QUOTE(mbz1 @ Sun 25th December 2011, 8:24pm)
I find
this comment interesting:
QUOTE
If I was the boss of a company, I wouldn't fire my best employee for pissing off everyone else, especially if he or she actually gets shit done. Let's face it: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than five admins.
Why not let Malleus have immunity because of his usefulness? Is calling someone a cunt (even if regularly done over several years) that bad, considering this is the Internet?
If someone leaves Wikipedia "because" of Malleus, it's their choice.
Fetchcomms is mistaking: Malleus is worth more to Wikipedia than at least a hundred admins, probably more, but does it mean Malleus and other valued editors should be treated differently than not so valued, but good faith editors?
I have no answer to this question, but I would like to hear what others think about this matter. Thanks.
False dilemma. Of course valued contributors to any kind of project or business should be treated
differently. Employees who have worked for more than one or two years often get different pension rights, reflecting the proven value of their contributions. The principle behind share options is to encourage staying with a firm. Certain legal rights apply around length of service.
Valued employees often get promoted or paid more, of course.
That doesn't mean that a valued employee or contributor should be allowed to bully or behave badly in other ways (although it happens, unfortunately).
It all depends what 'differently' means.