Group: Contributors
Posts: 304
Joined:
Member No.: 9,171
Over at Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Indef_block_of_Malleus_Fatuorum_requires_review and assorted other places there are some cunts (to borrow Malleus's terminology) who resent the fact that some people respect productive editors who may occasionally be a bit rude more than the idiots who block them. Just goes to show that really do think Wikipedia is an MMORPG and not an exercise in creating an encyclopedia.
Group: Contributors
Posts: 149
Joined:
Member No.: 248
Honestly the ArbCom case of Malleus isn't very difficult to figure out from any user who been editing in the project for years like me or Doc. It's clear that Malleus edits in good faith and with the right intentions. I don't see the point of banning an editor whose usually dead on right in his contributions, even if it can be considered incivil and offensive to some users including a few aimed at myself before.
I have to say this though; civility is one of the pillars of Wikipedia, and Malleus case shouldn't set an example for other editors to follow with their own incivil comments. It's up to an editor/admin whoever to figure out if a comment is incivil and was in bad faith before doing an action, and more than likely it will end up with a negative consequence.
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,138
Joined:
From: at home
Member No.: 90
QUOTE(Jaranda @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 4:38am)
Honestly the ArbCom case of Malleus isn't very difficult to figure out from any user who been editing in the project for years like me or Doc. It's clear that Malleus edits in good faith and with the right intentions. I don't see the point of banning an editor whose usually dead on right in his contributions, even if it can be considered incivil and offensive to some users including a few aimed at myself before.
Rubbish. Malleus is not editing in good faith. If he really just wanted to be left alone to write content - he'd be making every effort to tone down the flowery invective, simply because in creates needless drama which is a distraction. He is bright enough to work out how to do that. He's not stupid enough to call someone a "cunt" and not realise exactly what reaction and drama he'd get. This is quite deliberate trolling - and not inconsistent with him enjoying doing content too.
QUOTE(Malleus @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 7:31am)
No, it will end when and if I decide it ends, which won't be 12/29.
Attitude gives the game away. This is a controlled troll and he correctly knows he's got he upper hand.
You could and should forgive, but bully administrators hurt contributors and they should be constantly reminded to be fair with every good faith editor, and not only with valued and notable editors as you are, Malleus.
Greg, you should contact the Pulitzer Prize organizers - I think that Examiner.com qualifies under their new rules relating to online media. (This is not a joke, by the way.)
QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 22nd December 2011, 10:25pm)
It's about time that ignorance became a notifiable disease in the land of the fat and ignorant.
If that was the case, Mitt Romney would be walking around with a thermometer in his mouth. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bored.gif)
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined:
Member No.: 911
QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Fri 23rd December 2011, 7:13am)
Greg, you should contact the Pulitzer Prize organizers - I think that Examiner.com qualifies under their new rules relating to online media. (This is not a joke, by the way.)
Phooey! There's a $50 entry fee. Maybe I can get my overlords at Examiner to foot the bill.
FORUM WARNING [2] Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home2/wikipede/public_html/int042kj398.php:242) (Line: 0 of Unknown)
It's open season for Malleus, Admins have their dicks out
