Is Malleus addicted to Wikipedia?, Is it possible for him to stop editing, even for a day? Options

[chrisoff]

Despite umpteen threats to "leave", the last one that Malleus won't edit an article again until his demands are met.

I won't be returning to editing articles until User:Georgewilliamherbert puts his money where his mouth is with respect to his threat to take User:Mkativerata to ArbCom for unblocking me, during which investigation I hope that [[User:Kaldari]]'s behaviour will also come under scrutiny.

I'll wait as long as it takes. It's time for George to walk the walk, no more empty threats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=458397734

[chrisoff]

Dig this ARCHIVING by Ms "what the fuck" SandyGeorgia to clear her talk page of criticisms of her little (and dwindling) CABAL.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460720765

All in defence of Malleus (he must be quite a chap!) and fav Ealdgyth (the mass producer of dead English bishops FACs.

Ealdgyth says to Carcharoth:

"While I certainly can't say that I'd have expressed myself in quite the terms that Malleus did, Carcharoth, your post sounds incredibly pompous and annoying. Much like a school teacher lecturing small children to get back to their homework. Perhaps you've forgotten that we are volunteers and if we want to chat on user talk pages, we certainly are allowed to. And certainly, lecturing this group of people ... who are certainly considered some of the stronger content contributors on Wikipedia .. wasn't the smartest move you ever made. I'll point out that MF's percentage of article edits is in the high 60%, while yours is 25%. Parrots is also above 60%, as is mine. I think you can safely say we know what the goal of the project is. "

And Carcharoth dares to make a comment back to the revered Ealdgyth!

"But can't you see that you've managed to be pompous and annoying yourself there? Quoting percentage of article edits and putting yourself on a pedestal is the very definition of being patronising (and in any case, amount and quality of content added is a far better metric than pure edit counts or edit percentages - I would never judge someone purely on edit counts or percentages - and yes, I know you've all done more of that than I have, but that is still missing the point). The point is that I was pointing out the double standard of complaints being made about off-wiki IRC socialising (the edit summary was something like 'spoonfeeding the IRC crowd'), when large amounts of the same sort of socialising goes on on user talk pages. That those doing the socialising are a high-calibre quality of content editor shouldn't make any difference. Just as high-quality content editing isn't a free pass for incivility, it isn't a free pass to use Wikipedia for socialising (within reason, I'm not trying to be a complete killjoy, just pointing out some of the unintended consequences [due entirely to human nature being what it is] of user talk pages becoming de facto semi-private socialising areas rather than places for messages to be left)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=460717799

SandyGeorgia, Ealdgyth, Malleus types will be the downfall of the boringly elite (but nasty) FAC. Poor Carcharoth, a victim of WP:SHUN. He can't join their high school Facebooky group! He's not deferential enough to the FAC CABAL.