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.

The subtitle is a bit wrong. Quite a few admins are dicks! Some have even achieved what I'd have supposed an anatomical impossibility. They are simultaneously dicks and cunts!

When will people realize that Wikipedia either can't allow non-content people to have any say there on any matter or the content people need to find a site with just themselves? Obviously, the people there to create an encyclopedia will never get along with the people there for... well, they are just there (why are they there? myspacing? boredom?).

I do like how much stuff that Malleus is able to get away with, but he never came before ArbCom which seems not to care about what the community thinks (and the community tends to be what ends up saving Malleus).

I avoided that version as I knew that I was going to repeat Malleus's comparison of certain admins with the corresponding female organ. Also my point was that the admins who blocked him are doing so as a show of male prowess as otherwise they would have felt emasculated by Malleus's contempt for them.

I think the RFA process favours game-players over content creators because applicants have to be prepared to mouth the expected platitudes. Having once had a position of genuine responsibility where I had to avoided being cowed into defensive practice that a decision not to detain someone might increase the risk of someone dying or being seriously injured, I can't be arsed to go through some charade just to get the right to do the occasional extra duty on some two-bit website.

They ought to do a regular trawl those people who have produced a certain amount of featured or good content without being blocked and just give them the bit. It's far less risk-prone than the current process which favours adolescents who want to feel important.

The problem is when he calls a non-admin a "fucking cunt" well he sort of has a nice block coming to him.

Also arbcom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...alleus_Fatuorum

Did he say something that was not true or did he say something that was not nice?

The Ed17 mentioned me:



I think it was more than proven that I worked with other editors (I have shared articles with over 30 people). But yes, isn't saying the RfA system is corrupt, broken, constantly calling admins "cunts" and other terms spinning out wild conspiracy theories? At least I pointed to two guys who tag teamed voted on over 200 AfDs and shared over 600 page edits with each other. The scope of my "conspiracy" was quite minimal.

Some people just can't see the truth unless you shove it their faces spiced with a bit of pepper. I fully expect the outcome of ArbCom's deliberations to be rather similar to what happened to Ottava, but that's their loss, not mine.

If you read the actual decision, 99% of what people threw against me were not considered. It boiled down to me saying that an academic was not respected (i.e. a hack) was a big no no (even though I had reliable sources to make it qualify under BLP ) and that my claim that Moreschi and Folantin were tag teaming was wrong even though, as they admitted, an outsider would see an obvious relationship between their edits. I love how Brad said that most of the claims against me didn't really qualify for ArbCom decision yet sought to ban me anyway. Basically, the decision was "regardless of what the facts are, we don't want him around".

Similar to the magical way of transforming my 1 year ban into an indefinite ban because they took the probation clause and said "an indef is probation, right?"

I had over 50 people come out in support of me and said they were full of it. You will have far, far more Malleus. I would expect that if any Arbitrator actually tried to do to you what they did to me that the Arbitrator would be banned. It would be satisfying. And it has precedence - Rlevse found out the hard way that he wasn't immune. It has already been revealed that many of those sitting are plagiarists and just as bad as he was. Once they cross the wrong people, they will swiftly find themselves on the outside. What goes around comes around, after all.

I doubt it...they'll most likely just tell you to stop commenting on RFAs (which would still be their loss, not yours). Try as you might, you'll never come across as being as much of a bonkers asshole as Ottava. It's not something you can fake.

Hahahahah

People are still taking this shit seriously??????

This has nothing to do with civility, and nothing to do with one side being mature. This is all about drama - lots and lots of drama.

Malleus is deliberately rude because it causes drama. The people who go after him go after him because it cases drama. They all enjoy it.

The feigned "admins are after the good writers - they'll run them all off", is just a crock of shit - because anyone with the intelligence to write good articles is quite intelligent enough to work out how to interact with sufficient civility to avoid drama - it is just that writing good articles isn't enough - they want drama, victim status and hero worship too.

The feigned "if we don't stamp on incivility the wiki will explode", is also a crock of shit - because if you ignored the regular users who were uncivil, they'd soon get bored.

Both sides are just trolling.

Arbcom are fools to accept this, because it will simply result in three months of drama, a limp-wristed decision, and a few weeks of grumbling - and then it will die off for a few weeks.

Change MF to Giano/Geogre/Bishonen, and change the blocker to David Gerard/Tony Sidaway, or whoever it was, and you'll realise how boring this is.

Chistmas repeats once again.

So Malleus, you are just a boring old troll. Yes, the trolling is successful, but it has all been done before (and, sorry to say it, Giano had more style).

And you're an interesting young troll? What a curiously blind distinction.


They may say whatever they like, obviously, just as I may or may not agree to their terms.

Blind to what? I knew posting here and calling you out as a troll, would probably get your goat because you are still peddling the self-righteous twaddle that you are defending some superior moral high-ground when you call people "cunts".

It is, however, as silly as those who don't understand that they are giving you precisely what you are after when they react to you.

Does that make me a drama-seeking troll? Yes, I suppose it might. So then, there is no distinction. It is just that I'm not a pompous ass who is still playing the game and pretending it is for real.

Lets just get things straight. There are two types of people/two types of action.

1. Editing content/building content

2. Trolling/attention mongering/myspacing, etc.

Number 1 in all of its forms is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Number 2 in all of its forms (yes, it is all the same nonsense) is what Wikipedia is actually about.


Any kind of commentary about Wikipedia is trolling of some kind because you are expecting a response. A lot of people provoke others in order to get more of a response. Otherwise, you can see from obscure talk pages that when there is no drama that questions or comments take months and sometimes years before they are answered (if ever).

The rules and policies are established to add a form to the trolling. It is like imposing Robert's Rules in politics - people are still bitching and mongering for attention regardless of the structure they pretend to work within. Everyone is peacocking and trying to get their personal view anywhere they can. That is humanity. That wont change.

Doc, you aren't special. Malleus, you aren't special.


But yeah, I got a mention in that ArbCom request on the second anniversary of my 1 year ban without even having to provoke it. So, I am the ultimate ghost troll. Boogie boogie boo.

There are certainly two attractions in wikipedia a) creating content [widely defined] and have people react/interact to it b) interacting with people and getting a reaction. People, however, generally engage in both to some degree (it is only a question of where the balance lies).

Most trolls are not interested in content (or not able to write content good enough to have people react to it). However, it is quite possible to need MORE attention than even your excessive content attracts, and thus use trolling to get more.

The self-righteous nonsense is where you claim your provocation and the conflict if causes is somehow related to being a content creator - it is not. (Although, the line is also a good one to divide and conquer your critics - again classic trolling).

How can content be "excessive"?

It is obviously getting in the way of your trolling. What you need to fix that and become a standard Wikipedian is to be banned and then kept from having access to editing the content. That will leave you only with drama. Obviously, it works.

The notion that "content creators" occupy some kind of superior position is ridiculous. As far as trolling WR goes the self-righteous "content creator" are much worse of problem than the social media types.

My ban is only a virtual heartbeat away: I'm just surprised I lasted as long as I did. There was once a time when I believed in the project's goal of free dissemination of knowledge, but I realise now that I was naive. It's not about that at all, it's about social engineering.


But are they as bad as you?

to both of you.

Doc is right: Malley loves to poke the beehive. And it's begging to be poked.

I also was thinking why quite a few, should I say notable, content creators got into troubles:
Ottava Rima (T-C-L-K-R-D) articles created
Peter Damian (T-C-L-K-R-D) articles created
MickMacNee (T-C-L-K-R-D) articles created
ChildofMidnight (T-C-L-K-R-D) articles created
and so on.
It probably has nothing to do with content creation because many users who write a great content are doing fine. I have no answer to this, but I know why I got into troubles.
It was mostly my own fault because I have never learned not to take a bait, and ignore the trolls.
I believe Wikipedia:Don't take the bait is one of the most important essays. Trolls should be ignored. It is the only way do deal with them. I only wish ignoring trolls were as easy on wikipedia as it is on WR.

Drama? If anything, this causes comedy. No one with a working brain can possibly see this brouhaha as anything but a farce. I love how this sorry collection of grotesques and misfits are spending so much time and energy on something so woefully benign.




Well, mama, come on over to my stable and I'll gladly show you how to handle "bait"

That's more like it. (Good luck convincing Malleus, or Ottava, or a long list of others.)

Come on, would it have killed you to include me? (Not to mention the dozens of other articles created by my socks since then!

Yes. Awesome Wikipedian.

It is hard to ignore them when they come to articles you worked on and start pushing original research, plagiarism, making crazy fringe claims that a person is a "pederast", etc. Look at the case with Maunus trying to defend admin who had no reason to come to the Persian Empire page but merely wanted to have it removed even though 2/3s of those discussing the matter did not want the page deleted.

There are people on Wikipedia with intentionally or unintentionally are destroying content. When you work and try to create a lot of content, it isn't fun to watch people come up wanting to knock it down as if it is just a sandcastle.

I never actively sought these people out or cussed them out. Malleus and Ceoil tend to be the few people who do. Those like Science Apologist were involved in big POV disputes. There are some other different patterns. Not all of it is the same.

Rubbish - you have no intention of leaving. And if you do, it will wear off.

This is a ploy - and it is already working. The usual suspects are running about with the "O o O the bastards have killed a good content creator". The community will now war with itself and you get to enjoy the drama. Arbcom will not dare ban you now, (they never would - they don't ban content creators for mere incivility) and you'll be back soon rubbing their noses in it.

Again, this is another poor Giano copycat without the same style.





Not every thread is about you, Greg. One of these days you'll get that.

Don't challenge him or he'll ensure it becomes covered by the "mainstream" media and then someone else will feel the need to comment here on whatever he wrote.

You presume too much, as many of you ignorant dickheads do. It's about time that ignorance became a notifiable disease in the land of the fat and ignorant.

There is a point where you carefully put so much vitriolic invective into a sentence that you forget to actually communicate any facts or comprehensible sentiment. In such cases, you may find "fuck you" is shorter to type!

If ignorance was a notifiable disease in the land of the fat and the ignorant ... then... oh, bugger it, the sentence is simply incoherent nonsense. I do not like green eggs and ham either.

Wow, you two have really figured out my schtick. Touché!

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.

I think it is time that people drop civility all together. It should never have been a pillar. It was used where I lived since the 1990s to attack people who didn't like political correctness. It has nothing to do with the original meaning of civility, which was all about protocol and etiquette (eat the right foods, wear the right clothes, drinking tea at the right time). It is clear that "civility" is just a weapon and has nothing to do with working to build an encyclopedia. Nice people can fail at contributing and mean people can succeed. If you want to build an encyclopedia, get rid of those who can't contribute.





I can say that there are enough witnesses out there that can confirm that I may be an ignorant dickhead but I am definitely not fat.

Malleus, your block is going to end on 12/29. Why did you call your post "My final request" ?

About content of your post. It is great, it is Christmas time, time of forgiveness, is it not?

Only there is a problem with that. Gwen has changed towards you because she knows,
when it is time to support consensus, but she did not change towards others.
She has been a bully administrator since she started and up to now.
She still posts bad blocks.Only most editors are not as known as you are, and their blocks are left unnoticed.

In a meantime I almost felt sorry for Gwen, when I read this

I only wish she provided some differences... BTW did she mean you, Malleus, as one of these "a dozen or so editors (out of thousands)" who were " flogging and thrashing away at towards their own utterly selfish, narrow, thwarted goals and outlooks as to editorial and policy outcomes", or smearing her? If not, why in a world she posted that rant in your arbitration case?

In the same post she calls wikipedia "this encyclopedic hobby", and complains she has "not a lot" free time.
Well, she did write 25 articles "in almost eight years of editing here" (most just being stubs), and the most important one being Lesbian sexual practices, but it looks like she has always had the time to bully.
Oh sorry, I forgot she also wrote two articles about herself. Sadly they got deleted.
She said she would have unblocked you. How brave of her to say so about the block that had a strong consensus for being lifted:/
Please make no mistake, she would have blocked indefinitely 99.99999% of all editors in a similar situation because her "encyclopedic hobby" is a pleasure of bullying.
So it is not actually about your own "grudge against [[User:Gwen Gale]] ",Malleus.
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.

No, it will end when and if I decide it ends, which won't be 12/29.

Sigh... could someone block Scarian (T-C-L-K-R-D) for grave dancing?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=467313823

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.




Attitude gives the game away. This is a controlled troll and he correctly knows he's got he upper hand.

tsk tsk....If ingorance were a notifiable disease etc.

remember the subjunctive

Oh, thank God. I had missed Gwen Gale's latest comment, I'm not sure what I would do without mbz1's constant running commentary about her. It might save some time if you'd just grab @gwenisabullyadmin on Twitter.

As for MF, yes, it's all about the drama. I agree with Doc here. If MF wants to contribute content, go ahead, but railing against other editors isn't writing. It's just poking the hive to get them to say your name.

Not just talking about MF here, but if you think you're a "great content contributor" (or some other version of wiki-praise), then so what? Your well-written, properly researched information that you've donated can be easily overwritten or deleted by some twelve-year-old who prefers his words to yours. That's the way it works.

Giano does have more style than Malleus. Malleus has to resort to swears, comes off as a swearing asshole, Giano just came off as a simple ass.

To me, assholes are worse than asses (which is still below "fucking cunt", come on man if you're going to play your trump card at least do it when you know you have no choice).

Say, aren't you the fool who went around making anti-Semitic comments on Wikipedia?



Words, words, words, I'm so sick of words...



(Is this the first time that Malley was compared to Audrey Hepburn?)



Girl on girl action? Hmmm...does that article come with a video?



That sort of sounds like Don McLean singing about Vincent Van Gogh, no?



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.)



If that was the case, Mitt Romney would be walking around with a thermometer in his mouth.

Fixed that for ya

Phooey...I'm being censored!

Oh no, I'm not censoring you. I agree with the original statement, but I'm just saying he's not the only one that's like that.

Doc, serious question - what is your fixation on Malleus? I don't really get why you are going after him. There are actual people in power that need to be removed and the best way to do that is with such trench warfare. Why target Malleus? He has no power, isn't respected by the WMF, etc. It seems a little backwards and it kinda makes you look like a bully.

Do I feel that way about you? Nah. You know I like you regardless of what you think about me. But I also feel the same way about Malleus. I just find it odd.

I have to say, at least Cla is constantly going after the right people to go after if you think going after people is good.



Casliber



I think the subjunctive has gone the way of Malleus. Perhaps it needs to be constantly banned, too. However, I doubt such a thing would cause any drama.

Phooey! There's a $50 entry fee. Maybe I can get my overlords at Examiner to foot the bill.

I didn't know who Malleus was until recently, and I am not "going after" him a all.

However, the "poor Malleus is being bullied" is just more of the victim-complex bullshit. Malleus is the one on the attention-seeking power trip - he's the one calling the shots and making the choices here.