User talk:Eric Corbett

July 2019

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

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.  Sandstein 06:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Please also take note of what I wrote at AE: "The block may be lifted, either by myself on appeal or by another administrator, if Eric Corbett explicitly and unreservedly commits to observe the topic ban in the future, such that, in the administrator's judgment, the block is no longer needed to ensure compliance with the topic ban. To be clear, this does not require Eric Corbett to agree with or like the topic ban, ArbCom, or me. It just requires him to agree to comply with the ban as long as it remains in force." Sandstein 06:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• More harassment from Sandstein I see. Stick by your guns, Eric, and deny them the pleasure of seeing you submit to the plastic court and their pompous ruling. I know you will. Cassianto^Talk 07:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you can imagine just how upset I am about this. Eric Corbett 08:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm feeling your pain. You must be beside yourself with grief at having a month away from all this. How dare you have the audacity to defy ArbCom by even talking to a woman, let alone referring to them by a gender-specific pronoun. Enjoy your time away :) Cassianto^Talk 09:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• @Sandstein: It'll be a cold day in hell before I ask you for anything, much less bow to your authoritarian style of "management". But I would like to say just one thing, which I wasn't allowed to say at the RfA that caused this storm in a tea cup. The reason I object to the WiR project isn't because it's attempting to address some gender imbalance in Wikipedia's biography articles; on the contrary, I see that as a worthy goal. The reason I object is because it's using the gender fallacy as a smoke screen to protect poor articles that ought not to be written at all, or at the very least written properly. There, I've mentioned gender again, so do your worst and see exactly how little I care for you or for what Wikipedia has become. Eric Corbett 18:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• This is regrettable. Compliance with ArbCom decisions is mandatory, even if we disagree with them. Because you have made clear that you do not intend to comply, the offer to have your block lifted early is withdrawn. Be advised that subsequent blocks are likely to increase in duration. To prevent further disruption for the duration of your block, I'm disabling your talk page access. Sandstein 19:51, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• User:Sandstein that was a cowardly, not to mention underhanded way to end a discussion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Revoking talk page access for further violations of a topic ban using it seems perfectly appropriate to me. I fail to see how it is "cowardly" or "underhanded". Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:41, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

• Any chance you can go and backslap Sandstein somewhere else? It's highly inappropriate doing it on a page belonging to an editor who cannot answer for themselves. Cassianto^Talk 20:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

We do indeed seem to be living in very strange times indeed. Expressing the most simple opinions now has to couched in the language of the most politically correct or, perhaps, politically stupid. The most simple stumble can now lead to Draconian punishments. Before long, even walking on eggshells will be offensive to Vegans. Giano (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Eric, you said "The reason I object is because it's using the gender fallacy as a smoke screen to protect poor articles that ought not to be written at all, or at the very least written properly", but you said it in the context of Valereee; as WereSpielChequers has already said, it doesn't take long to look at her AfD track record, and see she's quite amenable to !voting "delete" on non-notable women bios such as here, here, here, here and here. I agree with Iridescent that you're out of rope this time round; in particular, you've made one minor edit in mainspace in the last four weeks, so I can't even use the "but he writes good content" defence (compare and contrast with Cassianto, who I will give a free pass for doing lots of great work on Sophie Dahl recently, thus proving you don't need to be a raging feminist nut-job to write about women on here). In particular, dick-waving in front of Sandstein is just a monumentally stupid thing to do that is asking for trouble. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:35, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

A free pass from what? Cassianto^Talk 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• Ritchie, you don't need to look at main space only. All edits show Eric was also present at the Raffald FAC, which was a follow up to his hugely helpful assistance at the PR. Editors of high calibre are not only active in the mainspace. - SchroCat (talk) 17:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I know all about Eric's work at GAN / FAC having received several fruitful and constructive reviews from him myself. I have also on at least two occasions been almost beaten up for having the total and utter chutzpah for daring to suggest we shouldn't kick Eric out of the door because his copyediting skills are excellent. But I just sometimes wonder why can't he just focus on that and ignore suspecting admins instead of saying "come and have a go if you think you're hard enough"? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Why should he? To ignore is to accept. Suspecting admins or otherwise should know better than to go around poking bears, and if a bear is poked, the poker gets bitten; pretty much as you've said elsewhere today about me. It it wasn't for people like Eric, admins would have nothing to administer and this place would be nothing more than a forum. Cassianto^Talk 19:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

• So, what difference does the Sandstein robot believe that he has achieved by his customary heavy-handedness? Eric Corbett 23:06, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

• Partnerships
• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Trafford Park scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Trafford Park has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not interested, but thanks for asking. Eric Corbett 23:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey

I'm sorry. I genuinely had no intention of "bullying" of you. I'm no fan of FAC myself; there seems to be something inherently nasty and argumentative and confrontational about the entire process... and that's been a massive problem for the past several years. I agree that the entire process needs an update/revamp, because what worked in 2007 clearly isn't working anymore. Also, I've never had any kind of interaction with Sandstorm. I've just read the above discussion, and was definitely never involved in any of that. For the record, I actually agree with your position there. I've had less than stellar interactions with at least one member of the WiR "project", and definitely agree that many of the articles they've created need a great deal of work even reaching notability, let alone anything higher. Kindest regards, Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's put it behind us and move on. Eric Corbett 12:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll just point out to you in addition that if I were to make any comment at all about your reference to that project I would be met with another one-month block. That's how Wikipedia works these days, and surely nobody can think that's right. Heck, I'm sure that Sandstein is already looking for his AE enforcement bludgeon. Eric Corbett 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Peterloo Massacre

hi, long time no speak :(

I was going to add a section to the Peterloo Massacre massacre page, as the Mike Leigh film/movie was released earlier this year (at least on Amazon).

Contacting you as a major editor, well, you and some Malleus Fatuorum guy ;), and as it is at FA status.

Do you think mention of the film should be in a "legacy" or "in media" section, or somewhere else within that which already exists?

Cheers Chaosdruid (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The Mike Leigh film is already mentioned at the end of the Commemoration section, but if you're thinking of expanding on that I'd probably go for a new section called something like Media depictions or the like, and move the mention of Fame is the Spur into that as well. But I'm sure whatever you decide to do will be OK. Eric Corbett 21:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

PS. That "Malleus fatuorum guy" did some good work. ;-) Eric Corbett 21:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

DOH! I am getting old ... I'll re-read it properly this time lol :(

Yeah, he was a bit of a character alright, by all accounts ;)

Nice to see you're still going strong. Just read the above sections after posting mine, and noted nothing has changed on here it seems

Maybe one day lol. I myself was in a little bother last month for suggesting articles stick to MOS lmao Chaosdruid (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing will change. Wikipedia will always have a naughty step, and there will always be sufficient cult members to persuade the unworthy that they should change their ways to fit in with some kind of weird "safe space" culture or be shunned. For myself, I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire. Eric Corbett 22:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia's problem in a nutshell

I get blocked for a month for simply mentioning a certain project in passing. But I'm not an admin, so user:Ritchie333 thinks that's perfectly OK.

Ritchie333 gets blocked for simply mentioning another user with whom he has an interaction ban. But he's an admin, so that's a horrifying and "chilling" abuse of power. Perhaps that'll serve him as a wake-up call. Eric Corbett 17:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This admin's opinion, at any rate, is exactly the same towards Ritchie's block as it was towards yours. I think both were gross overreactions, but given that we've just spent a huge amount of time and effort fighting for the principle that the leadership we've chosen should have the final say, we can't then turn around and say the decisions made by that leadership are illegitimate and insist that we're going to ignore them. Lobby the arbs to insist they justify their actions, sure; make it clear to them that we consider their decisions inappropriate, sure; start looking now for suitable candidates to run on a "limit arbcom to genuine dispute resolution and matters which can genuinely only be handled off-wiki" platform in the next election, sure—but the precedent of "if enough people disagree with an arbcom decision that decision is overturned" would be a disaster for all concerned (you don't think the lunatic fringe would head straight over to IRC to round up a posse every time Arbcom made a decision they didn't like?). When an electorate elects someone who's not fit for the job, the proper reaction is to make sure someone better gets elected next time, not to abolish the system. ‑ Iridescent 19:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Much as I might like to, I can't do other than agree with you. For better or for worse it's the bed that Wikipedia has made for itself, and it must now lie in it. Eric Corbett 19:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

If I am allowed to comment here, I suspect we'll see a much harsher approach to "behaviour problems" from the Fram case forward. Sticks are often backed up with carrots in my experience, and if we want to have the right to have the ArbCom have the final say, we'll need to take complaints much more seriously even if some of us consider them overreactions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I suspect you're right, but I also suspect that the rules won't be applied equally, and that all heretics will be banned from the face of Wikipedia. For myself I really couldn't care less, but I do see this as the final nail in Wikipedia's coffin. Eric Corbett 20:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s coffin has more final nails than a Fakir’s uncomfortable bed, but it will survive unchanged because new generations of editors and Admins are constantly arriving to repeat the same mistakes. Civility and pussy footing around an issue is the current obsession, often mislabelled by those who don’t like a contrary opinion or view than their own. People here love to demand respect for different cultures and creeds, so long as they subscribe to that culture and creed. The pleasing irony is that the nation most obsessed by this have a Trump as their president; yet, they still refuse to accept that some nationalities are culturally more plain speaking than they themselves claim to be. Giano (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ain't that the truth, to revert to a rather clumsy Americanism. For me, the solution is for the Americans to have their own version of Wikipedia, with their beloved "safe spaces", which the rest of us can ignore. Eric Corbett 21:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Speaking as a longtime editor, I have seen my fair share of wiki conflict over the many years I've been here, and I have not used any expletives during my lengthy career here. It's just not my style. But I have to admit, I prefer a well-crafted, intelligent, honest, expletive-laden outburst over a passive-aggressive, pseudo-civil, patronising admonishment delivered in corporate-speak any day. Dr. K. 01:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

JEsus kerRIST, ain't that the fucking truth? Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

My view, and one shared by Stephen Fry I believe, is that those who fail to employ intensifiers thereby impoverish their vocabulary. Eric Corbett 12:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There are circumstances when an honest and frank assessment of a situation is more liberating and natural than speech which is muffled by faux civility and makes people run about in endless circles of masked incivility, threats, and insults. To employ a medical analogy currently in vogue, this is neither healthy nor safe. Dr. K. 16:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly this happened a few days ago in the U.S. when presidential candidate Beto O'Rourke chided the press saying "what the fuck" for asking questions about President Trump to which they knew full well what the answers were. And he went on to say, "Anyone who is surprised is part of this problem right now — including members of the media who ask, ‘Hey Beto, do you think the president is racist?' Well, Jesus Christ, of course he’s racist. He’s been racist from day one." What was really surprising to me was that the press did not condemn his remarks but rather seemed to express a sigh of relief that someone had finally spoken the unadulterated truth. Gandydancer (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia have an impeachment process, where the community can remove arbitrators? If not, it should. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yes, look at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard, where Mendaliv has talked about launching the process to throw the lot of them out. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

No, there is no real process for throwing out a bad admin, which, given the lifetime appointment, is a major problem. It's even more acute due to the low numbers of admin who have any idea about what goes into creating content. That means instead of protecting content creators from the riff-raff, they end up harassing them. GregJackP Boomer! 18:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

But they harass them with the very best of intentions, or at least that's what Sandstein tells me. Eric Corbett 18:11, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

“Do not imagine that the good you intend will balance the evil you perform” ― Norman MacDonald, Maxims and Moral Reflections. GregJackP Boomer! 18:46, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• Way back circa 2005 and 06 (before many of today’s Admins were born), I seem to remember suggesting it should be necessary to write an FA before being allowed to run for Adminship, getting an FA in those days was relatively easy, so not the challenge it suggest. However, it was shouted down as many candidates for Adminship “were not suited to writing content,” which makes one wonder what the initial attraction of coming here ever was. I still think a minimum number of words in three or four separate articles should be the minimum qualification. Despite the howls this will produce, I still believe gnomes and Bot-type editors don’t need tools, and those who don’t produce content fail to comprehend its importance to an encyclopaedia.Giano (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

In practice, unless they have some rather special technical skill etc, RFA does still expect some content work, though rather along the lines of the neck verse or Little Go, or the GCSE-style theology exam that the Papacy used to insist those elected Patriarch of Venice (by their cousins in the Venetian Senate) pass before confirming the appointment. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not been my experience. Eric Corbett 20:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

While I can think of a few serious content editors (ie: those writing on educated subjects not computer games and peculiar sexual practices and those practicing them) who have been promoted, the vast majority write very little. I suspect if Eric or I were to turn up at RFA and routinely object to candidates pointing out a lack of content creation, we would soon be banned from commenting there on pain of terrible sanctions. Giano (talk) 20:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm absolutely certain that would be the case, no question about it. Eric Corbett 20:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ve just been a few looked at RFA for the first time in years and rest my case made above. The very first candidate listed has “expanded” three DYKs on games, but prefers gnoming. It’s not his fault that he thinks that makes him worthy of tools, it’s those who approve these candidates multiple times without ever wondering who exactly is writing the encyclopaedia. Giano (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

And herein lies the stupidity of ArbCom and its unpaid goons like Sandstein. If I were even to comment on what you've said I would be blocked for a month, as I'm not allowed to have an opinion on RfA. Eric Corbett 21:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed a parallel universe, and seems to becoming more wacky by the moment. I wonder where it will all end. However, I see you are about to be silenced once more, so that question must remain rhetorical. How very strange, though, that you seem to have your own private policeman, must be like having a bodyguard in reverse. Giano (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a bit creepy. I wonder how many others he hovers over like some evil bird of prey? Eric Corbett 18:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh! You are still with us, I returned from a very pleasant Sunday lunch with friends to see on my watch list you had been banned and flogged from the site. Yes, it’s all very creepy isn’t it? Giano (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Only temporarily, until the kraken awakes. :-) Eric Corbett 19:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Kraken? No, think more of Wagner and Der Ring des Nibelungen. Far better analogies to this situation there. When frustrated with Wikipedia, I often amuse myself by noting the similarities between Wagner’s and Wikipedia’s characters. Jimbo is Wotan; I, of course, am Sigmund; Gerda is Freia, you, Eric, are Donner, then we come to the Nibelungs - the wicked, evil, greedy dwarves, that’s always the best part of the game. Sadly, the Rhine Maidens are in short supply here, though, I can think of a couple of Valkyries. Giano (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

AE request

I've filed an AE request about you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Eric_Corbett. Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I can do everything I want to do without ever logging in again, so feel free to do whatever it is you think you have to. Admittedly I can't do everything others might want me to do, such as FA reviews for instance, but that's hardly my problem. Eric Corbett 11:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is a thread relevant to you at ANI: Sandstein and Eric Corbett at WP:AE. Or just enjoy it from afar, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 14:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't taken part at ANI for a very long time, and I'm not about to start again now. Nothing I could possibly say, or be prepared to say, would satisfy the wolves howling at the door anyway, so what will be, will be. Eric Corbett 14:38, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't about you. And sadly, Sandstein gets to skate again for his involved action against you. Not that I would mind seeing you blocked, just wouldn't want that kind of admin misbehavior behind it. But yes, getting into AN/I is stupid; I did that, and now they're trying to indef me there for doing too much work. Dicklyon (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

If you're looking for sympathy then I'm afraid you're in the wrong shop. Eric Corbett 23:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

No, of course. But Sandstein is one of the more prominent parts of a big problem over there, and just wanted that to be said. Dicklyon (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually, GoldenRing is, too, I now realize. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violation of your civility restriction at Talk:Moors murders per this request, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. GoldenRing (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

And since I know your response to this will be, "See if I care!" here's what I really want to say to you: When will you learn that life is easier if you just don't rise to provocation? Things will sure be quieter around here when you learn it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And how about the provocateurs, GoldenRing? Why do they get a free pass? Cassianto^Talk 10:09, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Cassianto: I addressed this at AE, but in short: Because they don't have a history of disruption that has left them with specific arbitration remedies to be enforced against them. I don't think you've covered yourself in glory at that talk page, either, but I'm not blocking you for it. GoldenRing (talk) 10:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Block me for what, exactly? Why don't you try it and see how far you get? Anyway, so just to clarify, it's ok for people to bait others, but it's not ok to react? I think it's remedies like that that is causing the death of this project. Cassianto^Talk 11:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing is quite right, it's no skin off my nose, but I'd hate to see you get yourself blocked as well. Eric Corbett 11:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

GoldenRing can't block me; if he could've, he would've. Why certain admins think they can go about making passive aggressive threats like this, whilst at the same time telling people not to do the same, smacks of "do as I say not do as I do". Cassianto^Talk 12:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Well just be careful. I need you to still be around in a few days when it comes to fixing Moors murders, and you might be surprised just how easy it is to make life-long enemies here who will twist anything you say to fit their agenda. But as I believe that I'm only supposed to use this talk page for appealing my block - as if that's ever likely to happen - I'll say no more for the next three days. Eric Corbett 12:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Cassianto: I don't know why you thought it was a threat, passive-aggressive or otherwise. My point was that your own conduct there was not great - in fact pretty similar to "the provocateurs" as you put it - but neither they nor you are going to be blocked for it because you aren't specifically prohibited from such comments by an arbitration remedy. Nonetheless, I wish you'd all tone it down about six notches.
As for Eric, it is unbelievably frustrating to block someone who does so much good work around here because they just can't learn to let stuff go. Why why why why why? GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

My "glory", as you put it, went decidedly south after I was told to "shut the fuck up". Where was that editor's threat of a block? Provocateur? Cassianto^Talk 13:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Has that editor agreed to an AE sanction where they are prohibited from belittling other editors? Do they have an extensive and lengthy history of blocks for incivility? If not, this isn’t remotely comparable and you know that. Toa Nidhiki05 13:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

What on Earth are you talking about? We have WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for that, so I'm told. Cassianto^Talk 13:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Civility violations typically aren’t given blocks unless there is a sanction or a fairly lengthy band persistent pattern of behavior. AFAIK, nobody else there has an AE sanction on them (and a reminder, Eric agreed to his sanction) so nobody else is going to be blocked for an AE sanction violation. Toa Nidhiki05 13:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Please do not ever post here again. Eric Corbett 13:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oh this block is really going to help the encyclopedia become a far better place. Well done to all those concerned. Why not take it a step further and block all the content editors who ever show signs of bad temper of frustration with the way the place is run. It's mostly all written now, so most of them are redundant. All we need now is people now who will create safe places for timid people, councillors for mad people and a gentle, kind listening ear for anxious people. Admins will only be required to direct "editors" from one therapy session to the next. Giano (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I was appaled by the behaviour I just read. Levivich, for example, gives a COMPLETELY misleading synopsis of the conversation. First of all, the OP says "this is bullshit" pontificating from on high, but reveals that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Then, Levivich tells everyone that Eric argued with the OP = bullshittery of the highest level. THe other comments are between Eric and Carrite, the only OP comment is the OP!! And CLEARLY Carrite pings the OP to let them know they are a paladin to the rescue of an innocent (moron)! Talk about baiting ...

I can't believe that, after being away for such a long time, they are still persecuting those that try and make this shithole better - all while appeasing obvious fucking morons. I really thought they would have found something better and more constructive to do

Ah well, back to doing what I want because I don't care about PC anymore. Chaosdruid (talk) 18:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Just the way this place works. You either suck it up or you leave, that's the Wiki-way. Sucking it up has never been my style though. Eric Corbett 19:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone is thoroughly impressed by your "style". ‑Scottywong| converse _ 02:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)