Black Kite throws down: latest Eric Corbett block at RFAR

[MisterTester]

Doug explained it further

No he didn't. Not for me, anyway. He said:

It's "net 4". "each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support". Doug Weller talk 16:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That was implicit in what I already knew, and said, even if I didn't quote that exact bit.
What else would "net" mean? It's still a garbage rule, for the reasons we both gave.

Maybe I didn't phrase that right, but yes, a terrible rule. This was the case I had been waiting to end before taking a break, but I did log in to make a couple more stabs. I'm just stymied by this Arb. I know most of them, each is reasonable to one degree or another as an individual (even those I always disagree with) but as a group, they won't discuss or try to solve problems, instead each goes and supports their own pet ideas, unwilling to compromise or work together. Not all of them, but over half of them.

And now Kirill is an Arb, who will fit right into that mindset, and he is the admin that caused AE2 by exercising poor judgement and smugly avoiding any real discussion. I still find it hard to believe he did that 30 day block without being prompted somehow. I have no proof, but it just doesn't make sense. The average IP is more active on Wikipedia than he is, he stays busy with Foundation and Meta stuff, yet he magically shows up at the exact right time to block EC, knows the sanctions, knows the limits, and pushes it right up to the limit. I'm sorry, but it is all just too convenient. I would bet a week's grocery money someone emailed him, pointing him to the discussion.

Reading this thread, some of you act as if the community believe that the block on Corbett was a bad block and that Yngvadottir acted in good faith.

That is absolutely not the view of the community, and that should be evident to anybody with eyes. Kirill was elected to the ArbCom. So was Gamaliel and Keilana. GorillaWarfare was elected again.

Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean the rest of the community doesn't see the truth.

Also, if any Arb objects to a close, only one has to oppose it. The 4 Arbs that supported closing with none opposing means an implicit acceptance to close the case.

To try and wiggle some other meaning, or that 27% can overrule the others, just shows a complete lack of understanding of the process.

No, it shows you don't have very good institutional memory or math skills. If it was closed before one had the chance to oppose, then it would stay closed. That is is just common sense and why I said it would require very little collusion to accomplish. Some, but very little. The fact is, Arb was NOT able to pass the principle that Kirill's block was reasonable. Most of Wikipedia, even those that don't like Eric, would agree a one month block was excessive given the totality of the circumstances. And if you think the majority of voters are even aware of AE2, you are even more clueless than I thought. You keep pounding this same anti-Eric drum, and you don't understand that it is more than about Eric, who really didn't participate in any significant way anyway. It has to do with process, about when to use emergency powers, when to take something to AE, and when something is obivously rotten in process. If you keep this cluelessness up, I will just mute you here like I did slacker. It's like every time you open your mouth, all I hear is white noise, devoid of any real content.

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

[Moral Hazard]

We have a candidate for the Aaron Schwartz memorial award for kool-aide drinking emotional balance.

[Larkin]

Doug explained it further

No he didn't. Not for me, anyway. He said:

It's "net 4". "each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support". Doug Weller talk 16:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That was implicit in what I already knew, and said, even if I didn't quote that exact bit.
What else would "net" mean? It's still a garbage rule, for the reasons we both gave.

Maybe I didn't phrase that right, but yes, a terrible rule. This was the case I had been waiting to end before taking a break, but I did log in to make a couple more stabs. I'm just stymied by this Arb. I know most of them, each is reasonable to one degree or another as an individual (even those I always disagree with) but as a group, they won't discuss or try to solve problems, instead each goes and supports their own pet ideas, unwilling to compromise or work together. Not all of them, but over half of them.

And now Kirill is an Arb, who will fit right into that mindset, and he is the admin that caused AE2 by exercising poor judgement and smugly avoiding any real discussion. I still find it hard to believe he did that 30 day block without being prompted somehow. I have no proof, but it just doesn't make sense. The average IP is more active on Wikipedia than he is, he stays busy with Foundation and Meta stuff, yet he magically shows up at the exact right time to block EC, knows the sanctions, knows the limits, and pushes it right up to the limit. I'm sorry, but it is all just too convenient. I would bet a week's grocery money someone emailed him, pointing him to the discussion.

Reading this thread, some of you act as if the community believe that the block on Corbett was a bad block and that Yngvadottir acted in good faith.

That is absolutely not the view of the community, and that should be evident to anybody with eyes. Kirill was elected to the ArbCom. So was Gamaliel and Keilana. GorillaWarfare was elected again.

Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean the rest of the community doesn't see the truth.

Also, if any Arb objects to a close, only one has to oppose it. The 4 Arbs that supported closing with none opposing means an implicit acceptance to close the case.

To try and wiggle some other meaning, or that 27% can overrule the others, just shows a complete lack of understanding of the process.

No, it shows you don't have very good institutional memory or math skills. If it was closed before one had the chance to oppose, then it would stay closed. That is is just common sense and why I said it would require very little collusion to accomplish. Some, but very little. The fact is, Arb was NOT able to pass the principle that Kirill's block was reasonable. Most of Wikipedia, even those that don't like Eric, would agree a one month block was excessive given the totality of the circumstances. And if you think the majority of voters are even aware of AE2, you are even more clueless than I thought. You keep pounding this same anti-Eric drum, and you don't understand that it is more than about Eric, who really didn't participate in any significant way anyway. It has to do with process, about when to use emergency powers, when to take something to AE, and when something is obivously rotten in process. If you keep this cluelessness up, I will just mute you here like I did slacker. It's like every time you open your mouth, all I hear is white noise, devoid of any real content.

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes. That's pretty much as I see it too. Certainly content creators seem to have a very vaunted sense of their worth. It's not really "writing", is it?

I always thought Eric's fan club was his worst enemy.

[evangeliman]

...incel wannabe...

I am rather certain that this is a contradiction in terms. It would be wise to stop escalating. It does not look good on you.

[Dennis Brown]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Misogyny? I'm lost as to what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about me, I've worked with more women editors than you can imagine, including finding women admin. Even my talk page archives show that to any fool that looks. Can't be Eric, he has worked with more women getting GA and FA articles than anyone there. There are certainly some sexists at Wikipedia, but which are you referring to? Maybe the ones suggesting rules so it takes two men to revert one woman when editing? I found that rather sexist against women, as if they can't compete in the marketplace of writing. Utter degrading nonsense. Some of our best admin and writers are women, they don't need pity. So who are you referring to?

And if content creators are bored shut ins, what exactly does that make you, who spends his time merely commenting on these bored shut ins? Just for fun, I went and checked your account, as you have it listed here, and of course it doesn't exist. I was curious as to the quality of your contributions. I assumed you had written a few GAs or at least that quality of work if you didn't like to bother with the formal reviews, a position I can understand. But your given Wikipedia name links to a non-existing user page.

Finally, threatening to mute you here is a mild thing, it only means I would not see your comments anymore. I'm not some admin here, as you surely know. Your dramatics over such a tiny thing are rather comical.

[Biblio]

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

To make this clear from the start, I'm not part of the "uncivil content creator" club that is so often discussed here. But I disagree with what you just said. In my view, a content worker is in fact someone who understands and contributes the real purpose of Wikipedia. I have generally found that content work is a much better use of time than arguing in Wikipedia space. That is why I plan to become more involved in content work. You have no way whatsoever of proving that all editors who improve content are "bored shut-in who ha[ve] too much...time on their hands". Perhaps you are thinking of the infamous small group that people so often imagine when they think "content creator", but in actuality the bulk of content creators are not part of this group.

Wikipedia is far, far away from being "perfectly fine". Many articles still have large swaths of unsourced content and are nowhere near acceptable quality for a serious encyclopedia. Someone should fix these up. And to be completely honest, many of the IP editors you talk about just add to this problem by adding more of this low-quality unsourced content. I become more convinced as time goes on that registration should be required. It's not hard to create an account, and in any case we're probably protecting people's privacy, since they can't inadvertently give away their location.

[Vigilant]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

[Casliber]

Doug explained it further

No he didn't. Not for me, anyway. He said:

It's "net 4". "each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support". Doug Weller talk 16:35, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

That was implicit in what I already knew, and said, even if I didn't quote that exact bit.
What else would "net" mean? It's still a garbage rule, for the reasons we both gave.

Maybe I didn't phrase that right, but yes, a terrible rule. This was the case I had been waiting to end before taking a break, but I did log in to make a couple more stabs. I'm just stymied by this Arb. I know most of them, each is reasonable to one degree or another as an individual (even those I always disagree with) but as a group, they won't discuss or try to solve problems, instead each goes and supports their own pet ideas, unwilling to compromise or work together. Not all of them, but over half of them.

And now Kirill is an Arb, who will fit right into that mindset, and he is the admin that caused AE2 by exercising poor judgement and smugly avoiding any real discussion. I still find it hard to believe he did that 30 day block without being prompted somehow. I have no proof, but it just doesn't make sense. The average IP is more active on Wikipedia than he is, he stays busy with Foundation and Meta stuff, yet he magically shows up at the exact right time to block EC, knows the sanctions, knows the limits, and pushes it right up to the limit. I'm sorry, but it is all just too convenient. I would bet a week's grocery money someone emailed him, pointing him to the discussion.

Reading this thread, some of you act as if the community believe that the block on Corbett was a bad block and that Yngvadottir acted in good faith.

That is absolutely not the view of the community, and that should be evident to anybody with eyes. Kirill was elected to the ArbCom. So was Gamaliel and Keilana. GorillaWarfare was elected again.

Just because you make the most noise, doesn't mean the rest of the community doesn't see the truth.

Also, if any Arb objects to a close, only one has to oppose it. The 4 Arbs that supported closing with none opposing means an implicit acceptance to close the case.

To try and wiggle some other meaning, or that 27% can overrule the others, just shows a complete lack of understanding of the process.

No, it shows you don't have very good institutional memory or math skills. If it was closed before one had the chance to oppose, then it would stay closed. That is is just common sense and why I said it would require very little collusion to accomplish. Some, but very little. The fact is, Arb was NOT able to pass the principle that Kirill's block was reasonable. Most of Wikipedia, even those that don't like Eric, would agree a one month block was excessive given the totality of the circumstances. And if you think the majority of voters are even aware of AE2, you are even more clueless than I thought. You keep pounding this same anti-Eric drum, and you don't understand that it is more than about Eric, who really didn't participate in any significant way anyway. It has to do with process, about when to use emergency powers, when to take something to AE, and when something is obivously rotten in process. If you keep this cluelessness up, I will just mute you here like I did slacker. It's like every time you open your mouth, all I hear is white noise, devoid of any real content.

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Hi Slacker.....can't keep away from the place eh?

[Dennis Brown]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

I would consider the majority of registered users "content creators", as they focus their time on creating content, things worth reading. Even the gnomes create or fix content. It is only a small portion that actively admin, or patrol meta pages. I think you are reading the phrase rather narrowly. I understand why, it is bandied about to mean a particular group, but in fact it means anyone who spends more time writing prose than patrolling drama boards.

[Moral Hazard]

As a dog returneth to his vomit,
so a fool returneth to his folly.

Rise above it all!

[MisterTester]

Yes. That's pretty much as I see it too. Certainly content creators seem to have a very vaunted sense of their worth. It's not really "writing", is it?

I always thought Eric's fan club was his worst enemy.

Yes, I do not know if Eric would have been banned or not without his fan club, but he certainly would not have so many editors sick of hearing about his drama and the raving bastion of followers chanting "content creators are teh best".

[MisterTester]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Misogyny? I'm lost as to what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about me, I've worked with more women editors than you can imagine, including finding women admin. Even my talk page archives show that to any fool that looks. Can't be Eric, he has worked with more women getting GA and FA articles than anyone there. There are certainly some sexists at Wikipedia, but which are you referring to? Maybe the ones suggesting rules so it takes two men to revert one woman when editing? I found that rather sexist against women, as if they can't compete in the marketplace of writing. Utter degrading nonsense. Some of our best admin and writers are women, they don't need pity. So who are you referring to?

And if content creators are bored shut ins, what exactly does that make you, who spends his time merely commenting on these bored shut ins? Just for fun, I went and checked your account, as you have it listed here, and of course it doesn't exist. I was curious as to the quality of your contributions. I assumed you had written a few GAs or at least that quality of work if you didn't like to bother with the formal reviews, a position I can understand. But your given Wikipedia name links to a non-existing user page.

Finally, threatening to mute you here is a mild thing, it only means I would not see your comments anymore. I'm not some admin here, as you surely know. Your dramatics over such a tiny thing are rather comical.

You checked my account to see if you could make trouble for me. You and the rest of the fan club.

Wikipedia is not that important to me to really worry about that, but I purposely used a different account when registering here to prevent that sort of stalking. I planned on being blunt here.

[MisterTester]

Hi Slacker.....can't keep away from the place eh?

Sorry Mr. new the ArbCom member, but that is not a good guess.

And to think, I stated in the other thread I would have voted for you because of your insightfulness. This almost cancels that out.

We shall see.

[Dennis Brown]

You checked my account to see if you could make trouble for me. You and the rest of the fan club.

Wikipedia is not that important to me to really worry about that, but I purposely used a different account when registering here to prevent that sort of stalking. I planned on being blunt here.

First, I wouldn't act where I'm WP:involved. You will never see an instance where I have. You talk like you know me, but obviously you do not. People might talk shit about my opinions, but no one has ever questioned my use of the admin tools.

I use my same name, link my real account, and I'm blunt here and there. Anyone with half a brain could figure out my address and knock on my door at any time, I make no effort to hide my real identity, my work, etc. I have nothing to hide. It would seem you do, or you are just really, really paranoid.

[Larkin]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

+1

Nails it really. That's exactly how it is.

[Earthy Astringent]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

+1

Nails it really. That's exactly how it is.

Perhaps I had one too many egg nog. Isn't the point of Wikipedia content? My primary objections to how Wikipedia is run is that activists of all stripes use Wikipedia's page rank to push their particular brand of poison, through arbitrary rules, formation of voting blocks, and worse of all assistance from abusive admins. Specifically admins who look the other way when it suits their POV or status.

Dennis doesn't fall in that category and certainly doesn't deserve the bullshit he's been accused of here by MisterTester.

[evouga]

And unsurprisingly nothing productive has come of it except a requirement that all blocks of Eric be routed through AE. Given that there is ALREADY (diff) disagreement/confusion about how to interpret this remedy, Arb Enforcement 3 is surely in the not-too-distant future.

Giano slipped off the hook, which doesn't bother me as it was never clear why he was a party in this case to begin with.

[Larkin]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

+1

Nails it really. That's exactly how it is.

Perhaps I had one too many egg nog. Isn't the point of Wikipedia content? My primary objections to how Wikipedia is run is that activists of all stripes use Wikipedia's page rank to push their particular brand of poison, through arbitrary rules, formation of voting blocks, and worse of all assistance from abusive admins. Specifically admins who look the other way when it suits their POV or status.

Dennis doesn't fall in that category and certainly doesn't deserve the bullshit he's been accused of here by MisterTester.

Or an hour too long on the sun-bed, perhaps?

The point is I think that MisterTester would say that the editors who vaunt their content creation so in this way are precisely these kind of activists, activists if you like for a particular view of Wikipedia that facilitates their networking and power sharing. The truth is many of these spend far more time on the drama boards than they do on content creation.

It's not that people like Dennis are in some way baddies. But you have to admit, looking at the amount of time (historically in the case of Dennis) they devote to Wikipedia, that the charge of being a shut-in does have some point, that it can only be they are in the grip of some compulsion where they have lost touch with reality, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's just an encyclopedia, as Risker so sagaciously observed when she retired from Arbcom.

All the same there are baddies out there I think. The community abhors paid editors. I don't really understand why it nevertheless so idolizes the quite a few who so plainly owe their livelihood to it (Eric not amongst them I grant, but perhaps their tool I suggest) and take care to maintain their power and prestige within it in a elitist way entirely out of proportion to what they actually achieve for it. I consider myself a guest here who I know can (or always does) irritate, so I will refrain from suggesting names. Regulars might like to air a few. I shall observe with interest.

[Kingsindian]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

The real fallacy here is not that "content creators" are somewhat special, but focusing on content would lead to rather different judgement. If one focuses on content, and keep gender to one side, you would immediately see that Corbett did nothing worse than expressing opinions that a particular WMF initiative was worthless and counterproductive, and that some people on Wikipedia are POV warriors. The second is undeniably true, and the first is arguable, but more to the point it is an opinion that nobody else has a business to police. If people feel that he was disruptive to the GGTF project, just ban him from their pages. But no, a ridiculously broad topic ban was made, based on no evidence.

Look at my evidence in the case. I claimed that exactly zero of the "violations" of EC's topic ban resulted in any sort of disruption. They were purely based on expressing opinions. Go through all violations yourselves and tell me if I'm wrong. AE became (in the words of RfB) "tattletale central".

The politics of this is not that EC fanclub is fascist. The politics is that many well-connected and highly-ranked people, including current, former and future Arbs and the founder of Wikipedia want Corbett gone and will bend rules to do so. The "EC fanclub" is not fascist in any sense of the word. It is just that they have comparatively little power, and their only strength is in numbers. Has Giano gone overboard in expressing his criticism? For sure. Has Black Kite, to a lesser extent? Sure. Has Yngvadottir? Sure, and she got desysopped for it.

[Casliber]

<snip>The truth is many of these spend far more time on the drama boards than they do on content creation.

It's not that people like Dennis are in some way baddies. But you have to admit, looking at the amount of time (historically in the case of Dennis) they devote to Wikipedia, that the charge of being a shut-in does have some point, that it can only be they are in the grip of some compulsion where they have lost touch with reality, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's just an encyclopedia, as Risker so sagaciously observed when she retired from Arbcom.

All the same there are baddies out there I think. The community abhors paid editors. I don't really understand why it nevertheless so idolizes the quite a few who so plainly owe their livelihood to it (Eric not amongst them I grant, but perhaps their tool I suggest) and take care to maintain their power and prestige within it in a elitist way entirely out of proportion to what they actually achieve for it. I consider myself a guest here who I know can (or always does) irritate, so I will refrain from suggesting names. Regulars might like to air a few. I shall observe with interest.

'Shall' you indeed? Which content creators spend more time on drama boards than content creation? In fact, name "many" of them.

[Casliber]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

'Content Creators' is now a dogwhistle for whatever little article ownership gang that's reared its collective, ugly head lately.

How about these sad, wannabe writers just get to the articles they're interested instead of trying to unionize and control the discussion as tiny little fascists?

+1

Nails it really. That's exactly how it is.

Perhaps I had one too many egg nog. Isn't the point of Wikipedia content? My primary objections to how Wikipedia is run is that activists of all stripes use Wikipedia's page rank to push their particular brand of poison, through arbitrary rules, formation of voting blocks, and worse of all assistance from abusive admins. Specifically admins who look the other way when it suits their POV or status.

Dennis doesn't fall in that category and certainly doesn't deserve the bullshit he's been accused of here by MisterTester.

It's because Mistertester has borne a grudge against Eric since (I think) 2008 or something like that...(if I could be fucked finding the original diff again...but life's too short) and is socking to make the discussion look legitimate. All the rest is (extremely lame) window dressing to make his gripes look valid.

[Casliber]

It's over buddy boy. Whether you are an incel wannabe like your Earthy Astringent buddy, and want to threaten to shoot people they feel threatened by, or just threaten to mute someone not parroting your echo-chamber line of bullshit. It's over.

Wikipedia has had enough of the misogynist bullshit from the loud mouths and their admin enablers, and if you want to board that sinking ship, get aboard. I'll wave as you sink.

Do you know what a content creator is? Some bored shut in who has too much God damned time on their hands. Wikipedia is perfectly fine as it is, and anon ips add more to the project than content creators that play make believe games with make believe trophies.

Yes, content creation is the worse thing that happened to Wikipedia, it would be much better if everyone stayed away from articles and just focused on ANI and Arb cases instead. Those are what really matter because they make people feel important, and feelings trump substance, right?

Misogyny? I'm lost as to what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure you aren't talking about me, I've worked with more women editors than you can imagine, including finding women admin. Even my talk page archives show that to any fool that looks. Can't be Eric, he has worked with more women getting GA and FA articles than anyone there. There are certainly some sexists at Wikipedia, but which are you referring to? Maybe the ones suggesting rules so it takes two men to revert one woman when editing? I found that rather sexist against women, as if they can't compete in the marketplace of writing. Utter degrading nonsense. Some of our best admin and writers are women, they don't need pity. So who are you referring to?

And if content creators are bored shut ins, what exactly does that make you, who spends his time merely commenting on these bored shut ins? Just for fun, I went and checked your account, as you have it listed here, and of course it doesn't exist. I was curious as to the quality of your contributions. I assumed you had written a few GAs or at least that quality of work if you didn't like to bother with the formal reviews, a position I can understand. But your given Wikipedia name links to a non-existing user page.

Finally, threatening to mute you here is a mild thing, it only means I would not see your comments anymore. I'm not some admin here, as you surely know. Your dramatics over such a tiny thing are rather comical.

You checked my account to see if you could make trouble for me. You and the rest of the fan club.

Wikipedia is not that important to me to really worry about that, but I purposely used a different account when registering here to prevent that sort of stalking. I planned on being blunt here.

Nah, we don't need to mute you, you can just keep digging with more really inciteful comments

[Kingsindian]

Just to deflate some of the misunderstanding by MisterTester, by "mute" Dennis Brown simply meant using the "foe" button, which basically means that they will not see your posts. Dennis is not a mod here, he has no power to mute or do anything to you.

[Dennis Brown]

Just to deflate some of the misunderstanding by MisterTester, by "mute" Dennis Brown simply meant using the "foe" button, which basically means that they will not see your posts. Dennis is not a mod here, he has no power to mute or do anything to you.

I told him that above, but he isn't actually reading what others write. Looking at my avatar section makes it obvious I'm just another abusive admin guy on the bleachers here. Not a mod, don't want to be, and confident Zoloft could do better if he needed more. A lot of days, I don't even want to be an admin at Wikipedia.

[Larkin]

<snip>The truth is many of these spend far more time on the drama boards than they do on content creation.

It's not that people like Dennis are in some way baddies. But you have to admit, looking at the amount of time (historically in the case of Dennis) they devote to Wikipedia, that the charge of being a shut-in does have some point, that it can only be they are in the grip of some compulsion where they have lost touch with reality, at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned. It's just an encyclopedia, as Risker so sagaciously observed when she retired from Arbcom.

All the same there are baddies out there I think. The community abhors paid editors. I don't really understand why it nevertheless so idolizes the quite a few who so plainly owe their livelihood to it (Eric not amongst them I grant, but perhaps their tool I suggest) and take care to maintain their power and prestige within it in a elitist way entirely out of proportion to what they actually achieve for it. I consider myself a guest here who I know can (or always does) irritate, so I will refrain from suggesting names. Regulars might like to air a few. I shall observe with interest.

'Shall' you indeed? Which content creators spend more time on drama boards than content creation? In fact, name "many" of them.

Problem with my grammar, Cas?

I did some investigation with a tool at the time of Liz's (I think that's right - I don't follow Wikipedia all that closely) RfA and all that criticism about her content creation, looking at the stats for her principal critics, and it was revealing. But I will not name them (feel free to point out a subtlety of grammar there too).

It's not just a question of post counts. In terms of time there's a world of difference between bunging in another dozen stars from Patrick Moore's bumper big book of really interesting stars you can't see with the naked eye before dinner and going on the days long marathons apparently indulged by some administrators tracking down socks who might be involved in paid advocacy and similar crimes against humanity.

I voted for you, and Mies and Gorman. I'm sorry the last named didn't make it through.

Thank you for reminding me I spend too much time pointlessly posting here, though I should (ditto) defend my right to spend my time HTF I like. I shall close the vowels (whoops) of my attention like ...

Added reflectively: ... now there was a shut-in for you. Mies recently blocked a brilliant young student offering articles about her poetry.

[Moral Hazard]

Could we focus on Wikipedia, please?
Zoloft will block the obsessives who are using VPNs or TOR soon enough.

[Dennis Brown]

Could we focus on Wikipedia, please?
Zoloft will block the obsessives who are using VPNs or TOR soon enough.

This topic seems to have been exhausted. Let me wrap it up:

Arb took a case they probably shouldn't have, but once taken, they refused to work together.
They could have narrowed Eric's restrictions to make enforcement easier and the outcome at GG match the Finding of Fact, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to support Kirill's block, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to resysop Yngvadottir, realizing that it wasn't really an emergency and at least a semblance of process should be had, but they didn't.
They tried to desysop Black Kite for strike 2, then remembered they gave him amnesty.
Some tried to redefine "amnesty" (ala: Animal Farm) and voted to desysop him anyway. They failed.
The remedies they did pass were laughable and in one instance, condescending to the community.
They decided to not have a workshop to speed things up, perhaps with good intentions, and it backfired horribly.
Eric hasn't worked on articles, although he likely will come back in time. Maybe.
Arb lost even more respect from the community and a lot of respect for each other.
While some individuals are ok people, The Arb of 2015 was clearly the most incompetent ArbCom ever.
Most likely, nothing was learned by anyone and they are all probably blaming someone else or the community, or Eric, who didn't even participate in any meaningful way.

Thread complete.

[Randy from Boise]

This topic seems to have been exhausted. Let me wrap it up:

Arb took a case they probably shouldn't have, but once taken, they refused to work together.
They could have narrowed Eric's restrictions to make enforcement easier and the outcome at GG match the Finding of Fact, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to support Kirill's block, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to resysop Yngvadottir, realizing that it wasn't really an emergency and at least a semblance of process should be had, but they didn't.
They tried to desysop Black Kite for strike 2, then remembered they gave him amnesty.
Some tried to redefine "amnesty" (ala: Animal Farm) and voted to desysop him anyway. They failed.
The remedies they did pass were laughable and in one instance, condescending to the community.
They decided to not have a workshop to speed things up, perhaps with good intentions, and it backfired horribly.
Eric hasn't worked on articles, although he likely will come back in time. Maybe.
Arb lost even more respect from the community and a lot of respect for each other.
While some individuals are ok people, The Arb of 2015 was clearly the most incompetent ArbCom ever.
Most likely, nothing was learned by anyone and they are all probably blaming someone else or the community, or Eric, who didn't even participate in any meaningful way.

Thread complete.

+1

Lock. The. Thread.

RfB

[Kingsindian]

Could we focus on Wikipedia, please?
Zoloft will block the obsessives who are using VPNs or TOR soon enough.

This topic seems to have been exhausted. Let me wrap it up:

Arb took a case they probably shouldn't have, but once taken, they refused to work together.
They could have narrowed Eric's restrictions to make enforcement easier and the outcome at GG match the Finding of Fact, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to support Kirill's block, but they didn't.
They had every opportunity to resysop Yngvadottir, realizing that it wasn't really an emergency and at least a semblance of process should be had, but they didn't.
They tried to desysop Black Kite for strike 2, then remembered they gave him amnesty.
Some tried to redefine "amnesty" (ala: Animal Farm) and voted to desysop him anyway. They failed.
The remedies they did pass were laughable and in one instance, condescending to the community.
They decided to not have a workshop to speed things up, perhaps with good intentions, and it backfired horribly.
Eric hasn't worked on articles, although he likely will come back in time. Maybe.
Arb lost even more respect from the community and a lot of respect for each other.
While some individuals are ok people, The Arb of 2015 was clearly the most incompetent ArbCom ever.
Most likely, nothing was learned by anyone and they are all probably blaming someone else or the community, or Eric, who didn't even participate in any meaningful way.

Thread complete.

+1

I would just add that many Arbs simply did not vote on many remedies. Evergreenfir even made a list of Arbs who hadn't voted for each remedy. If you are unsure, err on the side of caution (my own temperament is to oppose by default). Simply not voting just makes you look foolish and indecisive.

[SB_Johnny]

+1

Lock. The. Thread.

RfB

Good thinkin' there Randy.