Black Kite throws down: latest Eric Corbett block at RFAR

[Randy from Boise]

...Uber-tool Jehochmon..

Walls of text with British spelling... A faintly attenuated motherload of rage... C'mon, use the word "Wikipediots" a few dozen times...

Quack quack quack quack!!!

RfB

[slacker]

...Uber-tool Jehochmon..

Walls of text with British spelling... C'mon, use the word "Wikipediots" a few dozen times...

Quack quack quack quack!!!

RfB

You got something against Brits as well as feminists now? I am both, but you might need a third identifier if you're hoping to paint me as a sock.

[Randy from Boise]

...Uber-tool Jehochmon..

Walls of text with British spelling... C'mon, use the word "Wikipediots" a few dozen times...

Quack quack quack quack!!!

RfB

You got something against Brits as well as feminists now? I am both, but you might need a third identifier if you're hoping to paint me as a sock.

I've got nothing against either feminists or Poms. There are plenty of other characteristics upon which one can make decisions...

RfB

[Oblia]

Uber-tool Jehochmon at Kirill's talk page:

Every person has a fundamental right to reply when people talk about them, wherever that conversation occurs. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Except Carol Moore, Neotarf, Lightbreather, and others who don't.

[Oblia]

...Uber-tool Jehochmon..

Walls of text with British spelling... C'mon, use the word "Wikipediots" a few dozen times...

Quack quack quack quack!!!

RfB

You got something against Brits as well as feminists now? I am both, but you might need a third identifier if you're hoping to paint me as a sock.

No, no! Carrite/Randy from Boise is a good American. Ask Sitush. All Americans are Imperialists, except for the ones Sitush likes.

[Zoloft]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before. It is like watching a bright light move as if relative to the distant stars or censtellations.

[slacker]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before.

Well, you stole that right out of the Wikipedia handbook then didn't you?

There's got to be another way, said someone, sometime, in some element of popular culture, I think.

[Zoloft]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before.

Well, you stole that right out of the Wikipedia handbook then didn't you?

There's got to be another way, said someone, sometime, in some element of popular culture, I think.

If Wikipedia smells socks they ban them even if they are doing good work. Astronomically, even.

[slacker]

For someone who has been immersed in Wikipedia for as long as anyone, Jehochman really does talk a lot of complete and utter nonsense. He can be found elsewhere (on Thryduulf's talk) rabitting on about the Declaration of Independence in relation to this nonsense. His inbox must be full of people simply asking him, wtf?

Much like the way Brad completely missed the point of the topic ban sanction (imposed because Eric merely talking about the gender issue proved to be inherently disruptive), he's also of the opinion that topic bans can be safely ignored by users as long as it's being done in a polite way. Honestly, who in their right mind would sign up to be a Wikipedia admin when these people are considered to be the elder statesmen?

[slacker]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before.

Well, you stole that right out of the Wikipedia handbook then didn't you?

There's got to be another way, said someone, sometime, in some element of popular culture, I think.

If Wikipedia smells socks they ban them even if they are doing good work. Astronomically, even.

Well, not always. It depends if you are one of the in-crowd or not. Eric, for example - around the time he was trying to test out the theory it was his name that attracted criticism rather than his behaviour, he operated a sock with the tacit endorsement of certain admins. Of course, he got found out eventually, because it's easy to smell his particular musk if you're paying attention, but until the time when the awkward questions started to be asked, he was in effect, an authorised sock, permitted to get on with his good work. A very special snowflake indeed.

And obviously, the idea that his sock didn't do anything wrong and was a model editor during the entire time he was pretending to be someone else (while also making some edits with his main account, including in places where his sock was commenting, which is what really fucked him as he couldn't then claim it was a CLEANSTART), allegedly proved him right. The idea that his sock was only exposed through another shady conspiracy organised through IRC by privacy violating check-users, is another of his supporters favourite myths which don't fit the facts. Conspiracies, they absolutely love them.

[Parabola]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before. It is like watching a bright light move as if relative to the distant stars or censtellations.

It is pretty great that the two knuckleheads can't even get straight which person they're accusing him of being a sock of, though.

[Kumioko]

Of course, we usually let socks work here if they don't do the nonsense they done did before.

Well, you stole that right out of the Wikipedia handbook then didn't you?

There's got to be another way, said someone, sometime, in some element of popular culture, I think.

If Wikipedia smells socks they ban them even if they are doing good work. Astronomically, even.

Well, not always. It depends if you are one of the in-crowd or not. Eric, for example - around the time he was trying to test out the theory it was his name that attracted criticism rather than his behaviour, he operated a sock with the tacit endorsement of certain admins. Of course, he got found out eventually, because it's easy to smell his particular musk if you're paying attention, but until the time when the awkward questions started to be asked, he was in effect, an authorised sock, permitted to get on with his good work. A very special snowflake indeed.

And obviously, the idea that his sock didn't do anything wrong and was a model editor during the entire time he was pretending to be someone else (while also making some edits with his main account, including in places where his sock was commenting, which is what really fucked him as he couldn't then claim it was a CLEANSTART), allegedly proved him right. The idea that his sock was only exposed through another shady conspiracy organised through IRC by privacy violating check-users, is another of his supporters favourite myths which don't fit the facts. Conspiracies, they absolutely love them.

Yes always! There are a tranche of admins and wanna be admins who do nothing but wander the edits of others and look for signs of some previously banned editor to which they can declare it to be the reincarnation of someone who was banned 5 years ago. It literally happens multiple times a day. Do some get away with it? Sure. My guess is a couple have even managed to make it to the admin ranks, but its stupendously rare.

[Anthonyhcole]

If another admin has such poor judgment as to throw him- or herself on Eric's pyre, that's their call. As for harassment and intimidation: if it actually rises to actual harassment, I would expect the perpetrators to be appropriately sanctioned. But I suppose you're just talking about people disliking people or whining at people, and that's their right.

No Anthony, I'm talking about actual harassment. Maybe I should have said WP:HARASSment? I'm talking about the sort of thing I've seen Eric's supporters do on a regular as clockwork basis to anyone who enacts or otherwise supports efforts to change his behaviour for the better. It involves going to their talk page or other venues where they're present, and which have no relation to the specific incident, in order to:
* make unsupported allegations of collusion or conspiracy
* make assumptions of bad faith in industrial amounts
* spread malicious gossip and rumours
* repeat the various myths and propaganda that has grown up around Eric
* insult, belittle and demean them personally or their contributions to Wikipedia
* make non-specific threats of future blocks or arbitration proceedings should they continue
* make provocative edits to articles they're working on
* suggest to them that Wikipedia would be much better off if they just left
And this will often continue even after being asked to go away.

And while you might very well expect such things to attract appropriate sanctions, the reality is they are either ignored, or at best will merely receive a warning (immediately dismissed), but only if the target pesters an admin. Needless to say, whether or not the perpetrator has a history of such behaviour will be neither here nor there - the admin in question certainly won't bother to look. The stock response should the target ever complain is usually to 'grow a thicker skin', 'rise above it' or 'ignore it', as will be familiar to many Wikipedians. It's a very effective tactic, which is why it continues to be one of the many reasons Eric is still a Wikipedia editor.

A thorough arb case into the entire Eric phenomana would of course reveal all of this as an ongoing issue which is ripe for all sorts of user and topic specific remedies, from Black Kite downwards, none of which would go down very well with those being sanctioned, or the peanut gallery who admire these scumbags as some sort of rebel faction. Which is why these last few times he's found himself in the shit, ARBCOM has been quite deliberate about not investigating anything other than the initiating incidents. Hence why they perpetually fail to get to the root of the issue.

MMAR? Is that you?

[Randy from Boise]

Uber-tool Jehochmon at Kirill's talk page:

Every person has a fundamental right to reply when people talk about them, wherever that conversation occurs. Jehochman Talk 16:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Except Carol Moore, Neotarf, Lightbreather, and others who don't.

The three oppressed oh-so-friendly Friendly Spacers themselves...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Your assumption is that everyone would be happy with the block simply being reinstated.

I think it's pretty clearly not my assumption. The chorus will complain. The same chorus who thinks Eric and his ignorant denialism and hostility are fine.

Newyorkbrad's being his usual "everybody please like me" self in this one. Spineless.

Complaining is a given. And a lot more besides, such as the usual harassment and intimidation of the supposed architects and supporters of the block from the likes of DDstretch and Eric's other close allies.

I was meaning, don't you seen any other practical consequences to it being reinstated? Like another kamikaze admin undoing it. There's talk in the air of other tangible action too, but that could be just more of the usual 'solidarity' guff from the incessant whiners that always comes to nothing.

If another admin has such poor judgment as to throw him- or herself on Eric's pyre, that's their call. As for harassment and intimidation: if it actually rises to actual harassment, I would expect the perpetrators to be appropriately sanctioned. But I suppose you're just talking about people disliking people or whining at people, and that's their right.

No Anthony, I'm talking about actual harassment. Maybe I should have said WP:HARASSment? I'm talking about the sort of thing I've seen Eric's supporters do on a regular as clockwork basis to anyone who enacts or otherwise supports efforts to change his behaviour for the better. It involves going to their talk page or other venues where they're present, and which have no relation to the specific incident, in order to:
* make unsupported allegations of collusion or conspiracy
* make assumptions of bad faith in industrial amounts
* spread malicious gossip and rumours
* repeat the various myths and propaganda that has grown up around Eric
* insult, belittle and demean them personally or their contributions to Wikipedia
* make non-specific threats of future blocks or arbitration proceedings should they continue
* make provocative edits to articles they're working on
* suggest to them that Wikipedia would be much better off if they just left
And this will often continue even after being asked to go away.

And while you might very well expect such things to attract appropriate sanctions, the reality is they are either ignored, or at best will merely receive a warning (immediately dismissed), but only if the target pesters an admin. Needless to say, whether or not the perpetrator has a history of such behaviour will be neither here nor there - the admin in question certainly won't bother to look. The stock response should the target ever complain is usually to 'grow a thicker skin', 'rise above it' or 'ignore it', as will be familiar to many Wikipedians. It's a very effective tactic, which is why it continues to be one of the many reasons Eric is still a Wikipedia editor.

A thorough arb case into the entire Eric phenomana would of course reveal all of this as an ongoing issue which is ripe for all sorts of user and topic specific remedies, from Black Kite downwards, none of which would go down very well with those being sanctioned, or the peanut gallery who admire these scumbags as some sort of rebel faction. Which is why these last few times he's found himself in the shit, ARBCOM has been quite deliberate about not investigating anything other than the initiating incidents. Hence why they perpetually fail to get to the root of the issue.

MMAR? Is that you?

I called it first!!!

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

...Uber-tool Jehochmon..

Walls of text with British spelling... C'mon, use the word "Wikipediots" a few dozen times...

Quack quack quack quack!!!

RfB

You got something against Brits as well as feminists now? I am both, but you might need a third identifier if you're hoping to paint me as a sock.

No, no! Carrite/Randy from Boise is a good American. Ask Sitush. All Americans are Imperialists, except for the ones Sitush likes.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to provide two or three links to back up your message board opinions...

RfB

[Oblia]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to provide two or three links to back up your message board opinions...

I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for it, just as you apparently expect others to do with your many unsupported comments.

[Poetlister]

Has anyone noticed that Eric finally made a statement?

Statement by Eric Corbett

Contrary to my normal practice, and previously stated intention, I would like to make a short statement, not in my own defence but that of Yngvadottir.

She made a decision that she felt was right, even though I'd already said that I didn't want anyone to unblock me, as I know what shitstorms tend to emanate from that. I would quite happily have sat out a one-month block, but nevertheless it wasn't morally right, and Yngvadottir ought not to be punished for correcting that. Eric Corbett 20:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

As has a friend of ours.

Statement by Kww

I suggest that you implement an old suggestion of mine: desysop any admin that ever unblocks Eric Corbett for any reason. The problem of Eric being unblocked will quickly be resolved.—Kww(talk) 04:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[slacker]

Has anyone noticed that Eric finally made a statement?

The rare departure from his usual practice of saying nothing and letting others leap to his defence was noted by me in the drama queen thread, where I observed:

Acknowledging that Yngvadottir is being unfairly punished is as good as it gets from Eric, and even then, he's not got the integrity to admit that the only reason admins like her sacrifice themselves for him is because they foolishly believe him when he makes empty threats like "nor do I intend to return when this block expires", which has funnily enough now morphed into "I would quite happily have sat out a one-month block" in his belated statement

In light of that, I do wonder if Yngvadottir regrets losing her rights in this manner - now that she's evidently decided not to leave herself, it must have dawned on her by now that there are arguably better causes to lay down those extremely valuable tools than Eric. I wouldn't want to add to her regret, but I'd imagine if she reviewed the other past incidents of kamikaze admin actions, she might even realise it rarely achieves anything except momentary blips of angst. Does anyone here recall any such incident which actually led to real change? I can't, not off the top of my head. Maybe something in the disputes that led up to BLP-PROD?

[Randy from Boise]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to provide two or three links to back up your message board opinions...

I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for it, just as you apparently expect others to do with your many unsupported comments.

I was joking.

t

[Dennis Brown]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to provide two or three links to back up your message board opinions...

I'm afraid you're going to have to take my word for it, just as you apparently expect others to do with your many unsupported comments.

I was joking.

t

Don't be joking Tim, this is serious life and death shit, man. Lives in the balance and all that jazz.

[Randy from Boise]

Speaking of Serious, Life and Death Shit, Man...

The Eric Corbett Celebrity Roast and Teaparty is now open, under the official case name:

Vested Contributors

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... s/Evidence[/link]

ArbCom is gonna hustle right through this one, yes indeed, with only a 2 week window between opening of the case and the due date of the proposed decision — which we ALL know is going to appear right on time!!!

Salvio giuliano (T-C-L), formerly regarded as one of the most sympathetic arbs to our friend EC, is listed as the drafting Arb. During preliminary statements he seemed to have pretty much lost his stomach for fighting the good fight on behalf of the insufferable guest of honor, however, and I would not read too much into that.

Our Circus has begun!

Hurrah!!!

RfB

[Vigilant]

Can someone add me as a party?

[Randy from Boise]

It appears that the Evidence and Workshop phases have been telescoped here. I feel that some of my wailing and carping has been heard, although I'm sure the idea predated my liking it. Always steal from the best is my policy...

Here's Salvio's opening salvo:

This case is contentious and has the ability to devolve very quickly. So, this is a heads-up on the procedures that have been adopted.

First off, the clerks have been instructed to be very proactive in removing any inappropriate comments. These include:

a. any allegation unsupported by evidence and

b. any allegation (whether supported or unsupported) against non-parties.

Furthermore, the case will use a "single warning" system: clerks are authorised to issue an only warning to any editor who posts inappropriate comments; if the warning is not heeded, the editor may either be restricted from participating in this case or be blocked at the clerk's discretion. This applies to everyone, which includes the parties, involved onlookers, semi-involved onlookers, and people who wander in randomly (whether truly random or not).

Finally, to prevent "drive-by" attacks and attempts to devolve this case, the case pages will be semi-protected and additional scrutiny will be paid to accounts that haven't participated in this dispute beforehand. If a new editor or an IP editor genuinely has something that needs to be said, they may ask a clerk to post it on their behalf.

For the Committee, Salvio 4:34 pm, 28 Oct 2015 (UTC−7)

The parties are:

* Black Kite (a.k.a. Mr. Ooooo, I shouldn't have filed that...)

* Kirill Lokshin (a.k.a. Mr. I believe in the five pillars, including Follow All Rules)

* Yngvadottir (a.k.a. Ms. Brave Gesture and screw you guys anyway...)

* Eric Corbett (a.k.a. Suckling Pig)

This means that nobody gets to say a frickin' word about L - - - - - - - - - - - - or SCalHotrod or anything else...

This is a trial about VESTED CONTRIBUTORS after all...

Including on the list above, ummmm, let's see, who fits the bill???

[SB_Johnny]

Can someone add me as a party?

I'll bring the Jello shots.

[Randy from Boise]

1.

And the opening pop is by MontanaBW, in defense of EC, noting that he is crabby to everyone and calls people of either gender a cunt.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688008008[/link]

In Corbett's defense, Ms. Montana intimates, it was merely Jimmy Wales that EC called a cunt and that big troll had it coming anyhow...

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

2.

First to speak for the Persecution is Kevin Gorman, in my opinion the most magnificent specimen of a pseudo-erudite, Politically Correct twit outside of Berkeley. (Oh, wait a minute...)

"Kirill good, Yngvadottir bad, Black Kite very bad, and Giano worst of all..." he opines...

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688009032[/link]

Whoops, Giano isn't a party here. Sorry, Sanctimonious Person of Limited Reading Ability, that bit is gonna have to go. But it does feel good to throw a punch below the belt when the other guy isn't looking, doesn't it?

Nope, he didn't ping Giano either... A brave, brave man!!!

RfB

[Parabola]

Either livepost it here or be a snitch on the case page, Tim, pick one!!!

You can't play in the videogame and then come here and try to make fun of it.

[Vigilant]

Either livepost it here or be a snitch on the case page, Tim, pick one!!!

You can't play in the videogame and then come here and try to make fun of it.

Why?

[Parabola]

Because it's a real schween move to tattle on someone flinging shit in this case. Let the blood fly. Tim's only doing it cause it's Gorman.

You of all people should agree with that.

[Oblia]

Either livepost it here or be a snitch on the case page, Tim, pick one!!!

You can't play in the videogame and then come here and try to make fun of it.

Also, is Carrite a clerk in this case? If the committee goes after Kevin Gorman I hope they smack Carrite at the same time.

[Parabola]

Also, fuck, moving the Case Request statements to the evidence page makes that thing practically unreadable in NORMAL cases, this one is a disaster. Didn't they start doing this sometime this year? Awful.

[Randy from Boise]

Post Your Popcorn Party Pix Here!!!

[Randy from Boise]

Either livepost it here or be a snitch on the case page, Tim, pick one!!!

You can't play in the videogame and then come here and try to make fun of it.

Also, is Carrite a clerk in this case? If the committee goes after Kevin Gorman I hope they smack Carrite at the same time.

Oh, you poor Friendly Spacers are having a hard day... I'm having fun!

RfB

[Vigilant]

[Vigilant]

[Vigilant]

[Vigilant]

[Randy from Boise]

3.

Friend of the 'Pediocracy Anthony Cole files an amicus brief with ArbCom helping them to understand the deep, unstudied background of the soon-to-be-banned Eric Corbett's infamous July 24, 2014 "Besides, the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one" remark to L———.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688017900[/link]

I'm sure this revelation will come as news to ArbCom — well worth having a case. This incident has never once been mentioned during the past 15 months in the 750,000 words of impassioned on-wiki hysterics, you know... But, ya gotta enter it into evidence to exact The Ultimate Punishment...

The Atlantic article also had inaccuracies, Anthony sagely notes — for instance, you may not realize this, but Eric Corbett is not an administrator. True fact!!!

Anthony is a pretty good dude. We don't agree about much of anything, but he is an honest person with deeply held beliefs.

RfB

P.S. I think Kevin Gorman might be mad at me... I'm sorry he took offense!

[Vigilant]

[tarantino]

Post Your Popcorn Party Pix Here!!!

It's been done before.

[ats]

2.

First to speak for the Persecution is Kevin Gorman, in my opinion the most magnificent specimen of a pseudo-erudite, Politically Correct twit outside of Berkeley. (Oh, wait a minute...)

"Kirill good, Yngvadottir bad, Black Kite very bad, and Giano worst of all..." he opines...

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688009032[/link]

Whoops, Giano isn't a party here. Sorry, Sanctimonious Person of Limited Reading Ability, that bit is gonna have to go. But it does feel good to throw a punch below the belt when the other guy isn't looking, doesn't it?

Nope, he didn't ping Giano either... A brave, brave man!!!

RfB

Also, I'm not sure anything stated by KG is in compliance. From my reading, every one of his assertions is unsupported by the evidence he has provided with them in violation of Rule a.

[Moral Hazard]

Either livepost it here or be a snitch on the case page, Tim, pick one!!!

You can't play in the videogame and then come here and try to make fun of it.

Also, is Carrite a clerk in this case? If the committee goes after Kevin Gorman I hope they smack Carrite at the same time.

Agreement is so surprising.

[CENSORED]FoxNews's more precise image would disturb some viewers and be a disservice to congenital twins.[/censor]

[Randy from Boise]

Good morning, Europe, let's take a look at

DAY TWO OF THE CIRCUS

shall we?

I actually did eat popcorn for dinner last night — I got hungry for it.

First thing that I notice is that they've went and changed the name of the case. Instead of "Vested Contributors" (or "Vivisection of Eric Corbett," whatever it was) now the case is being called

Arbitration enforcement 2

Woo, that's catchy.

Actually probably a good idea assuming they don't want Humvees and Escalades full of Bloods™ and Crips™ slowly coasting past with their automatics blazing... Just paint the fucker beige and call it "Oatmeal Mush, Part 6" and hope nobody notices... Arbcom is learning, although they didn't learn enough not to have the circus at all.

Moving on...

[Randy from Boise]

3a.

Anthony Cole is back to work, starting an entire section of his testimony called, "Instances of Corbett calling people cunts."

I shit you not: linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688055121[/link]

Yo, Bucky, you've only got 500 words and 50 diffs, you know that, right? And here you go starting something that we Wikipedians might vote "Delete" on at AfD — what we call an "uncompletable list." (Well, at least he is sourcing it out... Generally a content creator can dodge deletion if they bother to do that.)

However, under Salvio's rules of evidence in this case we will not be able to learn whether the Manchester Mauler was being fair or unfair when in December 2011 he said:

We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts.

and

You are so much a fucking cunt Spitfire (T-C-L).

Those seem to be the only instances that Anthony has found of the Barroom Brawler dropping C-bombs on Wiki in that particular month. Fortunately, there are 46 more months after December 2011 to take a look at. I feel sure in saying that we have not heard the last word in the testimony of Anthony Cole.

RfB

P.S. Black Kite suffers the first penalty flag in the game, thrown by clerk Amortias (T-C-L) for his having used a diff against Kevin Gorman. Ouch, that edit summary is gonna leave a mark.

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =688055625[/link]

Let's take a look at the diff that Mr. Kite saw stricken:

I think, at this point, {{u|Kevin Gorman}} should be blocked for harassment. It's clear cut, it's getting to be tiresome, it's getting to be disruptive, and his targeted campaign against Eric, which has been clearly discussed by others at the Arbitration Enforcement Arbitration case circus suggests I'm far from the only one who has issues with Kevin's behaviour. I think, if I see Kevin lodge one more arbitration enforcement request against Eric, I'm going to indefinitely block Kevin and to hell with the consequences and resulting arbitration case - this is the most blatant and disgusting targeting of one individual by an administrator I've seen in 10 years here. [[User:Nick|Nick]] ([[User talk:Nick|talk]]) 4:48 pm, 19 July 2015, Sunday (3 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−7)

linkhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =672196331[/link]

Keep your head down, Mr. Kite... There are only four defendants locked in Russian-style cages and you're one of them. We know Yngvadottir will have her spanking affirmed and we know Kirill isn't gonna be so much as put on reduced dessert rations, let alone being sent to his room without supper. That leaves just two possible people to get whacked, and you're one of 'em...

[Kumioko]

This case is going to be about one thing, the Arbcom banning Eric or not. Up till now they haven't had the balls, but this time they might just go through with it. On the other hand, as I have said before plenty of other folks have also done wrong, but Arbcom doesn't care about any of that, because many of them were admins and if Arbcom did anything to any of them for baiting, harassment and hounding Eric, then it would ruin the Arbcom's reputation of being completely incompetent and one sided towards admins.

I guess we shall see what the future holds, but one thing is for certain, there is no Eric in the Arbcom's vision of the Wikipedia of the future.

[Hex]

If you're researching manually, Anthony, you would probably be better off finding a friendly techie with access to a copy of the database who can query the revisions table.

Something like:

select revision.rev_page, revision.rev_id, revision.rev_timestamp, revision.rev_comment
from revision
join text on revision.rev_text_id = text.old_id
where revision.rev_user_text = 'Eric Corbett'
and text.old_text like '%cunt%';

Untested, but you may want to invest in some extra RAM to prepare for the size of the result set.

No, wait, that would be for "fuck". You'll be fine.

[Tarc]

This case is going to be about one thing, the Arbcom banning Eric or not. Up till now they haven't had the balls, but this time they might just go through with it. On the other hand, as I have said before plenty of other folks have also done wrong, but Arbcom doesn't care about any of that, because many of them were admins and if Arbcom did anything to any of them for baiting, harassment and hounding Eric, then it would ruin the Arbcom's reputation of being completely incompetent and one sided towards admins.

I guess we shall see what the future holds, but one thing is for certain, there is no Eric in the Arbcom's vision of the Wikipedia of the future.

IMO Jbhunley makes a rather valid observation;

Every single volunteer organization I have ever worked with had a very simple policy about volunteers - If you can not get along with the other people, no matter what your contribution, your services are no longer welcome. If you cause disruption ongoing controversy, whether it is your fault or not and no matter your contribution, your services are no longer welcome. This is basic to the continued well being of any volunteer organization and it is essential to the long term continued viability of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a 'special snowflake', people have been managing volunteer organizations for a very long time use the knowledge that has been accumulated. Hell read a book or three on volunteer management. It will help you.
I have no opinion on Eric as an editor and the misogyny claim looks to be BS but it really does not matter. If you want to maintain a viable organization in the long term you need to choose whether you are going to manage the chaos or allow Wikipedia to choke on its own anarchy.

You have established rules for AE and you need to stand by them to do otherwise is to trash whatever moral authority you have with both sides. You already have none with one side.

The other options are a) revolution or b) kick the can down the road for another group to face the same choice after unknown further damage is done to the community and the project. Some group must manage the intractable issues here. Managers are seldom liked by those they manage - at least not when they are trying to manage a bunch of anarchist wanna-be's - but they are necessary otherwise the wanna-be anarchists will find they have no place to indulge in their anarchy and no one wants to play in their sandbox. I hope none of this is new to any of you but based on many of the comments I have read here I fear it might be to some.

[Zironic]

Every single volunteer organization I have ever worked with had a very simple policy about volunteers - If you can not get along with the other people, no matter what your contribution, your services are no longer welcome. If you cause disruption ongoing controversy, whether it is your fault or not and no matter your contribution, your services are no longer welcome.

The problem here is that while all sides of this battleground will most likely agree with Jbhunley's statement here. The actual core of this conflict is not about if disruptive people should be kicked out but rather which people are actually being disruptive.

Team Colbert argue that all they want to do is edit their articles in peace while Team Gender Gap keeps attacking them out of a misguided desire to make Wikipedia a better place.

Team Gender Gap argue that Team Colbert make Wikipedia a hostile place and must be forced to comply or be ejected.

Ultimately this battleground will never end until at least one of these groups are kicked to the curb. Just banning Eric will do nothing, we're going to be back here again with some other editor taking his place. My preferred solution is to block all partisans on both sides from the project for atleast a year.

[Poetlister]

Also, fuck, moving the Case Request statements to the evidence page makes that thing practically unreadable in NORMAL cases, this one is a disaster. Didn't they start doing this sometime this year? Awful.

Who wants to read it? Let them chug away and come to the conclusion we all totally expect. Following it is just futile.