User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/September

Sorry for abusing your message board

Ahem, hello one and all! You all are smart and educated people, and some of you have been working on mythology/folklore recently. Here's the thing. My 8-yr old daughter needs to do a "storytelling book report", from the POV of someone other than the main character. It should be a "folktale, fairytale, tall tale, or legend". A short list is offered, but the Ananse story is the most exciting of them all. Does anyone have anything better, more original, exciting? Something that might be new to her teacher or the students? Drmies (talk) 13:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Cindarella's stepsisters. Cindy should have served them better IMO.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Loch Ness monster chased away by St Columba. The religious overtones of Christianity challenging and defeating the established Celtic paganism might go down well in Alabama. Eric Corbett 16:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The The Elves and the Shoemaker, from the perspective of the elves. How did they feel about the whole situation? Did they feel well rewarded and recompensed, or did they think the shoemaker took them for granted? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How about one of the children belonging to the old woman who lived in a shoe? Eric Corbett 21:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jack and the Beanstalk told from the perspective of the Giant would be an interesting one, I've always thought. --John (talk) 22:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• My folktale heroine is Grace Sherwood, side character: the neighbours accusing her to be a witch, probably all to real, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you all! I'm going to read some stories, courtesy of Gutenberg. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

    Let us know what she decides to go with. Eric Corbett 21:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Will do, Eric. I got a few suggestions via email as well--including the suggestion to tell a kelpie story from the point of view of the blue men. Drmies (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Women

Can't live with em... J.k. I do live with one. Two if the cat counts. Am I correct in assuming AA measures based upon non existent data is your issue with that project? I just had to remember how I stumbled into this project area. I think it was a RSN post and I opined and then followed the editors to see how the suggestions were applied. I stayed because I was really disappointed to see that someone even suggested that women editors could be granted immunity to being reverted. Personally I doubt much will ever happen if that project continues in this vein, because whacky ideas will put a stink on everything they touch. Have you seen any reasonable proposals born from that group?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my fundamental objection is to all these conclusions being drawn without a scrap of supporting evidence. The project will of course come to nothing though. Eric Corbett 09:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, the last time Carole presented something, Gaigan pretty much shot it down. At least I got some enjoyment of fixing up Caroline Criado-Perez out of that. There probably is evidence of bias out there, but it will take a social scientist to do the job correctly. Some people that lead quite difficult lives, through no fault of their own, see Wikipedia as a means to achieve the equal footing in life they have long been denied. Sorry, but Utopia doesn't exist even online.Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I've had almost-constantly bad experiences of CMDC, not merely in this latest campaign. Pretty much every time she presents something, it can be shot down. Usually because she doesn't back it up but also because much of it is plain illogical. I'm not sure if the lack of logic is down to how she expresses things - semantics etc - or whether it is a genuine inability to comprehend the nature of logic. Either way, her reliance on gossip, anecdote, generalisation (and misrepresentation on the odd occasion a source is mentioned), coupled with her vociferousness, is not doing her cause any favours. As things stand in the GG debate, she is effectively mostly repeating the same stuff with the same links and adding fairly inane personal commentary in a point-y, soapboxing way. Often in her edit summaries also.

Some of her fellow travellers should have a quiet word with her to explain that less is sometimes more. She might prove her point better and advance things more usefully if she actually contributed more to the articles etc that she claims are skewed by the gap or worked with specific female contributors who are having some difficulties, such as the one that I and Carole Henson are currently attempting to mentor. But I'm afraid that she seems only ever to be interested in fomenting controversy here - gender gap, guns, Palestine etc. Basically, similar to a 1960s heart-on-the-sleeve, rent-a-mob social activist. One day, she'll overstep the mark, probably with her forum shopping, and find that her usual excuse of naivety will not wash. One thing she is not is naive - that's just for show and convenience.

Excuse my ignorance but what does GG stand for?Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender Gap. Intothatdarkness 15:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll slink back to my content creation now. I know that nowadays it doesn't really matter when compared to dealing with the gender gap but, hey, I keep finding myself adding links to feminism in the most unusual places, eg: recently at St John's Church, Manchester. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the women not being reverted idea. That should definitely be put in place. Don't revert this or I will report you. (I'll get my personalised no-revert card issued once the lab confirms my sex based on the blood sample they took when I reported for inspection, then it is just a case of scanning my biometric data and matching it to the database record on every save to confirm that it was made by a woman and your male hegemony will be doomed! [cackles evilly]) Belle (talk) 10:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh no you didn't! Sex vs gender is a big part of this. I saw some off wiki complaints about the lead of Woman, and after just reading it just now, some of those complaints have merit. But that's not a battle I care to enjoin.Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And of course automatic promotion of every female editor to admin will be a boost in your struggle against the evil forces of male chauvinism. I just don't recognise the world that's being painted, and I really wish someone would explain to me in what ways WP's content would be significantly different even if there was a 50/50 gender split. Eric Corbett 10:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That isn't necessarily what is being asked. I'd settle for anything better than the 90-10 it appears to be now. Even if there are more women, the fact that the survey came out this way indicates that a lot of us choose not to reveal gender (or respond to surveys) for any of a host of reasons, some related to things as basic as safety and for some, it includes avoiding off-wiki harassment. Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This women would not want to be an admin, even without the criminal status which I will keep because I - as you, Eric - will not appeal, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Good for you. Dignity is much more important that a criminal record here. Eric Corbett 13:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, so some people who are poor editors think that criticism is "discrimination" (or its first cousin "incivility") when it is not. As I used to say, "assholes are not a protected class." BUT sometimes it IS very, very real. And when it's real, it's damn terrifying for the targets. So I think folks really need to drop this stick here and separate the message from the (sometimes unclear) messengers. The bias problem is real and the harassment situation in a few areas is a serious problem for some people. The so-called "mens rights" crowd is made up of some seriously nasty folks that no one on this page really wants to be linked to, trust me. It is my personal view that they are to women what the KKK was to African Americans (and someone will probably drag me to ANI for saying that, but their goals are the same - putting us "uppity" people in our "rightful place.") WP suffers from recentism, racism, sexism, and (yes) a US-centric POV on some issues. (and why in god's name does there have to be an article on every video game ever published while women scientists are deemed "non-notable?") Most of it not malicious, it's merely due to ignorance. But it needs to be worked on and fixes. So let's focus on the content and the delivery. Back to making an encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 01:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. If the cheerleader, who is CMDC, actually gets round to "making an encyclopaedia" that improves coverage of the things she claims are under-represented, then I'm all for it. You really do have to understand how some idiotic people damage this place and, yes, some will be sexist/racist etc but others are equally damaging but less obviously so - those are the ones who are out to find and create conflict and who manage somehow just to hover on the right side of the line. Effectively, many are civil trollers and soapboxers.

I'm not aware of claims that female scientists are "non-notable" - I would have thought that they have to meet the same notability requirements as any other subject. So go write those articles, source them and you or anyone else would have my full support. I've just completely revamped what was a dreadful article about some now-minor but still frequently discussed Canadian female feminist novelist. I asked for some help on the Feminism project and got no response. Go figure where the priorities of these people really lie. - Sitush (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That women scientist are "under-represented" on WP is a popular, and in some ways useful myth. If it was ever true, after several years of enthusiastic editathons dedicated to the subject, all the evidence I know suggests the boot is firmly on the other foot. In fact our coverage of modern scientists (of whom there are vast numbers) is erratic and not very comprehensive compared to say Scottish footballers, but women are more likely to be covered than men. Those outside the Anglosphere are much less likely to covered of course. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, with all due respect, (but because this IS Eric Corbett's "free speech zone" talk page), I have to say, in part, "bullshit." Go hang around AfD for a while and watch what happens when articles go up on individuals where there simply aren't a lot of sources - may still be highly notable, but if you can't get 10,000 Google hits and have to use a hardcopy book, then someone out there does go out and yell about GNG. Women in the professions generally (save for porn stars), and women scientists in particular, ARE under-represented on wikipedia. To be fair, so are people of color, those outside the Anglosphere, as well as people from any time prior to the last 20th century. I know I'm beating my head against a wall here, but if you seriously think that women are somehow overrepresented or "more likely to be covered, that is (as the Brits say) complete bollocks. I guess at least we agree that (male) Scottish footballers (or Sri Lankan cricketeers, or American collegiate basketball players) do seem a bit more easily granted notability than a lot of other folks who only did minor things like, oh, invent the first computer, discover the properties of radium, or discover pulsars. (Sigh) Montanabw^(talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence please! It wouldn't, for example, take too long to analyse WP articles by gender for the elections of some recent years to the US NAS. You aren't "beating my head against a wall" at all, you're repeating what all the world's press and blogosphere, and half the WP community (including for example WMUK), takes for granted as true. I used to lazily assume they were probably correct until I started working in that area, and trying to compile lists of notable redlinks. This doesn't mean we should stop promoting increased coverage, but we should recognise what has been a pretty successful cumulative effort over the last few years for what it is. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh joy, an ANI thread with Eric and Carol. I'll grab some popcorn and hide working on getting The Who to FA status and related album articles to GA. Somebody let me know when it's over. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's rubbish like this that really makes me wonder what the Hell this project is about, and whether I want to be associated with it. I'd thought that we were trying to build an encyclopedia, but apparently we're trying to create some kind of gender equality Utopia. I've only got one thing to say about that, which is fuck it, and fuck Wikipedia. Eric Corbett 00:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

My gosh, you've been here too long and done too much to chuck it all with a "fuck Wikipedia". This bit of drama will pass. You've seen, I hope, where I tried to close down the thread as a hopeless exercise that wastes people's time (as they so choose). But I have not had success. So I'll try a different approach. Frankly, your approach with many comments (including edit summaries) has something to be desired. Mainly finesse. (The list by Evergreen fir strongly suggests where there is smoke there is fire.) So my advice is two-fold. Avoid any comment that uses "you" (singular and plural/implicitly and explicitly) and agree to an IBAN with CarolMooreDC. You'd be free to continue with your valuable contributions to the big Project. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Srich, the failure of your attempted close and umpteen other occasions when you have inserted yourself into controversy etc (including, most likely, the cack-handed "calming" message above) should perhaps be an indication to you that any attempt at RfA is doomed. Your preaching is increasingly becoming like that of Jehochmann and, really, one Jehochmann is one too many. - Sitush (talk) 06:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you're so dense that you can see nothing inconsistent about using the word "you" in a comment to me advising me not to use the word "you". So fuck off Srich, you're not welcome here. Eric Corbett 10:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, you need to tone it down. I just explained to Jimbo that asking someone to stay off a page is a de-escalation. This isn't. You have good arguments and are almost always on point, but comments like that are going mean your voice in the discussions is removed. I don't want to see that. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to do anything. Eric Corbett 11:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No. But if you don't, you'll end up gone. Perhaps that's what you want. Worm^TT(talk) 11:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll all be gone one day, even you. Even Jimbo. And so will WP. But while we're here there's no reason to act like cowards afraid to open our mouths for fear of upsetting some little prig or other. Eric Corbett 11:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm under no illusions that I'll be around forever, either on Wikipedia or off. Wikipedia, too, will be gone - but I believe the resource we're creating will survive in other forms for many years to come. There's a difference between being afraid to open your mouth and picking your battles. Believe me, I know there are battles worth having, but was that one? Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Time will tell, particularly if you find in the future that you're no longer permitted to sanction female editors, or that female editors become immune to 3RR. You may think that would be an improvement, but I most certainly don't. Eric Corbett 12:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

This, I think, is an especially pertinent point. I was always under the impression that global policy needed to be formulated and discussed in an open and global way, not cooked up in a closed Wiki project. Policy developed in an echo chamber is never effective and almost always resented. Sort of like this civility stuff. Personally I find Wales' non-responses and passive aggressive comments to be very incivil, but that's just the kind of behavior that is encouraged and even applauded by some of the most strident civility advocates. Intothatdarkness 13:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've said quite a few times now that I regard Wales as one of the most uncivil editors on the project and one of the least productive. No real "net positive" there that I can see. Eric Corbett 14:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who said "Fuck Wikipedia" after putting in several years of valuable work, I can attest to the liberating aspect of it. It freed up much time to spend on things that involved much less drama-mongering from people incapable of creating meaningful content. Things like earning a college degree and binge-watching various TV shows. That said, I don't know that anyone who dumps his girlfriend publicly on a talk page in his user space is really someone to be taken seriously. I didn't realize Jimbo even edited anymore. How curious. Lara 03:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

He doesn't really, just tries to convince his cult followers that there's actually a cult worth following. You'll maybe have to forgive me, but every time I see your name I'm reminded of "you're a dick of porn star proportions". It makes me laugh even today. How could anyone be offended by that? :-) Eric Corbett 03:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I find that most people are far too sensitive to things like that. I attribute it to the pathetic nature of their day-to-day lives. So very unfulfilled that they desperately grasp for anything that stirs their emotion. I think those with passion in their lives are far less likely to create such needlessly dramatic situations. Lara 03:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Haha. Speaking of stupid bullshit, I went poking around and saw the updated pages for former admins. I scrolled down to my own entry, and the link they've provided — the "related discussion" — for my resignation is a thread debating a sub-point of the entire issue. I suppose it could be the chosen link because it shows the conclusion that I didn't abuse the tools, which is notionally important, but still. How silly that a discussion on one point is the defining link of my resignation in someone's eyes. This site never fails to amuse. Lara 04:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm also reminded that you've yet to correct your obvious typo. What you meant to say was that I have a dick of porn star proportions. Eric Corbett 04:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Not what I meant. I have not seen your bits, Eric. And despite years of grand effort, you have not seen mine either. Lara 05:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Scheduled Monuments in Somerset

Would you (or any of your talk page stalkers) be willing to look at my prose on a new article Scheduled Monuments in Somerset (inspired by Wiki Loves Monuments)? If anyone wanted to take a look at the seven massive sub lists as well that would be amazing.— Rod ^talk 16:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gender Gap Task Force Issues and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

It looks like Jimbo's open door has been closed to you. I'm guessing you missed it due to the high volume on that page, but please respect his request. Worm^TT(talk) 11:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed that after I posted. Good riddance to him. Eric Corbett 11:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. For my part, I've objected to the request. Worm^TT(talk) 11:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought there was much point, and I have nothing further to say to Jimbo anyway. To be truthful I can't stand the man. Eric Corbett 11:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I find most galling about Jimbo. He's been here for ever, yet he's only created 37 articles, the most recent of them four years ago. So unconfident was he nine years after he co-founded this site that he submitted the article to WP:AFC, where it was promptly rejected. He submitted it again in this state, and never edited the article again. So what does he really know about the travails of trying to create content here? The answer is clearly absolutely nothing, so he should stop trying to pontificate about those actually do create the content that he and the WMF have been milking for their own personal gain for years. Eric Corbett 21:29, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be an interesting topic, so his creation of the article is somewhat justified in that it has turned out OK. In any case, you raise an interesting point about the "travails of trying to create content". As you are already quite aware, we have dozens, perhaps hundreds of policies, guidelines, and essays about behavior, but almost nothing about creating content. Would you be interested in helping to change the "behavior" narrative by helping to get people focused on creating quality content? I can't think of anyone more suited to lead this kind of project. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not his creation of the article I'm commenting on, it's his inability to actually write it. As for my leading a project to get people to focus on creating quality articles I can think of nothing more likely to hasten my exit from this ever so polite country club of Jimbo's. Some hard truths would have to be told, and very few would be listening. Eric Corbett 22:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me explain where I'm going with this. If you look at the noticeboards, although many of them cross over into content disputes, the majority are focused on behavioral issues. Can you imagine a site run by the Encyclopædia Britannica focused primarily on behavior issues? It's beyond silly. We should only be focused on content, and nothing else. I think you would also agree. As myself and others have said for years now, it almost seems like bad behavior is encouraged, because it justifies the focus on administration rather than on composition. In other words, we could end vandalism tomorrow by simply implementing a few functions we already have. And we could eliminate edit warring by imposing pattern matching filters and bots to watch the articles. We can automate virtually every administrative process, leaving us solely focused on creating and maintaining quality content. But we don't. That's what I'm getting at. Don't you think it's beyond strange that a new editor can't really find any help files about how to research, write, and improve articles? And yet, we have have a plethora of policies, guidleines, and essay about how to behave. Why is there this inordinate focus on behavior, which has nothing to do with writing? Is Wikipedia a massive psychology experiment of some kind or a place to write articles? Sometimes an encyclopedia is not an encyclopedia. Forget Freud, if you are fully conversant with Asimov's Foundation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about. So, where does an editor go to improve their writing skills? ANI? Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I largely agree with you, and I'm familiar with both Freud and Asimov. It's very clear to me that WP is indeed some kind of social experiment, and will continue to be so until Jimbo Wales is shown the door. The bottom line is that editors have nowhere to go to improve their writing skills, as writing is considered to be so last century. While writing this reply I was reminded of a high-school project run by JimmyButler, during which I helped quite a few of his 14-year-old students to create GAs and even FAs, such as Banker horse, Bluespotted stingray and Greater Scaup. The difference there was though that the students wanted to learn, not to pontificate. And many of those students were female would you believe. At about that time I was hauled before ArbCom for something or other, can't remember what now, and Jimmy told me that he had to forbid his students from pitching into the show trial on my side. That's worth far more to me than whatever Jimbo thinks. Yet the myth persists that I chase away new editors. In reality though it's Jimbo and his acolytes who chase editors away, both new and old. Eric Corbett 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

All this is why I try and stick to content 99% of the time...unless I worry that something really stupid is going to happen systemically. Usually the inertia works both ways, and silly proposals die a death as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not quite so simple though when proposals such as female editors having increased immunity to being reverted seem to have the god-king's approval. Eric Corbett 23:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not going to happen; see below. Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If Jimbo says something too counterintuitive...it won't fly either. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I wrote that article when I was still more blue-eyed about Wales (and because it did seem to be an inspiring film). Today I find myself in near-perfect agreement with the views Eric expresses above. ;) Andreas JN466 00:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I did see that you'd pretty much written the whole thing yourself, and a fine piece of work it is. No thanks to Jimbo Wales of course, who couldn't write his way out of a paper bag. Eric Corbett 00:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe he could benefit from your expertise. How about writing an essay to help similar editors? (See my initial comments on this matter.) If you were teaching Jimbo how to write an article, what advice would you give him? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Most likely I'd tell him not to bother unless he's willing to learn, which he obviously isn't. Eric Corbett 04:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fairy ring
A fairy ring on a suburban lawn in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Location	Mainly in forested areas
Formed by	Mushrooms
Age	Up to 700 years old
Size	Up to 600 metres (2,000 ft) across
Comment	O ye of little faith!

Speaking of which, I can ping Sasata and Sagaciousphil (ahoy!) and see if they want to get stuck into fairy ring anytime soon....(chuckle) I defy anyone to come up with an infobox for that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I was chatting to Sagaciousphil via email earlier this evening as it happens. Who was it said that all women hate me? Begins with a "C" if I remember correctly. Eric Corbett 23:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Pick your battles, and pick Jimbo - poking at Jimbo is way more your style. The other individual who has you annoyed is not worth the battle. Don't confuse being heard with being taken seriously; her efforts may get discussion, but they are generating more heat than light and most of all, are also annoying people who would normally want to be supportive - My feminist cred tops hers by a long shot (I suspect) and yet, when I disagreed with the direction that page was taking she blew her cork, assumed I was some guy telling here what to do, and went off on me. So consider the source and don't waste your time there. But teaching Jimbo how content creation on WP works? Now THAT's a situation where I'd not only get out my popcorn, I'd buy a ticket...! Montanabw^(talk) 04:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol ought to have been dealt with by now. You and I don't agree on many things, not least this feminist issue, but that's not because I believe you to be a woman, I just believe you to be wrong. Eric Corbett 04:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Good people can disagree with respect and still collaborate where they have agreement. I suspect we have agreement that Jimbo doesn't understand his own creation these days. Montanabw^(talk) 06:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Very true, Montanabw. I've had some virtual stand-up fights with Dharmadhyaksha about various things Indian yet we get along perfectly well most of the time and those fights are bygones. The key is to agree to differ and not bear a grudge, both of which are alien concepts to Carol. I'm just at a loss regarding how she is managing to hang in here when she is so clearly the antithesis of collaborative and have said as much at ANI and on Jimbo's talk page recently. Carol is here is Right Great Wrongs on a range of touchy subjects: that will never end up well. - Sitush (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am a great believer in WP:ROPE. She's not a real feminist in the modern sense and she doesn't understand today's issues. She has her own soapbox of fringe ideas that she's parked in the GGTF right at the moment and if she can get us women to rally behind her as the victim by baiting Eric into being too much himself, well, that works for her, but she's not helping the systemic bias issue in the least; in fact, she's giving the MRM folks the red meat they need to paint all Progressive women as crazies. I've figured her out and it didn't take me too long (it helped that she accused me of being male, apparently she cannot recognize an actual feminist when she meets one). It won't take others much longer either. But in the meantime, I do hope the illustrious Mr. Corbett will please put a moratorium on calling anyone the c-word for a bit - even when directed at pretentious admin sorts you know to be male - you know darn well that doesn't help ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, we can see an answer the question how to learn to write articles? There's a complete programme at Wikipedia:Training/For students, which is very well intentioned, but contains some amazing advice like this on Wikipedia:Training/For students/Verifiability:

• However, published opinions of experts can be included. And if these opinions differ, the article should present all the major opinions without endorsing one over the other. For example, writing that "Vaccinating all US children saves an estimated 33,000 lives" and citing a reputable source is a statement of fact that can be verified. And if there is an opposing view, it should also be included. For example, a quote from a reputable source like "Critics claim that vaccinations have never benefited public health" helps to balance the article and keep it neutral. - File:Verifiability and Neutral point of view (Common Craft)-en.ogv

I'm not sure if you'll find that as problematic as I do. Nevertheless, for me it goes a long way to explaining why we shouldn't be looking to the WMF for guidance on how to edit. --RexxS (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure those last four words are necessary, Doug! ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw: I'm not sure what makes someone a "real feminist in the modern sense". As a youngster I always confused Gloria Stivic for being Gloria Steinem (though on retrospection the real feminist was the Meathead). I'm not an advocate for women's rights (unless you count voting) but I've always been a supporter for equality. I want the women and girls in my family to have every opportunity for success and happiness as do the boys. The bullshit accusations that I'm some sort of male chauvinist really cheesed me off. I don't know what CMDC's goal was when she queried RSN a few weeks ago about the use of TERF (is she for or against its use?). I don't know what her goals are now, but I get the feeling she is enjoying the drama more than anything else. Erik, CMDC's ANI filing (and her understudy Evergreenfur) was a dishonest and in-artfull shit-flinging attempt to blackball you from the project in order to prevent you from asking uncomfortable questions. Even if she were rid of you, those questions won't go away, so I don't know what she expects to accomplish. People here ask for evidence for mundane claims, and she thinks extraordinary claims will just breeze through? Apparently she has done this sort of thing before and will likely do it again. WP:ROPE is an apt suggestion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Rights and equality are not separable; you can't have one without the other and rights come first (yes, voting is one). If you don't get that, TKOP, I'm not going to waste my breath on it at this page. But don't attack other well-meaning people who got sucked into the CMDC vortex; I almost did until I realized that she's got issues. Her initial ideas appear naive but well-meaning (i.e. we tried that stuff 40 years ago, there are better approaches now) but then you realize that she does stuff like - call me a guy and file an ANI on Eric without the slightest attempt to make her case - and then you realize it's the person, not the message. Please don't confuse the two. Montanabw^(talk) 15:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to break my Monday vow of silence just this once to reply to you Montanabw. I don't believe that you and I are really very far apart on the issue of gender equality, and had I been alive at the turn of the last century I'd most definitely have been lining up with the suffragettes. It's no less offensive to deny rights to women than it was to deny them to African-American slaves. Equal rights accompanied by equal responsibility for the exercise of those rights is the only issue for me, which is why I'm so against the positive discrimination that Carol and her supporters are advocating. Women are equal partners in this endeavour, and if there's even a shred of evidence that they're not being treated as such then I'll be right up there with you manning the barricades. Eric Corbett

I expressed myself poorly. I only "advocate" for women by voting for candidates that support women's rights. A lever is the extent of my advocacy for almost everything.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

It's cool. We're good. Looks like we have new drama below. I'm off to see what's up there. Montanabw^(talk) 22:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Women writers Invitation

Hello Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/September! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to Women writers. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Women writers, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles about women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Women writers page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". I look forward to your involvement!

Given recent events this is surely a joke, right? Eric Corbett 04:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No joke, Eric. An honest invitation from me. I respect the work you did on Enid Blyton, and it would be great to see additional women writers' biographies be similarly improved. Best, --Rosiestep (talk) 04:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously very few others do Rosie, not even our Great Leader, so I think I'll pass. What I'll continue to do though is to work with women on articles we have a common interest in. Not projects. Eric Corbett 04:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here to say, Eric, that your "only statement ... there" can hardly be improved: concise and true. - Fits this topic nicely. Thanks for the invitation, Rosiestep, I work on it as a member of QAI and free speech, serving writers and pianists regardless of gender and nationality, Anna Kravtchenko and José Carlos Cocarelli, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf

I've about had it with her(?) ad-hominem attacks. She crossed the line here with the swastika bit. I remember mostly the ones she made about me, but I think she might have made others about you and @SPECIFICO:. If either/both of you remember of any, and care to do so, please add any diffs to my sandbox. I don't want to file an ANI, so hopefully she will see these and get the point. Thanks.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 03:52, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I expect that she has, but I don't keep track of such things, and I really couldn't care less what she thinks or says about me. Added to which AN/I is a revenge fest best avoided IMO. Eric Corbett 21:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for remembering me Mal. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you ever share the name of your alternate account with ArbCom? Eric Corbett 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just out of interest

Do you get pinged if you are mentioned in an edit summary [[1]? As you know, I don't really get English grammar (it's not my fault because it's totally illogical and I was reared in the ancestral ice-cream parlour in Great Yarmouth), but I do hate false plurals - surely families and companies are "it" rather than "they." Giano (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know actually, but I doubt it as templates are ignored in edit summaries. As for families and companies (and football teams and ...) that's a tricky one. You could in general make a case for either "it" or "they". Eric Corbett 19:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't expect notification to happen from an edit summary, but I'll mention His Excellency in the summary to this post to see if he gets a notice. As for singular/plural pronouns for group nouns, I agree that grammatically there are cases to be made either way. Nevertheless in this case ("Although his family had aristocratic relations, it belonged to the minor gentry ...") there is a practical reason for preferring the singular, because a plural pronoun ('they' instead of 'it') could logically - or at least ambiguously - refer to the relations, not the family. Clarity of meaning is far more important than fine nuances of grammar. Just my humble opinion, of course. --RexxS (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it didn't ping me - isn't that dissapointing? I always think that referring to companies, shops etc as "they" just sound plain wrong - it's a singular corporate body - similarly a team is supposed to act as one. Family is a bit more complicated (my family's bloody complicated) so I suppose it depends on context. Giano (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The general rule I think is to use "it" when referring to a singular entity such as a local council for instance, unless you're referring to the members of the council, which would obviously be "they". Same applies to families; are you referring to the singular family or to the members of the family, which is a good reason to prefer "it" in RexxS's example. Another example: "The family's fortune improved dramatically during the 18th century, and they soon became the largest landowners in the county." As the family itself isn't a legal entity the landowners must the individual members of the family, hence "they". Eric Corbett 20:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Except - it's rarely a family who owns land (has money), just one clever/lucky member of it (and his heir) and the rest bask in reflected glory - that's my experience anyway. Giano (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I may wrong, but the British usage tends to be, for instance, "were not rich" and American to "was not rich". Ultimately, I think both are correct, but it depends on whether you want to stress the idea of the family as a singular or as a collection of people . You wouldn't, I think, say "The Tudor family were in control of England in the 16th century" because there were lots of Tudors, but only five of them got to be in control, and so "The Tudor family was in control of England..." would be better. Cassianto^talk 12:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• I may be wrong but would say about an orchestra "It was founded", thinking of an organisation, but "They play", thinking of the people, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about

I have come here because this post seems off topic for where it was posted.

What are you talking about? Please provide examples for your accusations, otherwise they are personal attacks. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the alternate accounts I don't think you know what "tacitly" means. Tacitly means "expressed or carried on without words or speech", WP:SOCK clearly spells out conditions in which alternate accounts may be legitimately used. I have not used such an account in years so I am not sure what you are referring to, but when I did use such an account I did so within the requirements of our policies.

Please explain where I have been given special leeway for my admin bit. Please be specific if you want to be taken seriously. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are you wasting your time here in trying to lecture to me Chillum? You surely must be aware of the contempt in which I hold you. Eric Corbett 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Particularly when a principal use of 'tacitly' is understood without being openly expressed ("tacit approval"). --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-admin access to deleted page histories

That pretty much does it, thanks for the link. Do you have any suggestions for how I should go about this? Perhaps I should continue with the deletions, and then when I'm ready to investigate the sock issues I should ask an admin to temporarily userfy the relevant deleted articles? There could be 50 or more deletions by that point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing you can do with any hope of success is to put yourself forward at RFA, not something to be undertaken lightly though. Any admins routinely userifying deleted articles on your behalf would quite likely find themselves in hot water. The present situation is of course absurd, but it's unlikely to change any time soon. Eric Corbett 19:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr. F., why not discuss your plans with one of the SPI clerks such as User:Bbb23. He might be able to give advice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Good thought. Will do. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@DrFleischman: I am broadly supportive of de-coupling the right to delete from the right to view deleted material. I do appreciate the legal issues, which create a need to ensure that the right is handed out only after a vetting which may be so close to the RfA process, as to make the point moot, but it is not hard to imagine that the are editors with years of experience, an interest in copyright review issues or OTRS, both of which all but require such access. I can imagine that they might not wish to run for RfA, perhaps they've had a few pointed interchanges with editors which means their RfA won't go well, but such incidents would not preclude them from the trust needed to look at deleted material.

That said, it isn't likely to get enacted without a lot of discussion, and there are bigger fish to fry.

However, while I will not promise to provide deleted material carte blanche - please note the top userbox on my user page, which I'll save you a click by quoting "This administrator will consider reasonable requests to provide copies of deleted articles." I handle such a request this morning. And if I'm not around, see this list of admins with that user box.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, S. Two responses:

• The trouble with providing deleted material for this purpose is that userfying one article at a time isn't helpful. I'd need to look at large numbers at a time to identify similarities in editing styles. If an admin such as yourself is willing to do this for me and won't get into serious trouble, then by all means, this would be a workable solution.
• Regarding RFA, I'm not concerned about any skeletons in my closet. Sure I've had some run-ins but I think I could handle them. The bigger issues are my edit count, my relative lack of AFD experience, and my desire to use only a small subset of the tools. AlanM1 appears to have been done in largely for the same set of reasons.

--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. RfA being what it is it would simply be a week-long emotional drain for you with no corresponding benefit whatsoever, as it is for many others. Eric Corbett 16:46, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it seems unfortunate that admin tools can't be parceled out on a piecemeal basis. But I can see how that could cause a lot of complexity and corresponding administrative drain. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Unbundling the tools would be very easy to do were there the will to do it, but there isn't. The software underpinning this site has been developed in a rather lazy and incompetent way in many respects, such as the allocation of user rights. But unbundling is another one of those perennial proposals that won't happen any time soon. Eric Corbett 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't be brain surgery; we already have a lot of unbundled tools, reviewer, rollbacker, etc...

It's not really a technical issue, and never really has been. It's a philosophical laziness issue. I fundamentally object to administrators accruing more and more rights that didn't exist when they were elected to the body, and then fighting tooth and nail to make sure that they're the only ones that can have them. To me that just stinks. Eric Corbett 19:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

St John's

Thanks for this - you just beat me to it. I think the prose is a bit choppy but I can work on that. It was Dr B who nominated it. - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a very nice piece of work. A pity that you're about to be thrown to the wolves though, and won't be able to improve it further. Eric Corbett 17:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Clearly, civility etc is far, far more important to the cult than good research, information and good writing. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be perfect for GA!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be perfect for FA either; perfection is the province of the divine, not us mere mortals. Allegedly. Eric Corbett 19:41, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

WMF harassment now

I'm getting rather fed up up with the continual harassment here on WP of anyone who doesn't believe that Jimbo Wales is the new Messiah. I've just received an email from <wiki@wikimedia.org> telling me that I've requested a reset of my password, which I haven't. Is there nobody in charge of this asylum? Eric Corbett 19:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's face facts here. The only way to improve WP is to kick Jimbo Wales into the long grass. Eric Corbett 19:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd remove the access to talk pages for any editor with fewer than 50% contributions to article space. That would remove a lot of drama. J3Mrs (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd have additional requirements that editors with less than 50% main space edits are unable to instigate AN/I complaints and are restricted as to the number of complaints allowed to be made there within a certain time period to make sure they thought long and hard before immediately running to AN/I every other day. Perhaps that would encourage some editors to do more content work, which in turn would leave them with less time to be constantly up in arms and complaining ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was thinking that a couple of days ago but then wondered how it would affect a few of the gnomish types. While I've never used the delsorting stuff, for example, I know people who do and who presumably must be grateful for the very small number of people who do that thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:54, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling this WMF harassment seems incorrect. Somebody who doesn't like you is trying to spoof you by asking for a password reset in your name. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Calling this incorrect seems incorrect to me. Eric Corbett 20:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

How can someone spoof a password reset? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

There's something not quite right here, but as usual the WMF couldn't care less. Perhaps if I was a girl they'd take a bit more interest. Eric Corbett 20:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I recall this happening to me once a couple of years ago. If I remember correctly, it was discussed at one of the Village Pumps then too; it appeared to have been a massive attack at the time (I'm far too low profile to have been sought out individually). Not so this time. I saw no discussions at any of the pumps. I don't think it's a successful spoof until the victim actually delivers the required response. Nevertheless, it's unnerving that some asshole is trying to do this to an editor who is of great net value but gets dissed, attacked, sockpuppetered, and apparently tried to be stolen from identiy-wise too. Sorry you're being treated that way, Eric. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Post the email header.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

These sorts of password-hack e-mails seem to come through periodically. Someone technical-minded should take a look to see whether there's anything that can be done to stop them, but there's no reason to believe that the WMF Office is involved. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid Brad is right, Eric. I've been getting one or two of these a week since 2006. They go straight to spam. It's nothing to worry about and it's unlikely to be the fault of the WMF, although it'd be great if they could institute a technical fix. --John (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, simply going to the page Special:PasswordReset allows anyone to request a password reset just by supplying a username. As long as the interface allows editors to request a password reset without knowing the corresponding email, I'd suggest to anyone having this problem that they just direct emails from <wiki@wikimedia.org> straight into the bin. If you actually want a password reset, then you know where to look. --RexxS (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd second that. I get them periodically (it usually turns out that I've blocked some troll who takes exception). If memory serves, the WMF put a throttle on these a while back to limit abuse because some people were being targeted dozens of times a day. Oh, and I think the email tells you the IP address of the person who made the request. I'd be happy to block it for you if you post it here, and we can have some fun speculating which particular nutter it was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP address is 92.224.0.68. Eric Corbett 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's g224000068.adsl.alicedsl.de - do you know any nutjobs in Hamburg? --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I worked in Hamburg periodically, but don't recall meeting any nut jobs there. Eric Corbett 10:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a known troll (who usually messes the Reference Desks about) that has been known to use that range. It wouldn't surprise me if it was them. Black Kite (talk) 10:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Huh...of course Jimbo isn't the new messiah...but then neither are you. Seriously though...how fucked up is it to get this shit. You don't deserve it.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR

I finally got around to trying out my recently granted JSTOR access, and I can't help feeling a little crestfallen. I was hoping to find lots of information about the geography and history of Mersea Island so I could improve that article, but there seems to be very little. Have I misinterpreted what JSTOR is for? What I really wanted was access to the British Newspaper Archive, but I was too busy doing other stuff to get round to applying in time. As a working man with no affiliations to anything academic whatsoever, what other options have I got? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

One possibility: check if your local library has bought any subscriptions that are useful to you. I was pleasantly surprised to find that mine gives me online access to ODNB and signing up for a library in a neighbouring area gives Credo Reference. Like JSTOR they often don't have the depth of information you want, but they do come in handy at times.

The BNA may actually be available via a computer in your local library - see

• http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/content/libraries_education

If not, it's worth lobbying them to buy a subscription. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good set of ideas. One of the problems I've got at the moment is I tend to work weekdays and weekends (either music / band things or stuff for the telly), and when I'm not, I'm on parent duty, so actually getting to the local library when it's physically open is something of a challenge! Hence why I wanted to try and look for online alternatives. I know Eric was extolling the virtues of JSTOR and BNA and wondering why more editors weren't tripping over themselves to sign up, which makes the rather limp results I got today something of a surprise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:53, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't know if this is possible for you, but some university libraries have moved to 24 hour opening (mine has a good local studies collection). You could ask for a reference-only ticket. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 18:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

JSTOR is a collection of academic journals, a lot of it is scientific but there are most disciplines there. However you will only find information on things that have had a paper written about them so it's not necessarily that comprehensive as a reference source for for non scientific stuff. Manchester libraries have online access to a lot of newspapers - any UK resident can join online see: [2] Richerman (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Requesting_uninvolved_admin regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah Chillum, you're a blast from the past, I thought you had left. You used to be called something else (the name escapes me), but I see you haven't changed - as unpleasant as ever. Giano (talk) 18:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

He's certainly no more savoury now than he has been in the past. Eric Corbett 18:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I see at the top of his talk page he denounced Cassianto's apparently uncivil comment a few days ago which Caden templated him about. Related to a merge proposal of heterosexuality with homosexuality, as of course merging would be perfectly appropriate anyway...Or not.. His remark wasn't even remotely close to being a personal attack, but anything can be interpreted as such on wikipedia. It usually takes a complete asshole though to template somebody for incivility over a non personal attack.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Ahhhh yes, Chillum and his templates: He roams Wikipedia with a bucket full of paste and an armful of ANI tags, ready to pounce on innocent white canvasses; Like Banksy, only beginning with a "W". -- Cassianto^talk 18:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum knows that I think he's a piece of shit. Eric Corbett 19:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ah yes, I knew it would come to me: Chillum used to be called HighInBC, but changed his name after he mad an ass of himself over the Inshaneee RFAR - I'm sure there's more to remember, and that will come to me too. I do seem to recall, however, that he has always been deeply unpleasant, wandering around the encyclopedia sticking his nose on where it's least required and he has minimal understanding. I had quite forgotten him, until he re-entered my orbit - I must do some research now that he's chosen to pop up again. Giano (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you've done that to win a bet? I can't think of any other reason why you'd be wasting your time at AN/I. Eric Corbett 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speaking of fun--Eric, I ran across Talk:EST and The Forum in popular culture and can't figure out what happened. Was the article moved up to GA after a favorable peer review? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  Here's a link to the GA review, what little there is of it. But the reviewer, Wassupwestcoast is an administrator, so I suppose it must be OK. Eric Corbett 03:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting. The article may have been renamed after the archiving, so it didn't show up on the talk page. As for the admin status, I think you're right--but in the old days, us admins used to get respek. Thanks for teasing this out. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eric, sorry, I wrote the wrong editor's name at the ANI thread - my bad. I hope I didn't cause you harm of any sort... Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to tell, isn't it. There are a great many twats here who will simply cite your comment in evidence against me. Eric Corbett 01:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but then we'll have indisputable evidence that they are twats. [Sings] "Always look on the bright side of life ..." --RexxS (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@RexxS: New found respect for you. I never thought you'd be the type to refer others on wikipedia as twats, but I think it's probably highly likely. There's definitely a community on here who can be described as little else.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Dr B, I've always found it disgraceful that when some twat arrives at Eric's page and starts acting like a twat, they get offended when he calls them a twat. Especially when they go running to ANI as if the response is the offence, not the original behaviour. Have you read Geogre's comic (actually about Giano, but the principle's the same)? --RexxS (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

He does seem to be a twat magnet, most of wikipedia's sanctimonious trolls have turned up here at some point looking for little but to provoke him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

↑As opposed to a fanny magnet? (S'funny how two expressions that superficially look like they might mean the same thing are in fact quite, quite different.) --Shirt58 (talk) 07:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hehe yeah, well-spotted, but both might apply to Eric :-) The chances of a female editor turning up on his talk page according to Sue and the foundation though are very slim, you know you can go a full month sometimes and not see a female editor on wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I almost only edit pages on automobiles - I don't think I've ever encountered a female editor. And I can tell you that gender and drama don't seem to correlate...  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's another interesting disconnect. Some automobiles are purported to be, ahem, fanny magnets. Mr.choppers, as linking to copy-vios would harshly tarnish my shiny sheriff's badge I can't link to anything in particular, but I can't stop you from to Google-ing up "Satsuma" + "Castanet" + "XR4" + "Turbo". I'm sure Blofeld will be happy to explain the differences between American English and British English about that expression. Pete "one of the useful things about being an Australian is that however erudite, cultured and well-spoken you may appear to be, when you write stuff like a potty-mouthed schoolboy, no-one is in the least bit surprised" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Eric Corbett. You have new messages at Talk:Sea Mither/GA1.
Message added 07:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Yunshui ^雲_水 07:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sea Mither

The article Sea Mither you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Sea Mither for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yunshui -- Yunshui (talk) 08:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I see it passed, you really are letting the side down producing all this good content! That's not what wikitopia is for. Seriously another lovely little article, well done. :) J3Mrs (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice work on a wonderfully obscure bit of folklore. On a sort of related note, reviewing the article reminded me of the reasons (linguistic flair, solid MOS knowledge, skillful sourcing) that I asked you a while back to pre-review Bonshō before I sent it to FA. It's at FA review now; if you'd care to proffer some suggestions for improvement there, I'd be most appreciative. Cheers, Yunshui ^雲_水 08:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm on a little break right now, but I'll be happy to take a look over the weekend. Eric Corbett 09:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged; enjoy the respite. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhm....I wasn't the one who said it...I just stated it as fact that others do feel that way...

Of course you are not "Unsanctionable"...and yep....your block log shows it. But is also shows how well protected you are. You are, perhaps, the best content creator on the project...perhaps not, but certainly close enough. Many feel that is enough to wheel war over you. While your block log shows blocks......it also shows how quickly those blocks were overturned, and since I have been aware of you....I have watched as your blocks created more drama than perhaps was ever needed (as if drama is ever needed anywhere but a good film). But then.....my personal opinion is of no consequence here.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• It takes more than one editor to cause drama, fly-by comments add to it, consider that. If you don't mean it, don't say it, and repeating what somebody else said to make a point, is well beyond contempt in my opinion. In an attempt to lessen the drama you say you dislike, why don't you take Eric off your watchlist and start improving your content contributions instead. J3Mrs (talk) 12:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

But who cares about content? It's all about civility and gender now. Eric Corbett 11:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For you and your inability to give a shit about it...perhaps....but then perhaps you care more than you let on and perhaps you really don't care. That is not the point. Others do. Respect is not something you seem to want to offer and in so doing....make an encyclopedia a grudge match in many ways. You know what....I actually like you. I see myself in you in many ways...minus the incredible content creation. I like that you are honest...but most of the time....honesty is not needed here any more than you think civility is.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I treat those who deserve respect with respect. The others can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned. Eric Corbett 12:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I care about content. But I have to go earn some income today so I'll be off working an art festival and selling photography rather than working on content. (Oh, and Eric - I dreamed last night that I visited Manchester and was driving around trying to find a pub we were supposed to meet in. I was very very lost. And driving very badly in England. I think it says something when English roundabouts cause Yankee nightmares...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When I started editing, in my naivety I thought that wikipedia was about writing content. I might still think that had I not been interested in the history of where I was born and not been encouraged by Eric and several others who don't suffer fools and care about content. Without content Wikipedia wouldn't exist, there would be nothing for admins to police and folks to fight over and it seems to me the more you write the more there is to fight about. Disagreements about content, started by editors who wouldn't recognise good content if they fell over it causes drama and edit wars when fly-by editors "improve" it by adding pov, trivia, tags and whatever. Try looking from the other side and maybe consider that Eric does not cause disruption, rather it's the editors who stick their noses in and try to prove a point who do. Eric is often right and that's what upsets his "enemies" who frequently line up to take pot shots. Yes I am a fan of Eric and the others who encouraged me, unashamedly so. J3Mrs (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the context of me being repeatedly accused of chasing off new editors, and females in particular, I shall cherish that post. Eric Corbett 12:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of constantly repeating myself and appearing to almost always echo J3Mrs comments, I also greatly respect and appreciate Eric. Just as he did with J3Mrs, he was the one who rolled his sleeves up and helped me a long time ago - and since then has often helped, encouraged and enticed me to continue editing when I felt like walking away. If the "detractors" spent more time working on content they wouldn't have any time to run around in circles creating merry hell at every opportunity and typing walls of text in places like AN/I etc. As far as I can see it isn't content editors like Eric or Sitush who cause the problems. SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

When I was a child, I was a fan of Bozo the Clown and Captain Kangaroo...but then I grew up. Fans can fool some into thinking they deserve to be above others. Eric has never encouraged me...but he has certainly inspired me. I am also...not his enemy. Why else would I take advice from another to drop my criticism of him when asked directly because he was going through personal issues. We all have those...I do and so does Eric. He just doesn't seem to care much about other peoples issues from what I recall of his comments when a respected editor committed suicide. Is that harsh? Yes...of course...but so were his comments.--Mark Miller (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a pity he hasn't inspired you to write because I tend to judge editors by what they have produced not by how vociferous they are on talk pages. I fail to see why editors with fewer than 40% edits to content are here unless they just like telling others what to do. By content editing I have learned to choose my words and yes I am a fan. Otherwise I have no idea what you are waffling about, and don't want to know either so please don't try to tell me. J3Mrs (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake Mark, what are you trying to do? Why not find something constructive and do that instead. This stirring is really quite nasty. Eric ia an exceptionally able editor, and as a result he will always be targeted with resentment from users who want to be important on Wikipedia but can't write. Eric needs protection from these endless attacks, not what you are offering. If Eric is run off the project then the focus will change to some other exceptional editor. Should we stand back while that editor is run off as well? And then the next, and so on till no more able editors remain. There is a sizeable sub-community here now that would be delighted at that spectacle, but it would be the end of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, Eric is constantly targeted. Even tonight Kww had this to say: "Your way condemns us to an eternal sequence of Eric Corbetts. 202.83.19.218 (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP would be extremely fortunate to have a constant sequence of Eric Corbetts, but it's not going about the right way to get them. Eric Corbett 10:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing about that 40% content. I actually strived to raise the amount of talk page content because I was led down a path of stupidity to actually think discussion was important and valued on Wikipedia. It really isn't and my content creation is enough for me. I am not here to impress the mob. That used to be something I liked about Wikipedia...that discussion was valued and looked for. But now...I could care less. Eric will never be run off this project. He is truly well protected. But all content creators...even those with my sorry amount have some level of protection. The crowd sourced manner is not exactly ideal and Eric is certainly not the ideal Wikipedian, but even with my harsh criticism there is still that very opinion that I still hold that Eric is attacked far too much. I am not attacking Eric...but I also don't give a crap what others think of my opinion of him. It is neither important enough to effect the way Corbett acts or the way others feel about him. I don't know Eric beyond the written word. In may ways that is my loss for sure...but also a great relief. We don't have to like, respect or even care about each other. That much is a blessing. EC is neither the absolute best of us...nor the absolute worst....so there is that. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm there too right now and considering what I'm being accused of, I'm embarrassed by the waste of space and effort expended so far. Keep fighting the good fight... :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 07:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I added to the waste of space, quoting from the "accusation": "I treat those who deserve respect with respect. " Period. Just stay in that group, everybody, it's that easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

They gave me the honour of the last word ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The sad thing is they cannot see it is their constant barrage of nonsense reports that are disruptive. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is it apparently so difficult for editors such as you EvergreenFir to act like rational adults? Is it because you're not actually rational adults? Eric Corbett 10:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think there is any vague chance ever of introducing a policy such as this : "If you want to complain about Eric Corbett on ANI, you will need to have a credit of three GAs or one FA that you personally nominated and were the majority contributor for. Otherwise your complaint will be tossed out until you have those credits." Wishful thinking I guess. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Does anybody consider that editors who engage in sugar-coated hostility are disruptive dramamongers who are inviting conflict and ought to be dealt with? J3Mrs (talk) 12:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would say that they do not. As far as I'm concerned, that kind of passive aggressive crap is far more disruptive than the occasional curse word. Intothatdarkness 13:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Things might go a little better for EvergreenFir and her fellow civility gangsters if, just for once, they considered telling the truth at these interminably tedious AN/I reports. Eric Corbett 12:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The real issue is not the periodic incivility of Mr. Corbett , the real issue are the actual mean-spirited trolls who attack specific editors and articles. Montanabw^(talk) 23:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well said MBW!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

This is driving me up the wall. Every time it's "I acted like a cockwomble and Eric called me one. He likes to call a spade a fucking shovel. Waaaaah!" It's like "I was in this room with a button saying 'Do not press', I pressed it, and a 16 ton weight fell on top of me", "I spilled hot coffee on myself and it hurts. I want to sue McDonalds", "I went to Free Derry and bemoaned the death of Ian Paisley and got death threats" or "I went to the Alabama Bible Belt and extolled the virtues of Canal Street, Manchester and got beaten up and left in a ditch". We are grown ups. Act responsibly. Now, back to Mersea Island for me.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• For there to be drama, there must be actors...and Eric is a constant actor in the Wikipedia drama. For better or for worse.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The Good Article Award

	The Good Article Award
	This way I reward you with the Dessert No. 4 from Boston for excellent work in the field of GA. Hafspajen (talk) 22:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Shafts

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"which you recently created or substantially expanded". Shouldn't that be "which you allegedly recently created or substantially expanded" ;-)...

According to the tablets of stone handed down by Jimbo it probably should. Given the current rows centring on the GGTF project though it's interesting to note that Shafts was an early feminist magazine. I guess that's my misogynist credentials shot to Hell. Eric Corbett 17:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

SCOMN! The irony! Montanabw^(talk) 06:52, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Malleus, you could always go back and vandalize it. The addition of pictures of tossers doing, ahem, the eponymous appears to be a perennial favourite. --Shirt58 (talk) 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Kudos.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Monday now?

Seems like it given the new ANI on me, but you are UK, another hour and a half by my clock, get back to it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The god-king has spoken

Jimbo Wales has once again suggested that anyone who doesn't agree with him, and specifically referring to me, ought to find another hobby. My view is a little different from his, but do feel free to join in on Jimbo's talk page. Not that it'll make any difference of course. Eric Corbett 23:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't until quite late on Monday that I realised you had taken the day off as per your earlier musings. I'll be joining you next Monday and fully expect that in due course it will become more days off than on. I might also encourage people who've never edited to have a go, in the sure knowledge that it will go dreadfully wrong, dreadfully quickly as it has done with Gardner's garbage systemic bias campaign that encouraged thousands of semi-literate, clueless pov-pushers and copyright-violators to descend on the project in the space of a few weeks. We're still cleaning up that mess. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

That's good, the more the merrier. Eric Corbett 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't edit for four days in a row, - did anyone notice? I don't think so ;) Yesterday I remembered a milestone in my personal history here, - I mentioned strike a year ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We need to act in concert though, that's the key. Eric Corbett 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might be giving Jimbo 1/7 of what he wants?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

More than 1/7 surely? Eric Corbett 10:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Got to give credit for consistency, however: I have said this many times in the past and will say it many times in the future I am sure: some people need to find a different hobby, because whatever they are here for, it is not to help build an encyclopedia. [...] Giano was trolling (i.e. doing something he knew to be disruptive), he knew he was trolling, and I doubt if he will last much longer at Wikipedia because of it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Goodness Me! "I doubt if he will last much longer at Wikipedia because of it." That was seven years ago, and I'm still here. I wonder what it was that I had allegedly doe on that occasion. Giano (talk) 09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Join. (Mondays.) It's hard to believe what I think I'm seeing: Cullen seemingly thinks he's practitioner of Jimbo's "moral ambitiousness/love" campaign by issuing sarcastic/baiting personal insults, then when he gets flak back from the target asking to knock it off, tells said target "stay off my talk page until you can conduct yourself with kindness", and, "stay off my talk page, unless you come with an attitude of kindness and respect." (Please also see the Jimbo quote at top of Cullen's User talk.) Do you think I'm misconstruing anything? (Because it seems like just nuts to me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso, I was wrong to make that comment about you, and I apologize for it. I am sorry. As for the quote from Jimbo that I had on my talk page, it seemed like a good idea to me a few years ago, but far less so today. I have removed it. I am still trying to learn. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtfulness Cullen, I appreciate. (I do support Eric's Monday boycott initiative for other reasons, including the destructive tone set in motion by Jimbo recently prescribing bans [described by Bish as "Wikipedia eating her children"].) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for joining in. As for Cullen ... best avoided really. Eric Corbett 12:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• I too have joined the cause and did not 'work' yesterday and have a sort of quasi-template on my talk page. I notice above you said we need to act in concert. Should we have a 'wikipedians' category (who are not wikipedians on Monday? ツ ) or a protest project page to sign? My talk page is not all that active, so my template may not be noticed by itself... PS. As for Cullen, he has finally shown his true colours to me. He is officially on my infuriation list. All the best, Fylbecatulous talk 14:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  Excellent! A category might indeed be a good idea. Is that something you could take care of? Eric Corbett 14:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that any such cat would be deleted pronto, as per my response to Fylbecatulous in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't think of any rational reason why it might be deleted. But then ... Eric Corbett 16:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, I'm not sure why you worry so much about what Jimbo says or the arrogance of the foundation. Although it seems wrong that they are paid and we're not, they have little bearing really on the development of the encyclopedia and are never going to go around personally thanking people and giving them the respect that they deserve. I think you'd be giving a stronger response by simply ignoring them and not giving them the time of day...♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't worry about it all, I just want it to stop. Eric Corbett 16:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As do I. I shall continue to abstain from editing in protest at least on Mondays. I guess I will not create a category. I am already in the infamous (not a Wikipedian) and I wish to not turn over that rock and get those members deleted, as has been threatened in the past.. Thanks. Fylbecatulous talk 18:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I get the idea; any signs of dissent will be crushed. Eric Corbett 19:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Me too of course, but not editing on a Monday is unlikely to make them act any differently. What we really need is some sort of mass organized strike for a prolonged period!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Depends on how wide scale the protest becomes and if it's reported in the press. I agree that on its own it won't have any impact on the WMF, but what might is the publicity it generates. Eric Corbett 20:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You're definitely right though that they have little respect for contributors and the general relationship between the foundation and the top contributors here is extremely poor. We ought to be treated every bit as well as the top figures in the foundation, given that content is what wikipedia is all about. I've made numerous suggestions to Jimbo and the foundation for improvements but even if I get a response they never do anything about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, have you seen the rationale in the thread on my page? It was mentioned on this page, too, recently. Doing nothing on the presumption that it will make no difference just reminds me of an analogy: "all it takes for the triumph of evil ..." etc. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. I once had a blow-hard blustery manager suffering from verbal diarrhoea whose first comment in any meeting convened to address some crisis or other was always "Our first option is to do nothing". He was a wanker of course, but what has doing nothing ever changed? Eric Corbett 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying doing nothing will change anything, but I am saying that I think ignoring Jimbo and the foundation entirely and dismissing whatever they say as nonsense without commentary would seem a bigger rejection and that walking away from wikipedia at least for one day is a step towards giving them what they want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

We'll probably have to agree to disagree then. Eric Corbett 10:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather not disagree with you, but if you think that going on strike every Monday is going to change anything then I guess we'll have to! I'm not happy with the way things are run either, but I don't want to lose 52 days of editing from you, especially given that they want you to leave anyway... Now, Criticism of Jimmy Wales as TFA, that might be something.. I doubt he's had much criticism in reliable publications and it wouldn't be easy to write a neutral decent article about, but could you imagine... Kohs would have a field day!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One person is easily ignored, but 50? A hundred? A thousand? Eric Corbett 11:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you can get 100 core editors of wikipedia to leave the website for a full month with a specific request to the foundation then I think they'd start to notice. The impression I get is that they have a naive outlook on wikipedia development and think that even if we lose contributors there'll be more along to take their place. The impression I've always got is that they consider the ip or newbie who adds some unsourced content in entries and the seasoned editor who writes featured articles as all in one class, "editor". I don't think they truly appreciate the "core community" or if they do they their efforts to interact are very poor.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I can only do what I can, even if it's only me. Eric Corbett 11:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you organised a petition to the foundation with some specific requests for change I'd probably join a strike if it had possible positive benefits and I'm sure a lot would here too. I think you'd find though that even within the foundation there is often disagreement, even with Jimbo. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's Monday

If you fancy a little automation you can use:

{{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Monday now, so I'll be gone until tomorrow.}} |}}

I know it only saves a few moments removing or restoring <!-- -->, but there are better things we could be doing with those moments. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to suggest something similar, but the automatic switch would deprive us of a watchlist reminder about the protest that Eric (and others) are making. Bencherlite^Talk 16:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point and I must admit that being retired means one day looks much like another to me (except the supermarket closes early on Sundays). However, you could always put

• {{#ifeq: {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} | Monday | {{wikibreak|message=It's Protest Day today.}} |}}

on one of your pages as a reminder :) --RexxS (talk) 18:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll likely do something like that RexxS, as "I'm not trying to cause a big sensation/ Just talking 'bout my generation." Or in this case my utter contempt for the way that WP is governed, funded and run. Many say it will make no difference, and probably it won't. But it does to me, and that's all that matters. It's a small thing I know, but great oaks from little acorns grow. Eric Corbett 23:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

An absolute disgrace

"Some examples (of abuse of WP:NPA, say) would be good. What I see, much more, is editors like Eric behaving with absolutely ludicrous levels of hostility towards other editors, leaving a trail of destruction in their path, and then an endless series of apologia due to their allegedly great content contributions (taking no account of the content contributions that they drive away with their outrageous behavior directly PLUS their overall influence on the tone and manner of the community as a whole, as people see that even the worst possible behavior is something that some people get away with repeatedly. Eric, and some like him, should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago because the total cost to the volunteer community is tremendous. I see no evidence that anyone is stalking or hounding them at all. People have legitimate grievances and we lose good community members because of them. It's time to step up and say that we aren't talking about minor infractions or 'political correctness' but about the need to get rid of people who violate our standards and do damage to the encyclopedia because of it.

I think it's an absolute disgrace that after banning Sitush and I from his talk page Jimbo hosts a discussion such as the one I quoted from above. Looking on the bright side though, if I'm so disliked by Jimbo then I must be doing something right. And why does he keep referring to my "allegedly" great content contributions? Has he not read any of them? I've read quite a few of his, and if writing content was left to him WP would become even more of a laughing stock than it is already. Eric Corbett 09:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, I know that you have been kicked off of Jimbo's page and may no longer be reading it, but I want to bring something up, an exchange I had with him a few days ago. I thought I was over my anger because I tend to just walk away from controversy rather than get into a never-ending battle with an editor that I know quite well will just wear me down in the end. But reading the above just brought my anger and disgust to the surface all over again. I'm talking about this exchange I had with Him here: [3] # 13. I can hardly say how hurt I was to see "my" article criticized on his page. And for him to say that he is "already working on it [the article]" is just a bald-faced lie - unless you call asking a question on the talk page working on it. Gandydancer (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush and me. :o) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I consider "Sitush and I" to be a compound subject; sometimes it's quite acceptable to bend the language. Just look at Dylan Thomas for instance. Eric Corbett 10:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I got fed up when I saw what happened to Sitush. An indefinite ban was extreme, looked like nothing but trying to gain brownie points. I'm sick to death of seeing you, Sitush or other editors, Cassianto etc, having to deal with the civility police and inappropriate blocks and the fuss after them. It's been worse than ever since Wikimania. I wanted to know if Jimbo considers their behaviour uncivil too. Perhaps you could find some diffs of provocative comments and abuse of WP:NPA to get him to comment on them rather than on you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"You are one of them" was recently used, "them" meaning you, Eric, and another editor I admire, - I said it would be high praise for me. I try to ignore the page mentioned, after my flower question received no answer (as expected). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If Wales had some decent content to his credit he might have a little more empathy with those who do. Instead his main contribution is a talk page populated by sycophants, whingers, trolls and those who need another venue to canvass whatever injustice they think has been done to them and indeed for the bullies who feel enabled by Wales' edicts. This is not a professional setting or a kindergarten it's the internet. If crowd-sourcing is the object then you end up with the crowd and its trivia and no coherence. If you want an encyclopedia you need people willing to research, write, copyedit, and everything else associated with producing content worth reading. Wales does a huge injustice to many editors by dismissing some of the encyclopedia's best work as "allegedly great content contributions". But just as the community stuck up for itself against the foundation, perhaps it will let Wales know just how out of touch he is. J3Mrs (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've never been quite able to understand why people become so worked up about the pronouncements of this Jimmy Wales editor. Like some others here, he has been allowed to credit himself with great deal of value to the project. However, at the end of the day, we are all dispensable - some more so than others. In my view, contrary to his delusions, Jimmy Wales has no real power or use here. I don't doubt that some, listening to his off-wiki speeches and pontifications, believe him to be the linchpin and corner stone of the project, but those of us actually writing the encyclopedia know quite differently. My point is, like all irritating, buzzing creatures, it's best to ignore them - then they go away. Giano (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  He berates others for behaving without "honor", yet he behaves dishonourably himself. Eric Corbett 13:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• He buzzes, but he doesn't have teeth or a sting. Brush him aside and forget him. Giano (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Like The Emperor has no clothes. ignore him. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestions re Jimbo's "out of touch" and "uncivil" likely pressed a sore point. He supported Kaldari who socked to harass you, and complained at Panda's Talk who unblocked you. That didn't work so now mob-rousing rage come-backs: "should have been permanently banned from Wikipedia a long time ago", "the need to get rid of people who violate our standards". (Is that like admins' expectation re "behavior at a higher standard"?! And where's the unambiguous CIV standard or consensus for all to read?) Bish said "Wikipedia eating her children" -- how succinct! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

  Kaldari did indeed, and admitted as much. Yet Jimbo claims never to have seen any harassment against me. But I guess if you keep your eyes tightly shut against the truth you likely don't see very much. I'm off out for a nice meal shortly, Jimbo's already taken up too much of my time. Eric Corbett| Eric]] Corbett 16:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Has Bish posted at Jimbo's page? I find Bish to be pretty good at calling it as she sees it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Now, is one of Wikipedia's greatest, living editors likely to post in such a banal place as Jimbo's page? Yes, I know I have, but I'm not quite as great as BishonenGiano (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did :-) Sorry I didn't finishing referencing Sicily BTW! I very rarely ever post on his talk page and took it off my watchlist about two years back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry - we all descend there occasionally. I'm editing in the USA at the moment; it's opened up a whole New World for me - Sicily seems very far away. Giano (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that Bishonen is at all likely to post on Jimbo's page. Remember that he punitively blocked her for calling a little shit a "little shit"; he then coined the infamous "toxic personality" remark and 'Shonen took him to ArbCom. It proved impossible for her to communicate meaningfully with Jimbo at the time as shown by the exchange here: User talk:Bishonen/block discussion, and as far as I know, she's given up on the idea as impractical. That exchange contains a piece of advice from 'Shonen:

• I know of no single piece of behavior in the community that has a more bitter—more "toxic"— harvest than blocks. Blocks should be used only when absolutely necessary, such as to stop ongoing vandalism, because their effect is so bad. I believe it is now widely accepted in the admin community that so-called "civility blocks" are pernicious. My personal belief is that nothing loses the project more well-meaning established editors than those types of blocks do, together perhaps with ham-fisted arbitration remedies. Those editors should be the backbone of the project, and the teachers of the new arrivals; but in reality they not merely leave in great numbers, but leave in bitterness. - Bishonen, 15:24, 24 June 2009

Absolutely spot-on five years ago, and just as relevant right now. Lessons just don't get learned. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bish's "Wikipedia eating her children" comment was at Sitush's Talk [4]. Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• I posted to Jimbo's page twice today. I won't make that mistake again. I had completely forgotten about his moronic block of Bishonen. It's not a good thing at all that he retains any position of authority with regards to en.wikipedia. (You know me, I promise, from back in your "Malleus" days, when I too went by a different nom de plume.) LHM^{ask me a question} 17:19, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly how many very active FA/quality article contributors have left wikipedia because of you Eric? Jimbo implies that wherever you breathe other editors flee the project without looking back.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:27, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If Jimbo had impartially assessed the evidence he would be able to answer your question himself. Eric Corbett 17:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters to most anyone, but my two GAs, one FA and TFA are due in part to Eric, and I probably wouldn't have bothered to improve them to that point without his help. The newest one I'm (slowly) working on with GA goals will very likely have his participation as well. For me, its is simply a choice (and gratitude for the help when I can get it). He has said my organization for one article was "shit", but it is hard to take offense when he is right as that was an apt description at the time. Being blunt isn't a curse nor should it be cursed. It saves time and it is honest. I don't see that as incivil. Dennis 23:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Dennis....you've both pissed me off and shamed me greatly. What you said above does matter...to me. In fact, it is your collaborations with Eric that have given me the demonstration of his ability to work with good editors to help them and their content work because....he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often. And when he does....it generally ends badly. His bluntness is one of the inspirations I take from him...but he also demonstrates his seeming contempt for the Wikipedia community. God (or the deity of your choice) bless Eric. But I sure as hell wish he was less abrasive and disruptive.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Err...Mark I don't follow you....what are you trying to say?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't meant for you to understand and deserves no clarification. Now...if Dennis wishes for me to expand on that, I will certainly do so. Heck...since this is Eric Corbett's talk page, if he asks for clarification I will respond as well...but really...don't take offense to not getting a response.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You're saying that Eric's collaborations with others end badly? If so then checking this talk page or the edit history should tell you otherwise, or if someone else it's coming across as ambiguous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think if you really think "he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" you've obviously not looked very hard. On User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#FAs I list the FAs I've worked up in order of promotion. Every one after Stigand has had tremendous input from Eric/Malleus in terms of copy-editing and help with all aspects of article prep. I'd say that's a pretty strong showing of collaborative ability. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh...sorry, guess when I suggested Eric to a new editor and it ended in an awful cluster fuck it was just a one off. My bad. Eric is the new messiah. Sorry for pissing off the faithful.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Which editor/article are you referring to? Eric Corbett 03:53, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Mark, I've seen Eric collaborate with tons of people. Sometimes they bump heads a bit, and move forward. Sometimes they don't. When you want to create FA type stuff, there is going to be friction sometimes. Most of the FA regulars can handle mild frustration. If your goal is excellence, it is unavoidable. And if I've pissed you off and shamed you, I'm sorry. It is never my intention to do that to anyone, and not sure what I did, but obviously here isn't the place to hash it out, email would be. Like Eric, I can be gruff at times, even if do it in a different way. That is my whole point about incivility, we ALL can be dicks sometimes, including me. But as to my first point, yes, Eric is why I got those GAs and FA. Right after he opposed me at RFA. Dennis 01:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be sorry Dennis. I deserved it. And as much as Eric seems to support FA excellence...he doesn't suffer "fools" (meaning everyone BUT him) at all. Everyone his opinion doesn't deserve help gets the exact opposite. He disrupts everything beneath him and praises everything he agrees with as if he was the savior of the entire project. Don't get me wrong...I do like Eric...but his disruption needs to stop or he needs to go. Period. He will do nothing to change my mind because I am less than his opinion feels even deserves attention. But...my attention is not so discriminating. But then....Eric is also not that important to the be all or end all of Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Then go somewhere and argue for him to "go" or whatever you're trying to get accomplished. This, however, is not the place for your odd rants. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh give me a fucking break Lithistman. Seriously. I came back from my vacation to see you pinging me to attack another editor. Get over it! As if your "odd rants" have any place on the project. Try shutting up and see if that helps you!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Okay. FYI, you were pinged because you had participated in the consensus discussion. Believe me when I say this: it will never happen again. You're apparently just here to rant incoherently about your vacation and how awful Eric is to others (but you "still do like him", or course), so have fun with that, I guess. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever...but at least you got the fucking message. Stop pinging me to attack others. And my vacation was wonderful....Wikipedia is not...at the moment, but that can change...and yeah.....I do like Eric. Odd for some that can't understand why someone would be critical of those they actually admire. Like I give a shit.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Yours has been one of the oddest screeds I've seen on here in quite awhile--and in 8 years, I've seen some doozies. Also, your claim that I pinged you to "attack others" is simply a falsehood. I explained both here and there what the ping was for, so I'd appreciate it if you'd quit making that false claim. Or just keep swearing and using random ellipsis. That works as well. I'll give you the last word, should you choose to reply. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

OK then..... how about "shut up". You just expected me to support your attack and you really had no business pinging me. Now...stop doing so. I never asked you to do so or ever expected it and never wish that to happen again. Got it? Good. ( a true apology to Eric for this being on his talk page and I endorse his removing any of it if he chooses.)--Mark Miller (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"... he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" is just about as far from the truth as I could imagine. Why are you persisting with that evident falsehood? Are you in Jimbo's pocket? How often have you seen him collaborate on an article with anyone? Why not just look at the facts rather believe the lies? Eric Corbett 03:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"... he doesn't collaborate with others (from what I see) often" That is what I really did and do see, but have been corrected by others. As you do...my words were chosen to be honest and not an exaggeration. I am more than cool with the fact that other editors know you to collaborate often. While I really did not see it...I actually trust those that state you really do. Jimbo has collaborated with me a great deal. Not like he hasn't had harsh words for me when I did wrong, and critical of my contributions. I didn't get all bent the fuck out of shape about it. You could try that yourself you know.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for you; stop propagating Jimbo's ill-considered opinions on anything. And how you could have collaborated with someone who is so clearly incompetent at article writing will have to remain a mystery I suppose, as you will undoubtedly have no evidence to back that up. Eric Corbett 04:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't "[propagate] Jimbo's ill-considered opinions on anything". I don't even have his talk page on my watch list any more. Oh....you want "evidence"? LOL! Why....because assuming good faith is beyond you? Nah....I don't think my giving you diffs would be much help, but yeah...Jimbo is like everyone else...just like YOU. He has collaborated with me and I very much appreciated the help. Give in to the "Light side". There is no real need to be so dark here. You got stuff that is useful...why not be as kind the general community as you are to your ...I don't know..."fans"? You have good support. I like that. Many do. Why waste it? Anywhoo....happy editing. I am not your enemy.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You've never "collaborated" with Wales on any article. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. So why the lie I wonder? Eric Corbett 04:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

So now you accuse me of a lie. Alrighty then. Nope. Not a lie. Jimbo helped me on the talk page of an article where the subject was being accused of that very thing...a lie.. about their birthdate. He pointed out a number of issues and we discussed tabloid sources on his talk page in relation to the Independent that he felt was not a tabloid and shared some information that he knew about the owners and other papers they owned but admitted it was possible for the paper to change and that it could be seen as a tabloid. He spotted a BLP violation and I removed it. Someone else requested help with the article at about the time others were requesting help on a BLP about a transgendered person that was eventually deleted after several discussion on different venues (on that situation he did not assist from what I remember), but if you feel that was not collaboration or assistance...cool. There have been other smaller collaborations through his talk page in regards to articles he asked for help on, as well as a number of situations he helped clarify content or policy et. He has been a good help to me...but I took his page of my watch list a while back. I'm not sure how that "tool" works but as far as I am concerned if you want to think...what you want to think...I can't control that.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Look. A lie is a lie. Just stop. Eric Corbett 18:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I lie is saying something you know is not true. I haven't done that. A lie is a lie...when a lie is told. Jimbo has been good enough to collaborate with me. That is not a lie.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been able to figure out what the hell he's trying to accomplish at any point in this thread, more or less that false claim to have "collaborated with Wales." LHM^{ask me a question} 04:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You are very important to this project Mark, and I'm sure Jimbo has benefited from your collaborations. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I only hope to learn and improve myself. I am not perfect and I make mistakes...but I try and as awful as my words to Eric may seem here, it is because I really do think he is worth this effort.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of incivility, you know, I don't think I have ever heard Eric EVER say "shut up" to anyone. Now those are two words generally guaranteed to stir emotional drama! Montanabw^(talk) 06:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Not so sure I have not actually seen that myself...but yes, that was not civil of me. I have struck out the comment and apologize to Lithistman for it. Also, sorry Eric for overly mirroring what I perceive as your own behavior. What we see and perceive is always filtered through tint of opinion.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that all your accusations are based on your beliefs and prejudices with scarcely a nod towards the actual facts. Eric Corbett 18:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Uhm....yes. "..based on your beliefs and prejudices". However, facts are what we know. I can't say you never collaborate well with others, I can only say I have not seen it "often". But others have and that is good enough.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, Eric and I collaborated very happily here and I think (I may be wrong) took it to GA together. I have no idea how one summons that little tool that proves that, but I'm sure someone watching this knows how to do it. Giano (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  Looks like you might be thinking of Vorontsov Palace (Alupka) or Ashton Court. I don't see Little Moreton Hall on the editor interaction page for you two. Also, here is a link to the base page where you can type in usernames to see if they've actually interacted. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

  Both Giano and I have had name changes in the fairly recent past. Under the user name of Giano II he is the second highest contributor to Little Moreton Hall, and under the name of Malleus Fatuorum I'm at no. 4. Eric Corbett 20:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed we have, but your edits are always far more superior and weighty than mine. Anyway, Pondering carefully on the matter, I think I may have been advising discretely. Giano (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
• Ah, that makes sense. I knew about your name change, obviously, but Giano's is quite subtle, so I didn't think to check the other one. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• And quite recently we worked together with Rodw on Ashton Court if you recall, now a GA. Eric Corbett 19:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Did not see that but did see one collaboration that went well and ended up as a GA I believe and possibly wnet to FA. Eric is a superb content creator, there is no doubt there. Nice to see the work with others.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric has helped me out lots of times copy editing and polishing articles I've written and I've made contributions to articles he's been working on all without rancour. He's also collaborated on many articles produced by the Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester - the article on the Peterloo Massacre stands out amongst these. It's usually only when pedantic idiots come along and try to tell him that they know better that problems arise. He also mentored a bunch of American high school students some years ago helping them to produce some excellent work. Richerman (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"[M]entored a bunch of American high school students" That is extremely difficult and time consuming. Very cool.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Every 5 to 10k edits, we all might call someone an ass. Eric's greatest crime is being so prolific that it happens every few months instead of every few years. If you look at his "disruption" edits versus "productive" edits, his "dick ratio", so to speak, he probably has us all shamed. I rather like that "dick ratio" concept, someone should pen an essay. Dennis 19:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I like that notion of a dick ratio, made me laugh anyway. Eric Corbett 19:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"[H]is "disruption" edits versus "productive" edits". Thought about this last night. And yeah...the dick ratio comment made me laugh as well.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, this doesn't mean you have to like every comment he makes, or agree with anything he says (I certainly don't agree all the time), but I do think it is wise to put things in perspective and not get sucked into the "Eric is evil" cesspool whirlpool on Jimbo's talk page. I suggest unwatching that page and flagellation if you are tempted to peek. Nothing good happens over there, you won't be missing anything. Dennis 19:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• All of this discussion is a textbook course in civility, with much of it on the border, and much of it over the theoretical line. It does prove that we can all be dickish at times, to varying degrees, myself included. This is why it's best to ignore the small stuff and spend that energy doing something else, like writing articles. It isn't about ignoring Eric's sometimes gruff manner (sometimes I cringe, sometimes I laugh, sometimes I say "meh"), it is about prioritizing how we spend our energy. I can show you examples where I've been about as blunt as Eric (albeit, a bit more passive-aggressive poetic) and no one batted an eye, showing the bias in the system. Dennis 14:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The bias in the system is all too real Dennis, and it's a bigger problem than many realise. Those of us who fondly remember Eric's good friend George Ponderevo recognise all too clearly how an editor sharing many of Eric's skills could get along with everybody. That was because he didn't have continual provocations from the trolls who just want to get a reaction from those whom they persecute. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember George and came across one of his starters when I authored Marie Lloyd not so long ago; missed as Gerda would say. We even had an minor spat editorial disagreement in the past. I was still a fan of his work and think it odd that I should get on so well with Eric, with that beared in mind ;-) Cassianto^talk 16:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd forgotten Ponderevo. He was a class act, I was sorry to see him finish. Went about his business quietly and was highly productive.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• What a huge pity it is that it's necessary to be here paying tribute to one of the encyclopedia's most productive editors while he's still alive - all because he does not fall into Category. Middle-class American nice person. It's a great pity that when Eric is being "blunt" that these people don't just pop over here and say "stop being a miserable bastard" or even (as I tell my sons - in vain) "bad language is a sign of limited vocabulary." But they don't; instead, they manufacture all sorts of aggrieved editors who have been driven off. I would just like to see a list of these lost editors - or even proof of one of them's existence. Giano (talk) 17:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well indeed. I just saw this diff and as always, it is seemingly those who wish to wave their willies about civility who are the nastiest and least civil people. I suspect part of it comes from a cultural difference; having lived for years in both countries, Americans are shocked by how much British people swear, but British people are shocked by how sneaky and passive-aggressive Americans can be. Different ways of showing your annoyance, but I've always thought our way was healthier. Of course that may be because that is the way I was brought up. It also left me feeling sorry for Wales; to co-found the most amazing Internet resource in history, then to be reduced to impotently girning that he wishes you and certain other ediitors could be banned for all these (eternally unnamed) editors your supposed misdemeanours have driven from the project, must be a real come-down. Feel sorry for those who abuse and mistreat you, that's the Christian way I suppose and although I am not a Christian I see the value in it as I get older. Hang in there, Eric; those of us who know our arses from our elbows, and who write the articles, value you. --John (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

  Jimbo Wales is the real toxic personality on this project, not me and not Bishonen, who at least had the balls to block him once. Perhaps a few more blocks might get the message across to him. Eric Corbett 19:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't help noticing but Jimbo does seem to show a strong aversion to a lot of the core content contributors here who know they're valuable to the site. The more work you've put in and the more you value yourself here, and the more willing you are to be outspoken on the problems of the website, the more likelihood he'll dislike you. He seems to be oblivious to the real work a lot of the contributors have put into the project as evidenced by his "allegedly great contributions" remark. The frustrating way he chooses to embrace certain things like politics and civility and the people who "enforce" them and shows an utter lack of interest in content and encyclopedic contributors. I get the impression that he thinks of the seasoned contributors here as of no more value or worth than newbies or the occasional edit once a year type of editors. We're all mere pawns in the eyes of the God-King.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Because the admin system now controls it's own terms of reference, intervention by the foundation and/or Jimbo was the last hope for rational remedy. The foundation has made it clear over the last 18 months that such deliverance will not be coming from them, and any remaining hope has been blown away by Jimbo's recent attacks on core content builders, and his unsubstantiated claims that they are the real source of dysfunction on Wikipedia. This is a decisive go-ahead for the agenda-pushing social networkers supported by Jimbo, and puts reform of the dysfunctional parts of the admin system beyond reach. Some admins seem excited by the turn of events. One prominent admin grandee is currently issuing warning guidelines for content builders, advising that if they are going to matter they need to be "those who get on quietly with adding content and who are always a pleasure to collaborate with and help, who never get blocked or warned, and who stay away from the drama boards". The same admin likens core long-term content builders to "crap and vandals" that need to be kept out of the encyclopedia. In his own words, Wikipedia "has reached the top of its parabola as a serious encyclopedia. Those former great content providers have little else left to but criticise those who do the maintenance work, and they generally blunder around making a nuisance of themselves. Admins are now needed to keep the crap and vandals out of the encyclopedia." --Epipelagic (talk) 22:19, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Seems like Kudpung has succumbed to the fatal JimboWales virus. Fatal to Wikipedia that is of course. Eric Corbett 23:51, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Go to a public space, take out a £5/$5 note, and tread on it. Kudpung can't do that with a 10 baht note without major consequences (physical and/or legal). That's all you need to know about Kudpung. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who treads upon legal tender has either to much cents, or no sense at all.—John Cline (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)