The Corbett Report

[Triptych]

I liken the current arbitration request concerning new administrator Kevin Gorman's handling of power contributor Eric Corbett (formerly "Malleus Fatuorum") to the Florida case in which neighbor patroller George Zimmerman took the life of watermelon-drink-and-Skittles-candy carrying teen Trayvon Martin.

And the similarities don't end there. In each case a zealous watchman quite questionably pursued a person he viewed as suspicious leading to confrontation and a terrible result: Trayvon died and Eric has quit Wikipedia forever (or until such time as Kevin be blocked for his personal attacks).

Giano authored the solid arbitration request if you want to look at it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... ic_Corbett. Giano is sympathetic to Eric's situation but has done such a nice and exhaustive job with the diffs and so forth, and overall neutral framing, that's it's easily possible for the reader to screen out any imbalances of tone and the infrequent partisan characterization. It's a pretty good read, and a summarical way for those of us who haven't quite pulled the threads together thus far to understand the dispute, that is to say those of us that have lives.

The reason I see it as an opportunity for Arbcom (2014!) is because a statement here can potentially refute the supremacy status of any administrator over any content editor. Eric called his retirement pending action against Kevin as a "watershed moment." The real watershed moment is potentially an arbitration finding in Eric's favor. For those Wikipediocrats that have followed my musings in the past, you know that I view an arbitrator as the nth evolution of an administrative system that favors and rewards a defective, controlling, and stupid personality type. At Wikipedia, an arbitrator is a cyber-bully cubed. So there too, is the opportunity, to begin to demonstrate that this aggressive and gangbang group orientation towards the solitary and weaker is in fact a bad habit that can be be broken, and not an immutable personality quality and character trait. Muss ein Arschloch immer ein Arschloch sein?

In true stand-up-and-take charge fashion, a near unanimity of arbs (and clerks!) thus far are RECUSING. I can understand kind of, that water is going to get hot.

EDIT: I like Giano's point #6: "Was Corbett deliberately dancing on the grave on a deceased Wikipedian [36], mocking the dead [37] and is he lacking common decency [38]?" Yes, that one please.

[Kelly Martin]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

[Triptych]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

You can't possibly characterize Eric Corbett as irrelevant in the Wikipedia game. He's got like twenty (or whatever the number is, a great big bunch) front-page articles to his credit, plus massive and numerous other content creation. I've seen a couple people says he's being a diva by dramatically refusing to return while Kevin goes unblocked. Have we truly been *there* before? I found the personal insult already deep, then compounded by the "I will block you" intimidation attempt, then cemented by Kevin's babbling and unrepentant posture thereafter. Arbcom is going to do whatever Arbcom is going to do, but in my opinion Kevin should be blocked for some limited duration (say whatever the length of Eric's most recent block if the arbs have trouble deciding). I would not say desysop him.

[Vigilant]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

You can't possibly characterize Eric Corbett as irrelevant in the Wikipedia game. He's got like twenty (or whatever the number is, a great big bunch) front-page articles to his credit, plus massive and numerous other content creation. I've seen a couple people says he's being a diva by dramatically refusing to return while Kevin goes unblocked. Have we truly been *there* before? I found the personal insult already deep, then compounded by the "I will block you" intimidation attempt, then cemented by Kevin's babbling and unrepentant posture thereafter. Arbcom is going to do whatever Arbcom is going to do, but in my opinion Kevin should be blocked for some limited duration (say whatever the length of Eric's most recent block if the arbs have trouble deciding). I would not say desysop him.

Eric Corbett is just another broken toy.
Wikipedia doesn't really give a shit about him.

[Kelly Martin]

You can't possibly characterize Eric Corbett as irrelevant in the Wikipedia game. He's got like twenty (or whatever the number is, a great big bunch) front-page articles to his credit, plus massive and numerous other content creation.

The only editors at Wikipedia who matter are those who have significance in the broader "outside" world. Eric Corbett is just another tool, used by Wikipedia for as long as he was useful, then discarded when no longer such. Nobody, either at Wikipedia or elsewhere, who matters will care that he's quit over this, or do anything to get him back or fix whatever problem led to his departure. Sure, a few more editors may get a bit more disgruntled over this, but they too are discardable.

Yes, this attitude is indicative of serious issues with Wikipedia's community and helps to explain why participation is declining. But that's a structural issue, and Eric's situation provides no specifically interesting insights into it that can't be gleaned from the hundreds of essentially identical situations (in structure if not in factual details) that have preceded it. Nothing new here; certainly nothing worthy of the analogy you've tried to set up for it.

[Triptych]

Nothing new here; certainly nothing worthy of the analogy you've tried to set up for it.

You sure know how to hurt a guy, Kelly.

[Peter Damian]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

You can't possibly characterize Eric Corbett as irrelevant in the Wikipedia game. He's got like twenty (or whatever the number is, a great big bunch) front-page articles to his credit, plus massive and numerous other content creation. I've seen a couple people says he's being a diva by dramatically refusing to return while Kevin goes unblocked. Have we truly been *there* before? I found the personal insult already deep, then compounded by the "I will block you" intimidation attempt, then cemented by Kevin's babbling and unrepentant posture thereafter. Arbcom is going to do whatever Arbcom is going to do, but in my opinion Kevin should be blocked for some limited duration (say whatever the length of Eric's most recent block if the arbs have trouble deciding). I would not say desysop him.

I'm with Triptych here. Yes of course it's all nonsense. But, to those interested in the nonsense, it's fascinating.

[Kelly Martin]

If Wikipedia actually cared about content, then there'd be an argument for caring about Eric Corbett. But Wikipedia does not care about content. Yes, I know, this seems irrational, given that Wikipedia is supposed to be a project to write an encyclopedia. But if you try to analyze Wikipedia's social psychology with "Wikipedia cares about content" as a premise, you will end up making errors. Every time a prominent content editor quits in a huff or gets blocked, someone makes one of these misbegotten arguments, and every time they've been wrong.

Note that I'm not saying what I think Wikipedia should care about or what Wikipedia should do. I'm saying what I think they will do. Wikipedia would be a different place if it actually did care about retaining content creators. But that place would not be the Wikipedia we have.

[Vigilant]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

You can't possibly characterize Eric Corbett as irrelevant in the Wikipedia game. He's got like twenty (or whatever the number is, a great big bunch) front-page articles to his credit, plus massive and numerous other content creation. I've seen a couple people says he's being a diva by dramatically refusing to return while Kevin goes unblocked. Have we truly been *there* before? I found the personal insult already deep, then compounded by the "I will block you" intimidation attempt, then cemented by Kevin's babbling and unrepentant posture thereafter. Arbcom is going to do whatever Arbcom is going to do, but in my opinion Kevin should be blocked for some limited duration (say whatever the length of Eric's most recent block if the arbs have trouble deciding). I would not say desysop him.

I'm with Triptych here. Yes of course it's all nonsense. But, to those interested in the nonsense, it's fascinating.

I beg to differ. I love this nonsense and I'm bored to tears by Eric's latest diva flounce.
No way does ARBCOM drop the hammer on Kevin. No way.

Look at what behavior it took to get Ironholds desysoped.
This is Giano coming to the "rescue" of his "friend" and will be promptly ignored and quickly forgotten.

Anyway, I predict Eric is back on wikipedia within a month, regardless of the outcome of this case. He just can't let go.

[Vigilant]

Dear lord.

Statement by Jehochman

Editor squabbles that don't involve damage to articles are not a priority for arbitration, in general. It's easy enough to just tell the editors involved to leave each other be, or else you'll issue bans with a summary motion. The concerning issue in this case is abuse by an admin. If it is a one time thing brought on by heated emotions, it can be admonished and forgiven. If there is a pattern of past incidents of a similar nature, that would be worrisome. Giano, can you bring forth evidence of past issues with the admin in question? Jehochman Talk 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I picture him wearing some ridiculous medieval hat whilest proclaiming thusly.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

Like previous Arbcom cases, has alread spotlighted particularly cowardly and two-faced arbitrators:

Decline.

A trout-slapping all around is in order, especially to Kevin (T-C-L)—there's value in knowing when your actions are only going to exacerbate the issue, especially if your claim is per BLP. No statements bring up a serious pattern of problematic behavior outside of this incident, so opening a case seems premature. I would hope that Kevin does learn from this kerfluffle.

In response to Georgewilliamherbet (T-C-L)'s statement, Eric leaves Wikipedia all the time; other editors storm off around arb cases all the time. That shouldn't have any bearing on accepting the case.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (T-C-L)(talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)

[Hex]

Like previous Arbcom cases, has alread spotlighted particularly cowardly and two-faced arbitrators:

Decline.

A trout-slapping all around is in order, especially to Kevin (T-C-L)

Kevin Gorman (T-C-L), not Kevin (T-C-L).

[eppur si muove]

Dear lord.

Statement by Jehochman
Editor squabbles that don't involve damage to articles are not a priority for arbitration, in general. Jehochman Talk 13:35, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I picture him wearing some ridiculous medieval hat whilest proclaiming thusly.

Of course, Arbcom's failure to take real action against admins who abuse content creators does involve damage to the future state of articles. If it were not for the expectation on the part of all who have seen Eric's previous departures that he will turn up again, then the fact that the author of multiple FAs has been driven away by the acting out of yet another member of Wikipedia's hebocracy, then they would be closing their eyes to the loss of umpteen future FAs plus the support that he gives to other article creators.

Like previous Arbcom cases, has alread spotlighted particularly cowardly and two-faced arbitrators:

In response to Georgewilliamherbet (T-C-L)'s statement, Eric leaves Wikipedia all the time; other editors storm off around arb cases all the time. That shouldn't have any bearing on accepting the case.

Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (T-C-L)(talk) 2:48 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Who cares that some of those editors who storm off might be producing better content than the admins and arbcom members who pat each other on the back as they drive off yet another content creator who resents the hebocrats.

[Vigilant]

Nobody cares about FAs except those "content creators" aka typing slaves inside wikipedia.

Nobody.

The FAs are as pointless as barnstars.
Ridiculous accumulation of pretend popularity/intelligence points.

Will anyone who is reading wikipedia really notice the difference in article quality and think to themselves, "We need more people like the one who wrote this sterling article on some obscure house of a bygone architectural era!!"

Nobody outside cares. At all. Not even a little bit.
This is alllllll inside baseball.

And Eric Corbett is far from being a "writer" who encourages others to create FAs. He's just a broken little beta monkey psychotically waiting for any chance to rape some poor unsuspecting gamma noob monkey who happens to come across him in a grumpy mood (usual state).

In summation, don't drop the banana.

[eppur si muove]

Nobody cares about FAs except those "content creators" aka typing slaves inside wikipedia.

Nobody.

The FAs are as pointless as barnstars.
Ridiculous accumulation of pretend popularity/intelligence points.

Will anyone who is reading wikipedia really notice the difference in article quality and think to themselves, "We need more people like the one who wrote this sterling article on some obscure house of a bygone architectural era!!"

Nobody outside cares. At all. Not even a little bit.
This is alllllll inside baseball.

And Eric Corbett is far from being a "writer" who encourages others to create FAs. He's just a broken little beta monkey psychotically waiting for any chance to rape some poor unsuspecting gamma noob monkey who happens to come across him in a grumpy mood (usual state).

In summation, don't drop the banana.

My impression is that he does help genuine article writers who ask for assistance, It's would-be admins he likes to shaft.

Personally, I feel that the obscure articles can be more useful than the more popular ones.

One of my interests on Wikipedia was opera. One of my favourite operas is La Boheme. I have listened to it probably over 100 times and have been to see it a few times. However, I've never edited the article because I feel that there are plenty of sites on the internet with high quality information about it. There is very little added value in Wikipedia having an article about it even if it is a decent article.

Instead I tended to focus on obscure operas whose first productions I saw. A number of these get revivals every two or three years. For people considering going to them, there is negligible information about them and I feel that it is a reasonably practicable task to put together an article that is better than anything else available for free on the internet. So to me using Wikipedia to host material on "obscure house of a bygone architectural era" is actually more useful than having it host an article on St Paul's Cathedral or the Empire State Building.

And, yes, I know the power-players don't care about the content when banning each othr can be a lot more fun.

[Triptych]

Newyorkb[redacted] says that "you are dancing on the grave of a recently-deceased editor, you are mocking the dead, and you have no common decency" is other than a character attack.

Also as a reminder, casenames should be neutral and non-argumentative.

The case name Giano gave the arbitration request is "Kevin Gorman attacking Eric Corbett" and he backed up each pertinent statement with a diff.

EDIT: I know he has those that admire his style but to me Newyorkb[redacted] is in the running for "most annoying arb." Look at this mukkalukkabunk: "Decline expeditiously. Every aspect of this situation is unfortunate, but it is undesirable to publicize it further, and there is little value we can add." Oh no, it is not going to hurt the family of whomever it was, it doesn't need to be swept under the rug. That's what he's getting at. No-one has even named the dead guy in the arbitration request, nobody's likely to, and there's probably oversighters at the ready if someone did. Not that it'd be needed. If the family even did find out there is nothing in any of that hurtful about it. Somebody dies and people should talk about it. Eric put himself on the line and gave a personal detail about death. It is how people learn. Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

[Newyorkbrad]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

[Triptych]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

In part, likening the death of a person to that of a creative process? I understand your position. I hesitated on this one, decided go ahead. Edgy means on the edge. One goes to the edge to see things better.

Kelly's criticism is worse than yours. The analogy would be crass were it frivolous, meaningless, or unkindly meant. I don't think you recognize the urgency of things.

[Newyorkbrad]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

In part, likening the death of a person to that of a creative process? I understand your position. I hesitated on this one, decided go ahead. Edgy means on the edge. One goes to the edge to see things better.

Kelly's criticism is worse than yours. The analogy would be crass were it frivolous, meaningless, or unkindly meant. I don't think you recognize the urgency of things.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I don't see the analogy as "meaningless," though I'm still hard-pressed to see kindness in it. I do see it as distracting and inflammatory.

The ArbCom has often been criticized as operating a process laden with the perception of undue pomposity or self-importance. But I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being.

[EricBarbour]

Nobody cares about FAs except those "content creators" aka typing slaves inside wikipedia.

Nobody.

The FAs are as pointless as barnstars.
Ridiculous accumulation of pretend popularity/intelligence points.

Nobody outside cares. At all. Not even a little bit.
This is alllllll inside baseball.

Yep. Content? What content?

[neved]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

In part, likening the death of a person to that of a creative process? I understand your position. I hesitated on this one, decided go ahead. Edgy means on the edge. One goes to the edge to see things better.

Kelly's criticism is worse than yours. The analogy would be crass were it frivolous, meaningless, or unkindly meant. I don't think you recognize the urgency of things.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I don't see the analogy as "meaningless," though I'm still hard-pressed to see kindness in it. I do see it as distracting and inflammatory.

The ArbCom has often been criticized as operating a process laden with the perception of undue pomposity or self-importance. But I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being.

I have no opinion on the title of the thread, but, I believe you, Newyorkbrad, have no right to criticize it, and here's why: The last time we talked about "the violent death of a human being", in particular a human being who committed suicide after he was bullied to death on Wikipedia,you, Newyorkbrad, were more concerned how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status http://pages.citebite.com/s2c7w9e1u3okh

Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

And you, Newyorkbrand, have done absolutely nothing to stop bullying on Wikipedia (to prevent the violent death of human beings).

After a fair criticism below for quoting out of context I am providing the link to the whole thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35697 and the whole quote by Newyorkbrad

The situation described in this thread was discussed here on WR when it first came to light, in January 2009. (The link can be found in the general discussion from last night.) It appears to have involved a combination of cyberbullying, trolling, harassment, and game-playing on another website, which was imported into Wikipedia and was followed by a tragedy.

A main focus of the WR thread at the time was disagreement with the action of a Wikipedia administrator who had unnecessarily disclosed the suicide of one of the people involved. There was a strong consensus among the WR members commenting that this should not have been done.

Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

But my opinion about the quote stands because no Wikimedia chapter's tax status should have been ever mentioned in the connection to a suicide of a person.

[Newyorkbrad]

I have no opinion on the title of the thread, but, I believe you, Newyorkbrad, have no right to criticize it, and here's why: The last time we talked about "the violent death of a human being", in particular a human being who committed suicide after he was bullied to death on Wikipedia,you, Newyorkbrad, were more concerned how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status.

You have quoted me out of context in a deeply unfair and disturbing way.

And you, Newyorkbrad, have done absolutely nothing to stop bullying on Wikipedia (to prevent the violent death of human beings).

That is a loathesome and despicable lie.

[neved]

I have no opinion on the title of the thread, but, I believe you, Newyorkbrad, have no right to criticize it, and here's why: The last time we talked about "the violent death of a human being", in particular a human being who committed suicide after he was bullied to death on Wikipedia,you, Newyorkbrad, were more concerned how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status.

You have quoted me out of context in a deeply unfair and disturbing way.

And you, Newyorkbrand, have done absolutely nothing to stop bullying on Wikipedia (to prevent the violent death of human beings).

That is a loathesome and despicable lie.

Okay, maybe I am wrong, and I am willing to apologize, but please present me with some evidences where you fought bullying on Wikipedia. I will also provide the link to the whole thread from WR, and provide your statement in whole in my post above.

(fixed quotes -- eb)

[Mancunium]

The ArbCom has often been criticized as operating a process laden with the perception of undue pomposity or self-importance. But I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being.

Cynical disingenuous sophistry. Do you believe you are morally superior to all your critics?

[Newyorkbrad]

Okay, maybe I am wrong, and I am willing to apologize, but please present me with some evidences where you fought bullying on Wikipedia.

One doesn't fight bullying on a website, for the most part, by creating long public discussions of it that can be the subject of links from another website. One watches for it, removes it when one sees it, and prevents offenders from editing. Sometimes it is petty juvenile stuff and sometimes it is far more serious, but I've been doing what I can to fight it for the past seven years.

I've also written a few arbitration decisions on the subject, but by definition, those would primarily address relatively less serious instances of harassment and bullying, since the more obvious examples wouldn't require an arbitration case.

I don't think you and I have any disagreement that bullying behavior should be eliminated, on Wikipedia ... and hopefully on any other website (it is a mistake to treat Internet-wide problems as unique-to-Wikipedia ones). You and I probably disagree about whether certain specific situations involved bullying or not, but that is a very different issue, and almost certainly not one we can discuss productively.

[Newyorkbrad]

Do you believe you are morally superior to all your critics?

No.

[Triptych]

Do you believe you are morally superior to all your critics?

No.

We won't criticize you in tandem for much longer at all, Brad, but your statement "I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being" downplayed misleadingly the gravity of what Kevin Gorman did to Eric Corbett, and indeed you sought to puff yourself up at my expense.

[Vigilant]

stuff

Nice to have you back, Ira.

[Newyorkbrad]

Do you believe you are morally superior to all your critics?

No.

We won't criticize you in tandem for much longer at all, Brad, but your statement "I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being" downplayed misleadingly the gravity of what Kevin Gorman did to Eric Corbett, and indeed you sought to puff yourself up at my expense.

In other words, Othello III.iii.155. I take your point. Good night.

[Vigilant]

Do you believe you are morally superior to all your critics?

No.

We won't criticize you in tandem for much longer at all, Brad, but your statement "I would never, by a mile, compare the importance of some internal Wikipedia dispute to the violent death of a human being" downplayed misleadingly the gravity of what Kevin Gorman did to Eric Corbett, and indeed you sought to puff yourself up at my expense.

Kevin Gorman did nothing to Eric Corbett.
Eric was being a self important dick, again, and Kevin told him to knock it off.
Eric got the vapors and flounced off into the sunset for the thousandth time while hoping to be begged to come back.

He's a useless diva who treats others like trash. Fuck Eric Corbett right in the eye.
I'd much rather hang out and have a beer with Ira than Eric.

I realize that this might be damning with faint praise.

[Mancunium]

it is a mistake to treat Internet-wide problems as unique-to-Wikipedia ones

Wikipedia claims, ad nauseam, to be unique. It shamelessly begs tens of millions of dollars from the public, from some of the world's poorest people, with the claim, "Wikipedia is something special. It is like a library or a public park. It is like a temple for the mind. It is a place we can all go to think, to learn, to share our knowledge with others." It so blinded by its self-delusional pride that it can't see the gaping pit of ignominy it is stumbling towards, and which patiently awaits its fall.

[EricBarbour]

I don't think you and I have any disagreement that bullying behavior should be eliminated, on Wikipedia ... and hopefully on any other website (it is a mistake to treat Internet-wide problems as unique-to-Wikipedia ones). You and I probably disagree about whether certain specific situations involved bullying or not, but that is a very different issue, and almost certainly not one we can discuss productively.

If so, you, sir, need to desysop several dozen abusive and bully-prone administrators. List available upon request, although I suspect you already know who I'm going to name.

[Triptych]

In other words, Othello III.iii.155. I take your point. Good night.

Jeez, I read that just last year and your reference steered me to an online source for Act III , but now it's your analogy not cooperating with me. I hope none of us is Iago, that dude was a jerk!

[Triptych]

Kevin Gorman did nothing to Eric Corbett.
He's a useless diva who treats others like trash. Fuck Eric Corbett right in the eye.
I'd much rather hang out and have a beer with Ira than Eric.

C'mon man, he said he was gravedancing over a suicide then jammed in the blade some more and twisted it every which way for the next two days. That's an awful thing to do to somebody.

EDIT: remove crass (but not negative) generalization of a nationality.

[TungstenCarbide]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

The title might be crass, but the depth of stupidity that passes for Wikipedia's culture is on a par with the tabloid nature of this title. That's where you're hangin', bro. You've got a perpetual stream of hypocrisy, blp violations and drama queens lounging around the living room of the founder who seems really interested in things that will bring him press, like if Snowden ever edited there, but not much else. You're involved a project that's devolving, losing editors. In order to become an admin you have to be an OCD bot running brownoser with 50,000 edits. Admit it Ira, wasn't like that when you became an admin.

[Mancunium]

If so, you, sir, need to desysop several dozen abusive and bully-prone administrators. List available upon request, although I suspect you already know who I'm going to name.

I believe Mr Brad, or whatever his real name is, has performed a flounce. "That is a loathesome (sic) and despicable lie ... Good night", meaning:

[MilesMoney]

I doubt this will amount to anything. It's unlikely that Kevin will be sanctioned in any meaningful way, and there's no chance in hell that Arbcom or anyone else will do anything to salve Eric's mood. Personally I suspect the case will end up declined, in part because it was brought by Giano, and in part because it's a conflict between a fairly clean admin on one side and a thorn-in-the-side editor who has already left in a huff on the other.

There is zero chance that change in Wikipedia will be effected via the Arbitration Committee. All of this nonsense is irrelevant inside baseball, especially since this case doesn't involve content in any way, just Yet Another Botched Social Interaction between largely irrelevant players in the game. We already know that Wikipedia doesn't have a clue how to manage volunteers effectively.

I basically agree with everything you've said here. ArbCom is everything that is wrong with regular admins, only magnified. You can count on them to stick up for each other and shaft anyone who's stupid enough to actually care about content. The only purpose of ArbCom is to make Wikipedia ostensibly self-governing to protect Jimbo from lawsuits. It's a sham.

[Kelly Martin]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

Amazing. Ira and I agree on something after all.

[Triptych]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

Amazing. Ira and I agree on something after all.

I didn't mean it in a flippant way. You only get so many characters, you know. There are a lot of opportunities that come out of tragedies. It doesn't mean one is making light of the tragedy.

[Mancunium]

Oh sure, if someone actually *was* saying something crass and irredeemable, yeah, but no-one did that. Bah!

What I find crass (I won't say "irredeemable" yet) is the title you've given this thread.

Amazing. Ira and I agree on something after all.

Hyperbole (T-H-L)

Hyperbole (/haɪˈpɜrbəliː/ hy-PUR-bə-lee;[1] Greek: ὑπερβολή hyperbolē, "exaggeration") is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but is not meant to be taken literally.[2][3] Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech.[4]

[neved]

Okay, maybe I am wrong, and I am willing to apologize, but please present me with some evidences where you fought bullying on Wikipedia.

One doesn't fight bullying on a website, for the most part, by creating long public discussions of it that can be the subject of links from another website. One watches for it, removes it when one sees it, and prevents offenders from editing. Sometimes it is petty juvenile stuff and sometimes it is far more serious, but I've been doing what I can to fight it for the past seven years.

I've also written a few arbitration decisions on the subject, but by definition, those would primarily address relatively less serious instances of harassment and bullying, since the more obvious examples wouldn't require an arbitration case.

I don't think you and I have any disagreement that bullying behavior should be eliminated, on Wikipedia ... and hopefully on any other website (it is a mistake to treat Internet-wide problems as unique-to-Wikipedia ones). You and I probably disagree about whether certain specific situations involved bullying or not, but that is a very different issue, and almost certainly not one we can discuss productively.

In any case a human being who is asking for help against bullies should never be ignored, and I know you do, and that's why no apology is in order.

[Midsize Jake]

The problem with thread titles like this one is that they look deliberately deceptive, as if the thread-starter is deliberately trying to sneak a petty internecine dispute past those of us who consider such things to be trite and distractionary. The fact that non-insiders have no idea what the thread is about unless they're bored enough to actually click on the title (less likely in itself, due to the lack of title-quality) is just another side-effect. One might even include both Giano and Mr. Corbett himself among the non-insiders, because they don't participate here regularly - there's a good chance they have no idea that they're being talked about, though I suppose someone might have "pinged" them.

The unfortunate thing is that this site (based on phpBB) doesn't have thread subtitles. If it did, you could have a helpful, descriptive title like "Giano pleads for Eric Corbett's reinstatement," and then have a cute subtitle like "Kevin Gorman must be destroyed at all costs" or "Still no reaction from world leaders." Instead, you might go with something like "With friends like these, does Eric Corbett need enemies?" - but even that would be misleading, from some perspectives at least.

[neved]

I think a blog could be written about the whole situation. I would have called it: "How on Wikipedia a request for kindness and understanding resulted in the request for arbitration"

[Triptych]

In any case a human being who is asking for help against bullies should never be ignored and that's why no apology is in order.

You said he'd done nothing to stop bullying, Neved. Brad responded way too strongly. He could've said "well wait I detest that, what do you mean" or something like that. I think the administrative structure is riddled with bullies, and the ones that don't do it look the other way. Kevin Gorman was bullying Eric Corbett is the topical case in point. Kevin hovers his finger over his little block button and tells Eric he's going to block him on a ludicrous accusation of BLP violation. It was just intimidation attempt, it was bullying. So where is Brad at the arbitration request? He says sweep this under the rug expeditiously. He doesn't say "we need to do something about this bully Kevin Gorman."

There's an hundred other cases of administrators kicking editors around. Enwikibadscience was kicked around. Dennis Brown didn't make a mistake because humans are fallible, he made a mistake because he was arrogant and dismissive and didn't give a crap about Enwikibadscience.

To be fair I remember Brad got involved with the TrongPhu case after Wikipediocracy pointed out Trongphu had been pushed around. But that was halfhearted, basically "Lets talk this up and try to get a consensus." That approach just lingers and lingers. I think it was Alison from California that acted. Action Alison.

I don't think you owe Brad any apology either. You didn't say anything so bad.

[EricBarbour]

Looks like we "scared off" the Arb-mosquito. Oh well.

[Peter Damian]

That is a loathesome and despicable lie.

I have PM'd you about this. If we don't hear any more in public from you, we will know it is perhaps not a complete lie.

[lonza leggiera]

...
I have no opinion on the title of the thread, but, I believe you, Newyorkbrad, have no right to criticize it, and here's why: The last time we talked about "the violent death of a human being", in particular a human being who committed suicide after he was bullied to death on Wikipedia,you, Newyorkbrad, were more concerned how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status http://pages.citebite.com/s2c7w9e1u3okh
....
After a fair criticism below for quoting out of context I am providing the link to the whole thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35697 and the whole quote by Newyorkbrad

The situation described in this thread was discussed here on WR when it first came to light, in January 2009. (The link can be found in the general discussion from last night.) It appears to have involved a combination of cyberbullying, trolling, harassment, and game-playing on another website, which was imported into Wikipedia and was followed by a tragedy.

A main focus of the WR thread at the time was disagreement with the action of a Wikipedia administrator who had unnecessarily disclosed the suicide of one of the people involved. There was a strong consensus among the WR members commenting that this should not have been done.

Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

But my opinion about the quote stands because no Wikimedia chapter's tax status should have been ever mentioned in the connection to a suicide of a person.

You would appear to be still unaware of some further important context. NewYorkbrad was not responsible for raising Wikimedia UK's tax status in connection with the Cumulus Clouds incident; I was. I started that WR thread on the Cumulus Clouds incident in response to a request by Peter Damian, in this thread, for evidence of Wikipedia's effectiveness or ineffectiveness in dealing with inappropriate material, especially when relating to living people.

Given this context, it seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing at all in NewYorkbrad's comment to suggest that he was "more concerned" with how the discussion would impact Wikimedia UK's tax status" than with anything else. On the contrary, what he seems to me to have been doing was merely questioning the propriety of WR's rehashing the incident for a purpose which he (presumably) believed in no way justified its doing so.

[Triptych]

Given this context, it seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing at all in NewYorkbrad's comment to suggest that he was "more concerned" with how the discussion would impact Wikimedia UK's tax status" than with anything else. On the contrary, what he seems to me to have been doing was merely questioning the propriety of WR's rehashing the incident for a purpose which he (presumably) believed in no way justified its doing so.

Context is very often important, and often enough greatly changes the meaning of a quote or section. Looking at that stuff in Wikipedia Review archaeologically, yes, it looks like Peter is seeking Wikipedia examples, and not of the aspirational kind, to inform the Charity Commision's decision on how to classify WMUK. So Lonza responds to that, and then further places a summary of the Cumulus Clouds matter in a different Wikipedia Review forum. Lonza includes the words "for Peter Damian" in the thread title, but for those who are reading the one forum but not the other, some context is lost. But then indeed Brad poses the question of whether the matter is being "publicized." You see? What Peter and Lonzo are doing is *gathering information* for Peter's letter to the Charity Commission, but Brad postulates the possibility that they are *publicizing* a story that potentially painful to Cumulus' family and friends and so forth. So Brad argues that they are callous.

So there're different things going on: Brad was criticizing the actions of Peter and Lonza whom he saw as risking the feelings of Cumulus' family and friends for some public relations defamation, and Neved by her remarks yesterday didn't pick up on the entire genesis of the Wikipedia Review discussions, and considered that it was Brad himself to have injected a shallow angle into the Cumulus' story, not knowing that Lonza and Peter were just gathering information for a letter. So Neved says what she said yesterday. And Brad is offended by it, but this just calls intention to the IRONEEE! and the HYPOCRISEEE!! represented in his vote not to hear the Gorman-Corbett arbitration matter. Neved said Brad doesn't stop bullies, but Gorman says Corbett gravedances on suicide committers which is a heckuva a lot worse thing to say, and he *just* *keeps* *saying* *it*.

So, the Arbcom decision on whether to hear? Inevitably has begun the transparent parade of intellectual cowardice, the smoke-screen of "everyone is at fault" in the unmistakeable face of Kevin Gorman's true heinousness, and the perpetuation once more of Wikipedia's thoroughly unjust and retrograde caste structure. Led off by David Fuchs, and continued by Newyorkbrad, Carcharoth, and now Salvio Giuliano. Cuckoos chirping in unison on this atrocious misrepresentation that "no-one is blameless," now one vote away from declining the case and perpetuating the governance farce. I think Eric means what he says, not "this time" because I don't think he ever said it like this before, and so an immensely valuable and proven content creator is cast aside for the indulgence of an idly irritated, scornful, evasive, mealy-mouthed, smug, cheap, dumb, fork-tongued, and newbie example of Wikipedia administrative overlords, who are wrecking the project and poised to continue to do so.

EDIT: And Zimmerman goes free.

[Triptych]

Screencap of Kevin Gorman's hostile, completely mischaracterizational, huge, and bullying banner painted all over Eric Corbett's talkpage last week.

[neved]

...
I have no opinion on the title of the thread, but, I believe you, Newyorkbrad, have no right to criticize it, and here's why: The last time we talked about "the violent death of a human being", in particular a human being who committed suicide after he was bullied to death on Wikipedia,you, Newyorkbrad, were more concerned how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status http://pages.citebite.com/s2c7w9e1u3okh
....
After a fair criticism below for quoting out of context I am providing the link to the whole thread http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=35697 and the whole quote by Newyorkbrad

The situation described in this thread was discussed here on WR when it first came to light, in January 2009. (The link can be found in the general discussion from last night.) It appears to have involved a combination of cyberbullying, trolling, harassment, and game-playing on another website, which was imported into Wikipedia and was followed by a tragedy.

A main focus of the WR thread at the time was disagreement with the action of a Wikipedia administrator who had unnecessarily disclosed the suicide of one of the people involved. There was a strong consensus among the WR members commenting that this should not have been done.

Do I correctly understand that for potential use in connection with a challenge to a Wikimedia chapter's tax status, some 34 months later, the whole matter is now being deliberately re-publicized here?

But my opinion about the quote stands because no Wikimedia chapter's tax status should have been ever mentioned in the connection to a suicide of a person.

You would appear to be still unaware of some further important context. NewYorkbrad was not responsible for raising Wikimedia UK's tax status in connection with the Cumulus Clouds incident; I was. I started that WR thread on the Cumulus Clouds incident in response to a request by Peter Damian, in this thread, for evidence of Wikipedia's effectiveness or ineffectiveness in dealing with inappropriate material, especially when relating to living people.

Given this context, it seems pretty obvious to me that there's nothing at all in NewYorkbrad's comment to suggest that he was "more concerned" with how the discussion would impact Wikimedia UK's tax status" than with anything else. On the contrary, what he seems to me to have been doing was merely questioning the propriety of WR's rehashing the incident for a purpose which he (presumably) believed in no way justified its doing so.

Thank you for clarification. I was not aware of the other thread.
Newyourkbrad, it was not right of me to assume you are more concerned about how the discussion will impact Wikimedia chapter's tax status than about a suicide of a bullied person. Please accept my apology.