User talk:Eric Corbett

Checking unreviewed FAs

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

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

FA review

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

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

Donner Party article

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

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

I know, dude, that's why it wasn't capitalized. So, Eric, you going to answer my questions and help me out, be a productive member of the community, etc. or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.6 (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tough choice, but I think I'll go for "or what". Eric Corbett 19:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly Mr Corbett is not productive in an encyclopedia :P Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Grossly offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement Request 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(EC) Oh, boy. I guess the AE guys and gals have decided that Eric is clearly against women. :/ Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I tried to speak to GorillaWarfare from woman to women, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

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

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

---

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

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

It appears consensus wasn't at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett to do any action. How do you reconcile the block with the outcome of the discussion? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

another questionable action? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've asked her at her talkpage to explain why she is blocking against consensus at AE. GregJackP Boomer! 03:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An uninvolved administrator can enforce the topic ban without going to WP:AE, which is what I've done. Eric can of course appeal it via the standard channels. But calling the result of that AE discussion consensus against enforcing the restriction is a bit of a stretch—out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop, and all of the discussion was either a jab at the requester, disagreement with the sanction itself, or general commentary. Not a single comment addressed the content of Eric's edit, and whether it was a violation of his restriction from "making any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed," which it clearly was. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The comment there doesn't fall anywhere near a gray area; it was a clear violation of Eric's edit restrictions. This is a good block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes we must stop clearly non harmful comments. I see it all so much more clearly now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

He has edit restrictions, and he deliberately flaunted them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Gee, I'm sorry that all of us non-admins bothered to put our opinions out there. Should we have raised our hands and asked for permission first? I have difficulty remembering that mere editors are not supposed to have an opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 03:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your comment, like everyone else's there, did not address whether his edit was a violation of his restrictions. AE is not the place to decide the scope of the sanctions that the Arbitration Committee imposed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You said: "out of the nine commenters, only one is a sysop", which would lead one to believe that those (sysop/admin) opinions are the only ones that matter. That is a completely inappropriate attitude for an administrator, much less an ArbCom member. Of course, since I'm only an editor, my opinion does not matter. Nor, I presume from your comments, do any of the other seven editors opinion matter. GregJackP Boomer! 03:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

No, non-admins regularly contribute to AE in a very meaningful way. My comment was a note on the makeup of the commenters—only one other than the closer would have actually been able to action any sort of block. My concerns about the opinions there is that they had nothing to do with whether Eric's edit was a violation of his restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, I can see that now, that non-admins are valuable and make meaningful contributions. Unless, of course, they get in Javert's way by recommending a less than draconian response. My concerns is that you completely disregarded the views of the nine that weighted in, and the admin that closed it as no action. While it is clear that you are untouchable on the issue, it doesn't make it right. I am aware of Eric's restrictions, I'm aware that it was a technical violation, as, I'm sure, were the other editors involved. We just don't believe that it merited a month-long block. I'm going to drop this now, but I sincerely believe that you disregarded the views at WP:AE and did what you wanted to do anyway. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

So the substance of the action is overlooked? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The substance of the comments made. Did it cause a problem? Was it disrespectful? Did it make anything worse? No, it didn't cause a shit storm until it was blown out of proportion. Sanctions should make sense, how did this? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

We've already seen there are varying views on whether it was problematic or disrespectful. What we have not seen was anyone saying that Eric's comments were not a breach of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What we have also not seen is an impartial examination of the comment before you blocked. If you are making the justification that you did it on the principle and not the substance it would make things easier for anyone involved to realize you did it because you could. It was an excuse, you had no real reason other then you saw it and a line that was crossed that hurt no one gave you the excuse to follow what you think should have happened in the GGTF case. It helps grease the way to that path and you can help nudge it. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Before you go any further I am absolutely confident this block was in response to actions causing greivous harm to both the encyclopedia and its community and is entirely unrelated to GW's displeasure with Lightbreather's upcoming siteban and the arbitrators who support it. 166.177.187.29 (talk) 04:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been prohibited from comments on that subject, no comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the way to get brownie points with Mr Wales and his campaign against articulate content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• What a fucking joke! GorillaWarfare, can I ask what the good is in asking for "statements from..." at ArbCom, establishing in a consensus, and then ignoring it and doing what the hell you like anyway? You've seemingly stuck two fingers up to the people who have posted there and have done what you wanted to do in the first place. Does this kind of bullshit make you feel big? Cassianto^Talk 07:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm perhaps not understanding your question. We ask for statements at ArbCom cases to help reach a decision. Eric's restriction was implemented almost seven months ago, is this what you're objecting to? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I meant AE. Sorry, I don't understand the process as I'm a content creator (so expect for me to be blocked pretty soon too). Did you you not read Cas liber's post above? As far as I can see we had a dozen people against any action and you went ahead and blocked Eric anyway, devoid of the consensus at that page. My point is what is the good in asking for people's statements when you have no intention of following a consensus should it form? Cassianto^Talk 07:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

yeah but its about the forth time Eric breaks the same topic ban since it had been imposed ... it s not like he did not know what he was getting into. At this point it is all but too clear he is asking for a break - so it s not really surprising he does get a break - is it? ChristopheT (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Your response is appreciated, but it was not directed at you. It was directed at GW which she is still yet to answer. Also, I found your response to be incoherent as I don't know what you mean by "break". Are you suggesting Eric asked to be blocked? Cassianto^Talk 08:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I was asleep. I did read Casliber's comment; this was a direct reply, though edit conflicts may have made that less clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eric broke the rules, no question about it, but any sane system allows for discretion and that is what people are getting pissed about. The block is a peculiar application of the first-mover principle: while admins will overturn closes, they won't usually overturn blocks and GW, who is manifestly involved and policing for the sake of policing ion this instance, knows it. Just look at this removal today of a post that had stood of the PD page of an arbcom case since 21 June. Apparently, despite it being clear that many arbs etc are watching that page, GW decides that the comment is trolling. She had not been particularly active since the thing was posted but, boom! that others were active and left it alone seems to count for nothing. I suppose there may have been exchanges about it on the arbs list but it looks prima facie like a unilateral decision that lacks consensus simply by dint of the comment's longevity. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure why my strike of a comment on an arbitration case is relevant here, but I've replied there. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretion for t and ibans is for ambiguous cases. If someone is banned from American politics, makes a comment about Obama, but strikes it, them discretion is required. But there is no room for discretion for unambiguous violations. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears from the comments of the blocking admin that this block, which is against the consensus at the AE request, is a punitive one. The comments in question was on the User's own talk page and in no way was a disruption to the project. When I saw that request in AE page I wasn't familiar with the original sanction, and why it was imposed on this user. But it struck me as odd that an AE request was filed against such a minor breach. I don't disagree that it was a breach, but I don't see how this in any way can be seen as disruption to the project. In short, the block was against the consensus, disregarded the AE decision itself and was in violation with Wikipedia sanctioning policies. I still don't know much about the original sanction, or whether there is an ongoing feud among editors and admins as it has been suggested above, as one of the commentors in that AE request, I felt obligated to follow up. Darwinian Ape ^talk 09:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban applies to any talk page. Breaking the same rule 4 times is not not 'random' or 'unlucky' or 'minor' - it demonstrates determination & intent. ChristopheT (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The jury, passing on the prisoner's life, May in the sworn twelve have a thief or two Guiltier than him they try.--MONGO 09:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that you are helping, CT. Remember User_talk:ChristophThomas#Eric Corbett? - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, though, I fail to see how this sanction could improve Wikipedia, or how this minor breach was disruptive in any way. And I don't know the nature of his past violations, but if they were similar to this one, they should not have required a sanction either. Darwinian Ape ^talk 10:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

And how does blocking Eric for a month help us exactly ? .... I get he's topic-banned from GGTF but christ blocking him over a little comment is a bit OTT .... Everyone pretty much disagreed with the report at AE yet he was blocked regardless anyway ..... If this isn't a punitive block then I honestly don't know what is!. –Davey2010^Talk 10:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I see that my tenure at Wikipedia is finally over, as obviously I won't be back once this block expires. Eric Corbett 10:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a profoundly stupid system --Epipelagic (talk) 10:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Fuck. There goes at least one Good Article I was contemplating. Thanks for nothing GW, what a fucking pointless, arrogant exercise this block is. Nortonius (talk) 10:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick head's up, your block is being reviewed / appealed at WP:AN#Arbitration enforcement, the limits of WP:INVOLVED, and (inevitably) Eric Corbett Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare claiming to be uninvolved is one of the more ludicrous statements I've seen in my time here. This also points out one of the problems with that whole "broadly construed" framework. It's effectively a shoot on sight order. Intothatdarkness 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I very much respect Eric's content work, and in that sense it is a truly considerable loss if he actually has retired. However, I'm neutral on the GGTF issue, and I don't consider myself to be a part of the "Eric Corbett fan club", so my perspective on this particular issue is that of an uninvolved editor. Eric's comments above is somewhat brash (but then, I don't think anyone would disagree that such a thing is common with Eric). The issue of whether or not it violates the scope of the topic ban is a difficult issue. He did not once directly mention the GGTF or the gender disparity. However, I suspect that his link is what is being used here. The said link takes you to a thread about the Ally Skills Workshop. The thread is hosted on the Gendergap mailing list, but I don't believe that simply linking to a thread on a mailing list which is generally about the gender disparity obviously violates the topic ban. Also, the workshop mentioned in the mailing list thread does not mention the gender disparity or the GGTF, while the workshop itself does not mention any direct relation to any of those two topics either; it simply states that it is supposed to teach men how to support women. The only possible violation committed by linking to that thread must be very vague. Now, if he had made a comment boldly and obviously mentioning the GGTF and/or the gender disparity, the block would certainly be justified per the ArbCom sanction. (I will not state my personal opinions on the said sanctions, though.) Thus, I feel that this particular case is much too vague and borderline to warrant an official AE block by an admin who has clearly been involved with this topic before and has shown strong opinions concerning it. My opinion is that Eric should be unblocked and the AE case reopened, where it will be left open until multiple uninvolved admins comment. --Biblioworm 14:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  And my opinion is that that will just give GW two bites at the cherry. Eric Corbett 13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ARCA route

FWIW, I suggest that you go to ARCA & attempt to get your talkpage exempted from your GGTF Arb restriction. GoodDay (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You may trust ArbCom but I don't; such a request would very quickly turn into a proposal for a full siteban. Eric Corbett 13:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Wheel-warring by GorillaWarfare and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 04:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, did you have any comments that you wished to make at the ArbCom case? I would be happy to relay them for you, if you wanted me to do so. GregJackP Boomer! 18:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I will simply say this.

I have absolutely no idea how anyone could believe that a comment of mine, on my own talk page, expressing criticism of a WMF grant, could in any way be considered to be in breach of a sanction prohibiting discussion of:

"(i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed."

That's all I have to say about this gross abuse of power on the part of GW, who has yet to explain her reasoning or admit her bias. Eric Corbett 12:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Having been emailed about this biased and vindictive abuse of power, all I will say is for God's sake Eric, leave this silly, horrible bunch of misguided Americans, mad women and politically correct sycophants too write their own bloody encyclopedia and get a better life elsewhere. Giano (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sound advice, I'm sure, but it's what I'm afraid of.[2] Nortonius (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• If you really dislike the GGTF, why don't you ignore it? Remove all the GGTF-related pages from your watchlist. What's the point of continuing to get yourself in trouble for saying things which will likely never change anything, but rather simply get you blocked? It's really like trying to pedal a bicycle in the air while expecting that you'll actually move. From the perspective of the GGTF, I think it would also be best if they did exactly the same thing. I'm not saying that you not be involved in any discussions, but is it really that difficult to abstain from one topic? You have repeatedly stated that we're here to build an encyclopedia, and I'm unable to see how getting yourself blocked once every two weeks or so furthers that goal. --Biblioworm 15:21, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eh? It is nothing to do with GGTF. It is WMF grant-making. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Quite. This is a unilateral extension of my sanction by a clearly biased arbitrator. I fail to see how anyone can find that acceptable. Eric Corbett 15:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think the block is under (iii) of the ban quoted above, extremely broadly construed. I'm less concerned about the block than about the process, the duration and the involvement. You knew it was dodgy to say that, Eric, even if the ban is in fact manifestly extreme. Do you even bother going near Enid Blyton nowadays? The way these things are abused might even make it dodgy to contribute there, especially when people are stalking you to death and pulling you up over the most trivial things. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• That you're uncertain is because GW has failed to provide any rationale. There was no mention of the GGTF or gender disparity in the grant application, or in the posting I linked to, and neither did I mention either of those issues. But if we're going to have "broadly construed" tortured in this way by a single biased arbitrator then I wish you luck in your efforts here. Eric Corbett 16:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) Or, just try to avoid anything remotely related to that topic. (Grants, mailing lists, etc...) You should know by now that an AE case will be posted very quickly whenever you write any comment that may have the slightest relation to the gender gap. (That is how I interpret any sanction with the condition "broadly construed".) As I have said before, I have no opinion about, or interest in, the gender gap topic itself, but I'm just taking simple observations concerning sanctions... --Biblioworm 16:19, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• So what was the relation to the gender gap? Eric Corbett 16:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• As GW mentioned in the diff which she linked a few minutes ago (now removed), you linked to the gender gap mailing list. --Biblioworm 16:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• In what sense is that a "discussion", no matter how broadly construed? You may consider it to be a discussion, but it wasn't one I had ever taken part in. Eric Corbett 16:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• (In response to your edit summary, it's not my personal opinion; it's the opinion of the arbs who enacted the "broadly construed" sanction. While I actually might agree with a ban from directly mentioning said topics, I think simply linking to a discussion on a mailing list that has "gender gap" in its name is stretching it too far.) Doesn't your sanction also specify that you can be blocked not only for participating in a discussion about the said topic, but also making any edit related to it? Anyway, I'm finished here. --Biblioworm 16:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I don't believe it does. If GW wants to extend it in that direction then she ought to go through the proper channels. Eric Corbett 16:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• [This isn't really in response to you, but to other people who might read this page.] I don't see what it matters if you discuss the gender gap on your talk page. It's not like you're harassing women - far from it! You don't understand why feminist ideals are important to many people, and that's OK. You received two thoughtful replies and could've had an enriching discussion. Forget about the letter of the law, and forget about its spirit too - what purpose does this block serve? Alakzi (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• It serves the purpose of escalating things towards an indef. That's what the vindictive people want. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• I think that's true, one more step on the path. Eric Corbett 17:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• And the solution to this passive-aggressive nonsense, as someone has already pointed out, is to simply avoid GGTF-related subject matter entirely. And then perhaps at least a few of those Eric-obsessed folks might devote more of their spare time to (gasp!) creating content -- which is what we are all supposed to be doing here, n'est-ce pas? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 17:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• +1. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Really?[3][4] Nortonius (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

In case it wasn't clear, I was plusing the "passive-aggressive nonsense" sentence. It's really easy for Eric to avoid drama and blocks, but that's all he seems to want. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:47, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Hm. I don't want to prolong this, but ... really?[5] Nortonius (talk) 10:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that article work and drama mongering are mutually exclusive. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you think that.[6] Nortonius (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• And what might the remainder of those folks do? (Attend WMF courses implying women need "help", and all men are dicks without special training how to "help" them?) IHTS (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Yep, Eric, and the pushes tend to come from people who wouldn't know how to create a decent article (sometimes indeed any article) if you gave them one to copy: they seem to be here primarily to police other people, on some sort of power trip. I know that mandatory sentences do exist for certain breaches of the law in various parts of the world but in civilised countries most breaches incur punishments that have a degree of latitude, based on circumstances etc. This place - which has a whole crowd of robotic, slavish, vindictive people acting as judges, witnesses and informants - tends towards the more totalitarian approach even though we're not dealing with offences of murder or drugs or rape etc.

  Your comment was a minor thing, as I think has usually been the case, but because they want you gone, they turn it into something big every time. Despicable, really, and I don't think they realise how many good people have already left or seriously wound-down their efforts here precisely because of this methodology. That was deserving of a 24 hour block for a technical transgression; people don't have to apply an escalation.

  Don't reply to this, Eric. I can see a further punitive block being engineered from it. I'll buy you a beer some time. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Alakzi, you said, "You don't understand why feminist ideals are important to many people, and that's OK." I'm not looking to split any hairs here, but I've seen no evidence at all that Eric does not support "feminist ideals". He has said many times that he believes that both men and women should be accepted on their merits, not on their gender. As a women and a feminist myself, I am quite familiar with feminist thinking, and that is exactly what women have been asking for throughout the ages. It is Wikipedia that misunderstands what the "feminist ideal" means, largely due to the recent string of the opinions of a few editors who have represented themselves as authorities on feminism. Gandydancer (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, let's just say they've got a different conception of feminism; it doesn't really take away from my point. I apologise if I've mischaracterised Eric. Alakzi (talk) 19:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, a degree of sense is beginning to emerge. Although the block settings have not been altered, Adjwilley has said they will reduce it to one week. That's kind of what I meant about using discretion and common sense etc, rather than simply escalating because you can. No admin has to block and no admin has to escalate. - Sitush (talk) 20:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps not. Courcelles is telling Adjwilley that the block cannot be modified due to lack of a clear and substantial consensus. The fact that the block was inappropriately placed and so presumably void doesn't seem to matter, nor does it matter that consensus is that the "offence" was trivial in nature. This makes a nonsense of things: ArbCom seems now to be the tail wagging the dog. - Sitush (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arbitrators seem to have a very inflated opinion of themselves and the importance of their role, one I don't share. In truth though one month or one week makes little difference to me, so there's no need for Adjwilley to stick his neck out. Eric Corbett 21:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

... seems now? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

• Eric, I bluntly advise that you stay out of gender issues for the time being. Cool off. Tony (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Be sure to only use "it" as a pronoun, and under no circumstances whatever use "he" or "she" or any related sexist words as "broadly construed" per se may fall afoul of the topic ban <g>. Collect (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Taking liberties ....

Eric, I hope you don't mind but I have taken the liberty of adding your latest FA, which was promoted today, to your user page. Thank you for all the work you do on improving content, some of us do appreciate it; I'm sure readers do too. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thanks. Eric Corbett 15:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Despair (alt: Piss off)

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

I concur that there is a serious disconnect between the content creators and the drama-mongers who haunt the various "drama boards." That said, please don't belittle people's sincerely held beliefs as "political correctness," as one person's "PC" is another person's serious issue. There is a major difference between US and UK editors on these issues. That said, I'm with you on pride and self-perception. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Some UK and some US. There is at least one in the GGTF fold who claims to be from Manchester; there are several self-declared women I know of from the US who simply have no truck with the drama-mongers who frequent and/or sympathise with that aspect of the "PC", which is at the heart of the present Ae/ArbCom kerfuffle. I agree that it does seem in large part to be a cultural divide, and I'm afraid that the US will "win" for various reasons related to systemic bias, but it is by no means a clear cut situation. - Sitush (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but the very term "politically correct" is basically a bludgeon that is used by conservatives to attack liberals, and seldom the other way around. It is often used to justify racism, sexism, and flat-out bullying. When someone suggests that a behavior or phrase is not appropriate, they are shut down by being accused of "being PC." Now, you know that I generally support Eric in spite of his significant lack of "PC" because I understand that he just can't resist poking at the pretentious. But that doesn't mean that normally we shouldn't at least clear our throats and say, "ahem, it would be wise to rephrase that." And I've said as much to Eric from time to time. But I say it with respect because I realize that there are issues of ethnicity and culture that differentiate him from me.(I linked to the Confederate flag issue as an example in this thread because it's one where people who suggest it not be displayed as a symbol of southern heritage have frequently been accused of being oversensitive and being "politically correct," but recent events have changed a lot of minds...) Montanabw^(talk) 07:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness I've missed this Peter, but catching up it seems the one of easily offended has indulged in yet another round of spiteful, playground finger-pointing leading to hours of wasted time and effort and drama. Looking for trouble isn't the way to improve the encyclopedia or close the gender gap, quite the opposite. These women and their pc supporters don't encourage me to contribute and are more likely to drive me away. Like Peter I have relied on Eric for help, which has always been freely and generously given and I haven't seen such petty spitefulness from any of the men I've worked with although I can see there are several who carry enormous grudges. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Unblocked

Per the (lack of) consensus on the admin's noticeboard (permalink), I have unblocked you. I would like to encourage you personally to stop paying attention to anything related to the GGTF and its mailing list. Nothing really good can come of it. Only drama will happen. Good luck with your retirement, or whatever you choose to do. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Not now, chaps. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:01, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Um Reaper, by unblocking an AE block lacking consensus to do so, you just realized you resigned your admin bit, right? Unless I'm drastically missing something... Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Um, no, GW didn't have consensus to block EC after BK's action to close the discussion at AE. She had to have consensus to block after an admin action at AE. The rule is clear on that, and only an admin can close at AE, so it is an admin action. GregJackP Boomer! 04:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC) While Reaper Eternal's reading of the consensus was slightly different than mine, I think their rationale was better thought out. To actually take Reaper's bit one would have to prove that there was consensus at WP:AN to leave the month-long block in place, since a WP:AN discussion with such wide participation far outweighs the actions of a single admin. Yes, one could make arguments that there wasn't a "clear and substantial consensus" to unblock, but by the same measure there was even less consensus to leave the block in place making it a grey area at best, and both closes agreed that the original block was out-of-process. I guess what I'm trying to say is what's done is done, and the less we can draw this out the better. Taking Reaper to Arbcom is only shooting Wikipedia in the foot. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC) Reaper overturned what he knew was an AE block without consensus. Gorilla was clear she was acting as an admin and not an arb; she was equally clear it was an AE block. Reaper may have thought that Gorilla had also violated policy, but he has still just violated one of the only red lines arbcom has ever drawn. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC) There are a bunch of people who see it differently, who see GW as the one who created the mess by not seeking consensus to overturn an AE action. I read it the same way that Adjwilleyy and Reaper do. GregJackP Boomer! 05:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC) And if Gorilla's action was wrong, there were other paths of recourse. You need solid consensus even to overturn a shitty AE decision. This is codified policy. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC) He had consensus. Didn't you read his close at AN? GregJackP Boomer! 06:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Today's Sunday sermon is about mercy, -shameless invitation to a GA review. What is correct is not always right. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
  • For someone who explicitly and deliberately broke his edit restrictions, knowing what drama would ensue? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a very broad concept, in the article also translated as compassion, and based on The Mote and the Beam, (quoting from our article: warning ... of the dangers of judging others). It's here sometimes translated to AGF (do you know Eric's translation of that?). I have been to AE. Someone reporting there knows what "drama would ensue" and has the option simply not to do it. Someone could also have said here on the talk: "I assume in good faith that you didn't mean this edit as a breach of your restrictions, but it may be misunderstood, - perhaps revert yourself or rephrase." I suggested in the arbitration request that such an approach should be recommended in general, to avoid a lot of drama on the noticeboards. - Thank you Ritchie, for offering a GA review! - Hi, Eric, sorry for speaking about you instead of to you, but it's a forum ;)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• [7] Cut the BS, Ed. IHTS (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• I log on today and check my watchlist to find a very sudden change of events. I personally agree with the unblock, for the reasons I have given above. But if you do return to editing, Eric, please be careful and avoid making any comments that could be in any way related to the gender gap, or perhaps, as Tony advised, anything gender-related. If for no one or nothing else, do it for Reaper's sake, since she may very well be desysopped by ArbCom for this, and it would be quite a waste if you were to simply get yourself blocked again. --Biblioworm 14:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

Therefore, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

((Very) personal comment.) Heigh Ho! Here we go! Again and again and again! What a waste of time and energy. Is this an encyclopedia or a battleground for personal campaigns? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As on any battleground, the sane option is to advance rapidly to the rear. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I now bring good tidings of great joy! If everyone minded their own business and stopped going around starting dramah (I'm not targeting anyone in particular), Wikipedia would be a much better place. Besides, unless it happens to be a controversial topic, I've found that working on articles is the most peaceful and relaxing thing you can do here. In fact, I regret my previous attitude toward "content work", since in a typical newbie fashion I imagined that there were no more interesting articles to create or work on. --Biblioworm 14:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, bringing a cantata about the mote and the beam to GA. Arbitration looking: let's see if a beam is found? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

GA now, thanks to Ritchie who even worked on it on his birthday! - I recommended to read The Coral Island. What do you read now, Eric?--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Eric. I just wanted to let you know that I've just removed you as a party from the case. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Salvio giuliano I'm going to assume that since the injunction was passed while Eric was a named party, that it still applies to him. Thus, no one given an Arb injunction may initiate an admin action against him while the case is ongoing. ie: I am barred from blocking him or asking someone else to block him, as would any other who received the notice, and if they do, they should expect an AE sanction. I agree with your decision (Obviously this case is about enforcement, not Eric), but wanted to make that point clear, since Arb didn't pass a new injunction and he was listed as a party when the old one passed. We don't need more drama piled on there. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a very good question and I admit I hadn't thought of that, sigh. But, yes, the injunction certainly still applies to Eric. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

These are unusual times, thus call for unusual questions. That seemed the logical conclusion and again, didn't want to see more drama added to the case. Surely there are plenty of admin eyes on Eric as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

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

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

How about this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• Let's us not tempt nor antagonize. There are enough hands on triggers pointed in this direction as it is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You're American Dennis, it wasn't intended either way, and if you were British you would have realised that. I think that's part of the problem on here actually, what isn't offensive or humourous in the UK might be perceived differently over the pond. I'm sure Ritchie also didn't intend to antagonize. Seriously, people take themselves way too seriously around here, this is far too intense at times, we need some comic relief.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Amen to that. Nortonius (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I trust you Dr. B, and would like to think I have a respectable sense of humor. Who I don't trust is all the other people reacting to Eric's reaction and might want to call it a 2nd hand violation. On the whole, the admin corp has lost its collective mind over the last week, and I haven't seen proof that sanity has been restored, so perhaps I'm a bit overcautious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:24, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not just Eric now, Cassianto is being treated in exactly the same way..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I blocked some editor who was being abusive to him just the other day. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto was polite enough to write an edit summary undoing a stereotype message that many received, including me, - he can't roll-back. I got the same message a while ago, also several others, - helpful people reverted it for me, so I wasn't in danger to say something nasty. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

If...

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

One of the perennial questions. I wanted to find a former discussion, looked for my name and was highly amused ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyway: something you didn't want, Eric, so let's please watch on 19 July, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well content building doesn't really matter now. Content builders have served their purpose and built the encyclopedia to where it is. Personally, I think it's not even one-third complete in the areas I contribute to, or would contribute if building content hadn't become so demeaning. But the take-over of Wikipedia by non-content-building admin wannabe grandees and social busybodies pushing their agendas is now pretty complete, while Wales is achieving his noble populist ambition to purge articulate content builders who point out how things are. Perhaps Wales and GorillaWarfare could personally take over and set the new editorial standards that are now suitable for Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I hope Eric hasn't retired. As for his talk page: people will find another venue, should Eric stay away (but his talk page ceasing to be the place for discussion of articles appears minor in comparison to losing his activities at WP. I am truly sorry you have been and are being treated this way, Eric. Readers will miss you, that's for sure). ---Sluzzelin talk 22:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric didn't say he was retiring, only that he would if the block expired. The block was lifted. And he's no longer a primary at arb. But I'm sure he likes to sit it out since history has shown how things can morph out of control at arb. IHTS (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Seriously, people take themselves way too seriously around here, this is far too intense at times, we need some comic relief.♦ Dr. Blofeld This is exactly the way I feel when editors talk about the persecution of content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If you focused more on writing content you might feel differently. But you are right... it's best regarded as a (really bad) joke. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a really bad joke that one uses to laugh at, because otherwise, you'd be screaming with some other emotion.  DDStretch  (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't take myself seriously at all within this labyrinth named Wikipedia, but I do take the encyclopedia part seriously. I read it daily, and I take those editors seriously who invest their time, brain, and energy to improve it for the benefit of readers such as myself. So I guess that's how I feel about it. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If there's not persecution, there are certainly other difficulties. I do not claim to be some prolific content creator, since that would be something of an insult to those who have really done a great deal of content work (what match are my two short GAs for those editors who can legitimately claim credit for dozens of FAs?), but anyone with a bit of content experience will know about the work that comes with it, such as finding good sources, knowing how to summarize and combine all the sources into one article, being careful to use as much original wording as possible, etc. I do not hold "vandal fighters" or "gnomes" in contempt, because I recognize that they also have a very important role in the proper functioning of Wikipedia. The final conclusion that must be drawn is that every "type" of editor is important (e.g., without dedicated vandal fighters, each individual creator or major contributor to any given article would have to monitor and individually revert the vandalism themselves), but there still persists the undeniable fact that Wikipedia would never have arrived at its current state had it not been for content workers. --Biblioworm 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comment from this admin, explains a lot. I can see why somebody with no content work to speak of would think that, but content creators also remove vandalism, copyedit and perform gnomish tasks. Most of the heated stuff starts about content but you only discover that when you've actually written something. Collaboration is important for content writers, that's why Eric is so valued. It's really easy to visit talk pages supplying all and sundry with your particular brand of wisdom, but not so easy to write something the public might want to read. J3Mrs (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're referring to me, J3Mrs, but I do recognize that content creators revert vandalism and do gnomish work. (As a sort of side note, I believe that copy editing is content work, so therefore a copy editor is a content worker.) All I'm saying is that it would be quite a bit more difficult were it not for those users who are dedicated gnomes or anti-vandals. The point of my comment was that although all users have an important role, content workers are ultimately the heart and soul of Wikipedia, and seem to be unfortunately less recognized than they should be. --Biblioworm 17:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

No I wasn't referring to you Biblioworm. J3Mrs (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm bemused by Liz's comment above. A look at her(presumably? do correct me if I'm wrong) contributions makes me wonder how much she knows about the efforts of content creators,[8] although it might well be that she has been around long enough to have some idea; but comparing her selection of "wise words" on her talk page with her monthly stats,[9] I can't help but think she has got to a point where she picks her fights.[10] Which wouldn't be at all helpful. As an aside, I wonder why she maintains an alternate account, legitimate though it seems, since it hasn't been used to make any edits in over 18 months at the time of writing.[11] Bemused though I am, I agree with pretty much everything else in this thread. Nortonius (talk) 12:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• Some of you have no doubt heard the rumble that I'm contemplating a RfA, I may have mentioned it here previously. Some people have been supportive and encouraging - most along the lines that I'm well-qualified and that I'm the sort of editor (a content creator with nine years' experience) that ought to have the mop, but others have discouraged me with one of the following reasons, basically, 1) "are you nuts? The job sucks!" and 2) that I have made enemies and detractors over the years who would show up in droves to derail my nomination (basically, I'm rather stubborn, at times snarky, and hate to walk away from a fight) or 3) That I haven't spent enough time at the drama boards (my contributions are still over 55% to articles). Yet others have said, basically, "yeah, you can be a snarky bitch, but I won't oppose you." To the point, Eric has advised me not to do so, mostly for reason #2. Thoughts? Should someone like me try to get the mop? Would it be a useful experiment? More to the point, as an RfA candidate really can't answer every accusation without looking like a tentendious lunatic, how many people would actually challenge the usual trolls who are guaranteed to show up? Montanabw^(talk) 16:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You called me a Randy and a bully, when I objected to your friend Ched insidiously calling me a narcissist. You back your friends no matter how dirty the method. IHTS (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Some people would be very pleased to be called narcissists, particularly those who are ;) - Sitush (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've hardly been following your every move around here, Montanabw, any more than I've been following anyone else's. But from what I've seen you're dedicated to content and have your head screwed on pretty firmly. I'd like to see someone like that getting adminship. On the other hand, I haven't been on the receiving end of any "snarkiness" that I recall, so I don't know how I'd feel if I had – but given Eric's example of someone who often knows best and just speaks his mind, yet gets hounded off the project as a "serial troll", I'm guessing it shouldn't make much difference. I intend that as tentative encouragement, but yes I'm aware of the cons in RfA, and adminship, and am generally too nervous of dramah myself to do much more than offer that. Though I do find myself speaking my mind too from time to time. Hope that helps, for what it's worth. Nortonius (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

There are already some very good admins, Montanabw. Occasionally they inject some sanity into admin proceedings, but otherwise what real difference can they make? It's the way the system is structured that is wrong, and that will not change if you become an admin. Good admins are as vulnerable to attack by the system as are good content builders. The system is now wholly controlled by admins as a group and their retinues, and the idea that their proceedings are based on some general "community consensus" is absurd. Of necessity their main defensive strategy must be, and consequently is, to ignore and refuse to respond to rational criticism. You have yourself in the past been guilty of rational criticism of the system. What makes you think admins as a group will now allow you to be one of them? Remember the importance of the "trust of the community". (To have the "trust of the community" means that the admin community trusts you will never approve of anything that might diminish its powers) --Epipelagic (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

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

Duh. (As if it doesn't make any difference how you made them!) IHTS (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Count me as a support if you decide to let someone run an RFA for you. The RFA might be a bit tough, but my prediction is that you'd pass with 100+ supports.

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

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

It never ceases to amaze me how we have so many admins, and so many who are eager to pounce on eg Eric for saying a naughty word, block button primed, but getting them to deal with genuine disruption (edit warriors, passive-aggressive trolls etc.) can often turn into a test of endurance. Cassianto is blocked for a week, talk page access revoked, for telling a vandal to fuck off, but persuading an admin to deal with someone (baselessly) labelling a BLP subject as "racist scum"..? Meh, who cares, look the other way, or watch Eric's talk page in case someone mentions GGTF... Too many of our admins are simply not fit for rôle. Keri (talk) 10:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You nailed it, Keri, BLP issues are very important places for admins to have the mop ready, yet, it's far easier to patrol for bad words. People get playground sanctions for using bad words and yet the most pain is often inflicted by those who couch their cruelty behind language that doesn't trigger any automated filter. One problem is that, no doubt, the consensus model for granting the mop means that 1/3 of the !voters can troll the site and blast down people who have actually had opinions. Montanabw^(talk) 18:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, I for one am trying to look at my own interactions with Eric to learn from. I can't blame others for my mistakes on talk pages and content criticism is far more appreciated, even if there are "bad words" used, than personal attacks. We all have some level of what we can put up with. There can be a good amount of obstacles one has to deal with just to add referenced, logical content to an article then and you still have to deal with a barrage of personal attacks from editors who find that easier than defending their weak ass interpretations of sources. There. I said it. Beat me about the head with a trout. I probably deserve it.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Folks are waiting here for you

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

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

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

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

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

• Putting aside any blame (which would serve no purpose, let the Arb case deal with that), the simple fact that amnesty was given would mean that the block and unblock log entries would be eligible to be expunged from Eric's block log. That is what amnesty is, after all, a pardon without regard to the merits, removing or discontinuing all "punishment" related to the event. I've never used it, and won't here, but I think that block entries can be RevDel'ed now, can't they? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

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

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

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

Sign up now

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

Proposed decision posted

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

Books and Bytes - Issue 12

The Wikipedia Library

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

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

Read the full newsletter

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

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

Just thought you might find this interesting since you got Boobrie to GA. [12] Winner 42 Talk to me! 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Lightbreather arbitration case closed

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

6A) All interactions bans affecting Lightbreather are taken over by the Arbitration Committee and placed under the committee's direct jurisdiction. The default i-ban exceptions remain in place but improper use of them by Lightbreather is sanctionable as an i-ban evasion. For consistency and ease of administration, the i-bans may be enforced by any uninvolved administrator as an arbitration enforcement action but any resultant appeals may be made only to the committee and only by email. For the avoidance of doubt, this paragraph applies to the following interaction bans:

1. Mike Searson (one-way)
2. Hell in a Bucket (two-way)
3. Eric Corbett (two-way)
4. Sitush (one-way)
5. Scalhotrod (two-way)

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

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

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

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

Which one might I have an interest in? Eric Corbett 12:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

This one. Thanks, MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 19:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Precious

The Precious

Thank you (and Drmies) for creating Today's Featured Article, The Coral Island, an article which Jimbo and co will no doubt take for granted, knowing little about how much work it entails promoting content on here. I wish we could deport a lot of the others here on a ship and leave stranded on a Pacific island!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Everything we do here is either taken for granted or punished. Eric Corbett 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It's always nice to see something you've worked be Today's Featured Article. There's a few of us that still put the content creators at the top of the food chain. Nick (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

It is nice, I agree, but I'm always a bit ambivalent towards TFA. In fact, unless I felt really passionately about it, I'd oppose any such TFA request made in my absence and/or on my behalf. Most of the editors who pitch up just do so to bastardise all the hard work that went on before it. Cassianto^Talk 22:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

---

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

So what do you think this will achieve? Eric Corbett 00:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I would bring to your attention the fact that Keilana is Kevin Gorman's 'appointed' point of contact when he is absent from the site, which raises a concern that Keilana is not sufficiently uninvolved to be taking administrative action in this case. Please refer to User:Kevin Gorman for his statement. I've removed a bit of text which a couple of people found insensitive of me Nick (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't the case ongoing about not enough discussion? Irony abounds, at any rate the civility police probably have a technical violation here, not that it actually hurt anything. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Keilana, on what civility-based blocks achieve (from 2012 Civility Enforcement Questionnaire):

What sanctions, if any, do you think are appropriate for incivility? Should blocking be considered an appropriate response to incivility? Should topic banning or interaction banning be considered an appropriate response?

• Reply: Civility blocks suck. They're often punitive and just serve to make the uncivil, pissed off person more angry and likely to unleash a torrent of profanity. An interaction ban is a better response. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC) addition: I think that iBans and topic bans are a more productive solution because they help to keep someone who may be volatile out of a situation that will cause them to be uncivil. I firmly believe that blocks should only be used to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia, and that an incident of incivility that may or may not be repeated isn't enough to warrant a block in the vast majority of situations. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

IHTS (talk) 04:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

From Keilana's user page: "I don't use the tools much anymore. [...] To be honest, I hardly ever use my admin bit anymore because there's just so much content to write." IHTS (talk) 08:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• This is EXACTLY why AE is arb right now, in many respects. This was a bad block Keilana, plenty of admin opined as such except for Kevin Gorman, whose bizarre behavior over the last couple of months (not just regarding Eric) raises serious questions about his competency to be an admin to begin with. I agree with Nick, that Kevin's involvement with Eric is such that it borders on harassment and abuse, and if it continues, I will file at Arb myself. The statements that Eric was blocked for are about as mild as what he was just granted amnesty for. Eric's description of Kaldari was quite mild, many of us consider him a jackass. This needs review, and maybe by Arb as they are already reviewing similar. To block a prolific editor for a mild comment against someone who was guilty of egregious policy violations AGAINST Eric, and whose outwiki actively turns the stomach of anyone with any degree of morals, this is not what policy is designed to protect. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Kevin's conduct has indeed been questionable of late. I doubt anything will be done about it, though. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm sorry to see this block, Eric. I'm not going to get involved here, but I would support a swift unblocking. It's absolutely ridiculous. c1cada (talk) 02:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Wow...yet another unilateral block based on an AE report yet this one while an arb case about this very issue is ongoing.--MONGO 02:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

EC has civility stalkers. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm just curious, who would Wikipedia rather have, someone who does a really good job with content, or someone who runs a fake snuff site after he used a sock to harass an editor. And who, inexplicably, is still employed by WMF? GregJackP Boomer! 03:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not an either or. -- KTC (talk) 03:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

No, but the comment enforcement was a bit to much like Javert for my tastes. GregJackP Boomer! 03:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric has a civility arbitration remedy. Somebody who files at AE for a flagrantly abusive comment by an editor under such a remedy surely isn't "stalking". They're helping the admins to do the job the arbitration committee has tasked them with. Do you not agree that this is how arbitration enforcement is supposed to work? --TS 03:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Familiarize yourself with the history and complainants. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony, we have a case about this exact issue over at arbcom right now. Who there is gunning hardest against Eric's editing future?--MONGO 03:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony, you have an editor who was calling for Eric to be hung, drawn, and quartered at ArbCom who files the AE (over a relatively minor comment) and an apparent close friend of the complaining editor closes the AE and blocks only 2-1/2 hours after it was open and while the only admin comment was calling for a WP:BOOMARANG on Kevin for harassment of Eric. So, no, I don't agree that this is how it is supposed to work. GregJackP Boomer! 03:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll respond to MONGO first: as I understand it, the case in question specifically excludes Eric Corbett.

Hell in a Bucket, I looked over the findings of fact in the arbitration case cited by the AE filer. So last year's arbitration committee seemed to have a pretty good idea about the facts. Do you think you have enough contrary evidence to nullify the remedy? If so, I'd advise you to raise that evidence to the attention of Arbcom and ask them to reverse the remedy. If not I don't think anybody can reasonably object to people bringing egregious incidents like this to the attention of the enforcers.

GregJackP it's conceivable that there is some back story here that I'm unaware of. However Eric's comment does look particularly toxic to me. --TS 03:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep digging. That case was a clusterfucked events, wouldn't put too much stock in it but hey i fyou want to drink that kool aid up to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Tony, it may be that I have seen too many actual dead bodies (way too many of them) for me to be amused by someone running a site like Kaldari ran, and who has also harassed EC via socks while he was an admin. Now, he's at one of EC's friends talk pages harassing her over an image that he wanted to get deleted at Commons (and apparently succeeded), and that's when EC made his comments. Did he technically violate his restriction? Probably, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth when someone who has been calling for EC to basically be lynched reports him and one of his buddies almost immediately blocks him. I've asked Keilana about it on her talk page and she basically gave a non-answer, claiming admin discretion. I currently have asked if she is open to recall and will follow up on that when I get a response. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Keilana is open to recall. The process to do so is linked on her userpage.--MONGO 05:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have missed it. Facepalm GregJackP Boomer! 06:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, are you a new editor? Really? I created my account Nov. 21, 2006. I also don't care much for passive-aggressive behavior. If you don't intend to pursue the matter, fine. You were the one asking questions, I merely answered with what had happened. If you want to know more, I'm happy to provide diffs, etc., but you'll have to ask. Or you can take it to ANI. But don't even begin to believe that you can tell me what to do. GregJackP Boomer! 06:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I stated above that Keilana claimed on her user page that she was open to recall...but now she has marked that process as historical.--MONGO 06:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I just posted on her talk page, asking about that:

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

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

I would hate to think that she would renege on being open to recall as soon as a questionable decision came up. GregJackP Boomer! 06:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dunno...maybe it needed updating all of a sudden for some reason?--MONGO 06:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently directing it to arbcom was the response. About all I can say is add it to the workshop of the current arbcom case. I hope arbcom can come up with some ground rules as far as how AE is suppose to do things as these admin actions with no discussion by the acting admin are getting tiresome.--MONGO 07:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Noting for the record, this block fell squarely under Eric's restriction at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF#Eric_Corbett_prohibited. It was a good block. However, the restriction is very clear about the block length too. Keilana has agreed that it can be reduced, so I have done just that. Worm^TT(talk) 07:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• What a bunch of incompetent buffoons we have at AE and ArbCom. I bet they're all enjoying a malt whiskey back at the admin's mess, back slapping each other into oblivion and sickeningly telling each other how well each other has done, while the rest of us suffer by not having Eric write articles. What a fucking joke! Cassianto^Talk 07:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  1. If you think admins are a monolithic mass, then you're sadly mistaken.
  2. You were so close! Just replace "Eric" with "Keilana" and you'd have it. We're certainly suffering with every minute she takes to comment on this clear-cut block. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have never even heard of Keilana before, so sorry to disappoint you. Cassianto^Talk 07:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Keilana has been around a long time, I've talk to her plenty in the past and she seems quite nice and reasonable, so I disagree with the block, but I haven't seen any reason to comment on her character. I disagree that this is a clear cut case Ed, and in fact proven it. If you read the actual AE, and you read the actual comments, and know a bit of the history, AND if you can be objective, a warning for a borderline comment wold have been sufficient, or even overkill. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • I'm sure that she's nice. Frankly I know what I need to know of her character now, from stating that she's open to recall, removing that option when questioned on it, then saying that ArbCom is thataway, and then after everything has died down, restoring that she's open to recall as if nothing has happened. She can be nice and pleasant, but I wouldn't buy a horse from her. GregJackP Boomer! 16:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Deja vu. Same players. Frankly, stalking of user talk pages to find anything to complain about, in my own personal opinion, verges on ludophilia. Collect (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
      • @Dennis Brown: I did read the AE and looked at exactly what Eric's restrictions are. Describing someone as a "disgusting individual" and "reptilian lowlife" pretty clearly violates "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from ... insulting and/or belittling other editors." Is this really the hill you want to make a stand on? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• Who was/were Kaldari's socks(s)? And Kaldari was never blocked for it? How does creating socks to harass another editor not warrant a block? And Sarah Stierch was never blocked, and still has the bit though under a different name? (Or was renamed? I can't figure it out.) And Eric is blocked for that little-bitty comment? And a highly abusive account I emailed ArbCom about days ago is still not blocked, after the arbs unblocked though it blatantly violated NPA, COI, BLP? Drmies (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The sock was Vox Brevis, Drmies. Keri (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Coat's back, and has posted a comment on this page. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia observer, I really cannot be bothered to waste any more hours editing this site, it is apparent that Wikipedia is going to the dogs. Eric calls some obviously loathsome individual something nasty, and then some clearly barking mad admin, who we all know is nursing some form of personal vendetta, objects and hay ho Eric is blocked and the usual drama fest results. FGS, can no one with any authority not see what is the problem here. Clue: its initials are not EC. Giano (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

GA/FA query

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

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