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: Sun 25th December 2011, 8:28pm

[Peter Damian]

There has been a lot of discussion about Malleus and his use of the c-word. Perhaps we can glance at the edit which occasioned all this drama.

We ought not to admin bash across the board, I can think immediately of many admins who appear to be proper and honest human beings. Unfortunately though I can think of far more who appear to be dishonest cunts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)" [1].
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=466966253
[/url]

Then the block hammer fell. Two points: the context of use. (1) There is a frivolous and a serious use of the c-word in English. The first, as in 'you silly c--t' is trivial and affectionate. The second, as here, is used to signify deep moral error, even evil, or hatred of evil. (2) The remark was at an RfA, which for the earnest type of Wikipedian is a sort of cathedral or deeply hallowed ground, where the chosen ones are anointed by a 'bureaucrat' who is something like Zadok the priest.

Thus, Malleus' action was something akin to calling Queen Elizabeth a foul name during her coronation at Westminster Abbey in 1953, or whenever it was. No wonder the Wikipedians want to burn him at the stake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGLN1kREJ2Q&t=5m10s

He added the following explanation shortly after

I would be very happy to provide examples, and I'm rather puzzled that you appear not to understand the difference between an honest cunt and a dishonest cunt. They're both cunts, but one believes (s)he's defending Wkipedia, whereas the other is just a self-important wanker. Is that clearer? [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 06:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Tue 27th December 2011, 5:08pm