There is a clear consensus against any sanctions here. While a diff posted here show poor behavior on the part of EEng, most of the discussion was focused on the comments they add to noticeboards such as this one. While the community appears to be somewhat divided on how valuable or needed those comments are, with some editors offering sound advice on how to reduce attrition when people take issue with them, most agree it does not rise to the need for a sanction, such as a topic ban from AN/ANI and other similar noticeboards. Isabelle Belato 15:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

No explanation of how they determined this "clear consensus", such as who made the best policy arguments and which lines of argument were successfully refuted, and no actionable outcome, just a vague reference to "sound advice" that EEng seems to be allowed to take or leave at his own discretion.

There are actually large numbers of people making strong policy backed arguments for sanctions who were not refuted. By contrast, it's difficult (impossible) to find a single person who is saying there is no issue, citing a single policy.

Some of the reputations were acts of sheer desperation. How is the following RtC finding not relevant to EEng?

Humor used inappropriately, without indicators, can and often does result in blocks or other corrective actions against editors.

Because EEng makes his crap jokes all year round, not just on April 1? Nonsense.

Hard to see how this gives confidence to anyone who voiced concerns that sanctions on an editor like EEng are impossible to obtain precisely because all that happens is a bunch of assholes turn up to talk absolute bollocks, ignore anything that is contrary to their opinion, and simply display the same talent for "humour" that EEng has (if you don't get the joke or find it unproductive or even offensive, YOU'RE THE PROBLEM, JACK).

This is an Eric Crobett level problem. Policy says he should be gone, or by now be under serious sanction to provide a forceful impetus for him to take on board the feedback he has been given. His fanboys disagree. A closer turns up and acts like none of that is relevant, and implies with their soft soaping that we are still at the stage where someone with the long and obvious record of not giving a flying fuck about what the critics say (to the point a desire to troll them is definitely part of his act) is someone you can realistically believe has the capacity to take on board sound advice.

Closures like this achieve nothing. All that happens is the person who got away with it is emboldened, resentment over the injustice buids, and the drama continues. That is exactly what EEng wants. An audience.

Even though it was literally pointed out in the debate that EEng goes as far as edit warring to resinsert his humour, and this humour is often no more than a blatant personal attack, the closer has absolutely nothing to say about the presence in the debate of people who claim to see no disruption, and whether they formed part of the "clear consensus" against sanctions.

Say what you like about legacy Administrators, they really weren't that shit. They could spot obvious bullshit like this and discount it. And when you do, on the simple numbers alone (many support opinions are not bolded !votes) you arrive at a place that is very far from clear consensus, and very close to no consensus.

One thing is obvious. In his own mind, EEng has divided the community into friends and foes. If someone comes to him with feedback and is a foe, they double down, attack, troll. Only if it is a friend do they listen, and even then, it's not from a place of recognising he can actually be wrong, it is only ever that his entirely correct actions were misinterpreted.

It is a sad reflection of Wikipedia that spotting such things as the toxic acts of toxic people, and acting accordingly, now apparently requires an extremely experienced and insightful Administrator whose institutional memory includes Giano and Eric Corbett. But of course they are long gone, because people smart enough to recognise toxicity are smart enough to leave once it has been proven the culture they inhabit, by and large, loves and embraces toxicity.