Should valued contributers be treated differently? Options

[mbz1]

I find this comment interesting:

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.

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[that one guy]

I think "valued contributers" (sic) is a loaded statement. What determines "valued"? One could argue Malleus is due to the sheer amount of mainspace work he does. But here's the catch: for every Malleus, Giano, Bugs, etc there's probably another editor in the wings adding content and not causing drama. The only reason that Malleus, Giano, and the like are "big name editors" are because they're attention whores. They want to get more credit than their name in the edit history so they stir shit up so people will go "WE CAN'T BLOCK THEM, LOOK AT THE WORK THEY'VE DONE!" while they get to sit back and watch the drama erupt over them. It's pathetic and only gives incentive for others to try. It's no better to me than an admin who brags about how many blocks they've made because it makes their e-peen feel huge.

And yes Ottava, this includes you.

This post has been edited by that one guy: