It's open season for Malleus, Admins have their dicks out Options

[Eppur si muove]

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.

[mbz1]

No comment.
"This user is retired. It is clear from the recent fuckwittery surrounding the blocking of Malleus Fatuorum that this is no longer a credible project."

Maybe Gwen Gale will also retire over your block, Malleus ? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

This post has been edited by mbz1:

[Malleus]

No comment.
"This user is retired. It is clear from the recent fuckwittery surrounding the blocking of Malleus Fatuorum that this is no longer a credible project."

Maybe Gwen Gale will also retire over your block, Malleus ? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)

I doubt it, but I'd rather that people thought about why administrators routinely get away with stuff a non-Jimbo would be blocked for. Jimbo has made many personal attacks, and it's time either he was blocked or the whole mess was sorted out ... on balance I'd prefer that Dumbo Wales simply diseappeared.

[TungstenCarbide]

funny edit.

[mbz1]

funny edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif)

Malleus, I'd like to ask you please. Let's say your arbitration case is rejected, as I believe it would,
will you go back to wikipedia, maybe not on 12/29/2011, but later on? Thanks.

[Malleus]

funny edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif)

Malleus, I'd like to ask you please. Let's say your arbitration case is rejected, as I believe it would,
will you go back to wikipedia, maybe not on 12/29/2011, but later on? Thanks.

Not unless it resulted in a fundamental change in the way that Wikipedia is run.

This post has been edited by Malleus:

[Doc glasgow]

funny edit. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/offtopic.gif)

Malleus, I'd like to ask you please. Let's say your arbitration case is rejected, as I believe it would,
will you go back to wikipedia, maybe not on 12/29/2011, but later on? Thanks.

Not unless it resulted in a fundamental change in the way that Wikipedia is run.

In all of its existence, has there ever been a "fundamental change in he way Wikipedia is run"?

Wikipedia is, as I've long said, structurally incapable of fundamental change. The only person who could have changed the structure was Jimbo, but he never had the will, and now he lacks both the will and the power.

However, becoming tolerant of potty-mouths isn't my idea of fundamental change anyway.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: