User talk:Eric Corbett

There are many aspects of Wikipedia's governance that seem to me to be at best ill-considered and at worst corrupt, and little recognition that some things need to change.

I appreciate that there are many good, talented, and honest people here, but there are far too many who are none of those things, concerned only with the status they acquire by doing whatever is required to climb up some greasy pole or other. I'm out of step with the way things are run here, and at best grudgingly tolerated by the children who run this site. I see that as a good thing, although I appreciate that there are others who see it as an excuse to look for any reason to block me, as my log amply demonstrates.

Blocked

This user has been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing Wikipedia. (see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Per consensus on WP:ANI, you have been blocked.

1. The consensus was that the previous indefinite block was too severe and should be lifted. A new one of one week has been substituted.
2. The the use of certain sexist language constitutes uncivil and unacceptable behaviour.
3. You have a long term pattern of abuse.
4. There was no consensus that the admin who lifted your block was in a conflict of interest.

There seems to be a vague consensus that being a valuable content contributor entitles special treatment. If so, I am exercising my special treatment rights to add a condition that lifting this block may only be done by an admin with more featured articles than myself. (There's plenty of them out there.) Have a merry Christmas and see you in the New Year. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus do reconsider and when unblocked, hopefully in a short while, stay away from RfAs. It's widely known that the page is full of socially ambitious dicks and tits making complete arses of themselves. However, for reasons I do not fully understand many of our European friends find the "C" word beyond the pail and it sends many of our North American friends into orbit - even those who use similar words which apparently are not so offensive in their eyes. Now to some passing admin, please unblock Malleus and let's put this whole silly thing to bed. Giacomo Returned 08:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, please, please, take Giano's advice. Just walk away for a while. --Shirt58 (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I shouldn't be amazed that while someone can be so easily blocked for a few choice insults, an administrator can get away with a slap on the wrist for long term tendentious editing—even following an RFCU. But I am. Parrot of Doom 09:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fuck this shit; I'm downing tools until this cunt's resolved. Indefinitely if required. See you in a week or until Malleus is editing of their own volition again. Solidarity. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, I just went to ANI to have my say, but it seems one of our North American friends has closed and archived the section. Yet again America is allowed to decide these matters while all law abiding and God fearing European folk are asleep in their beds. There was a time when I would just have unarchived and carried on, but it is obvious that Americans and their delicate sensibilities rule here. Putting the prim American bias to one side; It really is about thime that Wikipedia bought these little Admins to rule, and stopped just anyone wandering in off the street having a quick RFA, supported by chums made elsewhere, and them turning them loose and untrained with a block button. It encourages the worst behaviour from the power crazed who are too young or stupid to have power in real life. Malleus got cross - people do; get over it and get a life. If people are so shocked by hearing a few expletives that they want to impose the death penalty on a highly valued editor, then Wikipedia has greater problems than even I thought it did. Now, will some sensible person unblock him, ask him not to use the 'C word' and lets have some dialogue and get on. Giacomo Returned 10:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What consensus for a one week block? I see two votes for that and multiple unblock votes. Hawkeye, are you daft? Malleus you have my support all the way. And Giacomo, I'm one of those bloody Yanks, except I don't have a cunt.PumpkinSky talk 11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Damm. I must have doe my sums wrong. I thought you were all in bed for another hour or so. Some of my best friends are American - I think it depends which part you come from and I'm sure that you are delightful. However, cultural differences and tolerances have to be accepted here not imposed on everyone. Giacomo Returned 11:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is a problem with Americans. I see no sign that the editor who was originally very offended by Malleus's use of the word cunt is American. However, I'll admit I don't see the consensus to reblock mentioned above. Maybe I don't understand what consensus means. Could someone perhaps enlighten me? ^OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 11:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Count one more to unblock, European, female, not to be offended by just a word, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Also European, and female. A nudge off into laughter instead seemed to have already put the snark back into its box. A hefty block being applied hours after the end of the situation is probably really not the best way forward - though obviously I can see much room for improvement. Just not sure of the best way to get the improvement - equally sure that a punitive block was not it. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Only "certain" sexist language is unacceptable? How do we decide which is the good kind?

For the record, this American lady isn't offended by cunts and sees no good reason for this block. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Australian, male, not seeing any consensus for this block on ANI and certainly not offended by the use of the word "cunt". Also: Bloody oath on unblock Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas! 11:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I also want Malleus to be unblocked. I really appreciate his way of stating things directly. I don't like hypocrisy - a bad quality which Malleus does not have. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 11:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: how about we all take a week off from this Malleo-drama?

• So Malleus is blocked for a week. Just accept it. Good or bad, block, doesn't matter: the project will survive a week without him.
• Some passing admin, please remove Malleus' talk page write access for the duration of the block: good or bad, doesn't matter: again, the project will survive a week without him dropping F-bombs or otherwise.
• Enjoy Christmas without Wikipedia, Malleus. The project will survive a week without you. It's for your own good. And many would say what is for your own good is also for the good of the project

The alternative: it would appear to be Suicide by admin. Would the project be better without Malleus? See the above.

--Shirt58 (talk) 11:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're trying to say, really, but shutting him up for a week doesn't seem like a very fair way to deal with this to me. And I think that does matter. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 12:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

OohB, I agree that it wouldn't be fair to shut this brilliant, generous and occasionally potty-mouthed plain-speaking editor up for a week. But we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to get into arguments, like those between the pro-Malleus and anti-Malleus factions. And it's obvious what faction I would be part of. But despite that, I'm here to build an encyclopedia. So that's why I suggested it. Please do disagree. These are things we both think that do matter.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he deserves it for his smug attitude - this annoyed me: "So far as I'm concerned incivility (in the childish way it's interpreted here) is very much the least of Wikipedia's problems. If I ruled the world I'd block (almost) every Irish editor for starters. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)" Hohenloh ⁺ 12:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• So now editors are to be blocked for their opinions. What a state this Wikipedia has got into when ignorant cunts can become admins and block those who disagree with them. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know I have a "kinda-reputation" for being "civility police". So be it, if it has to be. But it's not the opinions that are blockable, per se, it's the way we express those opinions. There's no clear borderline between civil and uncivil - it's all shades of grey. And I know darned well (because I know Malleus is not lacking in smarts) that Malleus knows when he's gone down the dark-grey end of that area. Again, I find myself wishing for the magic wand of niceness to wave about! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 13:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem is though, that everyone has a different idea of what is and what is not uncivil. Everyone interprets the civility policy in a different way, and then everyone stands around acting baffled and belligerent when everything goes up in smoke like it did here. Everyone is different, so expecting every single person to conform to every other person's differing view on civility is, at best, a bit absurd. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 13:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely true. Mulling over this, today, I've added a bit to my essay. We are not gods; we are not omniscient; we are not infallible. None of us. And, short of an editor saying "I'm this kind of animal, deal with me this-a-way for improvement in what you perceive to be my problem areas", it's always going to be a trial-and-error thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 14:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to set the record straight, I am not American, nor did I ask for or expect this user to be blocked; I asked for him to reword his comment and for other people not to imitate him - which I see some are unable to restrain themselves from doing. The word is as objectionable in the UK as it is in the USA, and the fact that a small minority find it acceptable does not make it so. Deb (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Are the works of Geoffrey Chaucer or Philip Larkin objectionable to you? - Sitush (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, the word is considered a far graver insult in the US, and there it is reserved almost exclusively for women. Not that it's terribly important. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Put it this way, if you used it in the street, you could be prosecuted. In the UK it is also reserved for women, and that is the reason for my objection to it. Swearing I can tolerate (though within wikipedia, only in cases of extreme provocation), but sexist abuse needs to be discouraged, in the same way as racial slurs. Deb (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore [1]. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 19:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In the UK "cunt" is definitely not reserved for women, in fact I don't believe I've ever heard anyone aim it at a woman. Linking it to sexism is pathetic. Parrot of Doom 19:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

In my (several) decades of experience in the UK, no, it's not reserved for women. And it's not, therefore, sexist. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:16, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You are both mistaken. I can see how you are thinking here - it's okay as long as you are not using the term to abuse a woman (and yes, I have been on the receiving end). That's like saying that the term "nigger" is okay as long as you are not using it to abuse a black person. Sure, you can get away with it, but that doesn't make it right. Deb (talk) 19:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They are certainly not both mistaken. You are. In the UK, "cunt" is categorically not a sexist insult. It isn't used about women and I've never heard it used towards a woman. BigDom 19:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say, I've lived both places, and Deb's view doesn't bear any resemblance to my experiences at all. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You know what actually is sexual harassment, and would get you fired at every corporate out there? this edit summary. Don't worry though - sexual harassment is a problem for thee, not for mee! Hipocrite (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's probably my least favourite of all cusswords - but, as with all else, it really boils down to the way in which they are used, not to the words themselves. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We all have different experiences and backgrounds, and we ought to welcome that, not to try and impose a Bible-belt idea of what constitutes civility on each other. I vividly recall being rather shocked as a child hearing my grandfather use the word "bugger", and to this day I find that to be the most offensive of the forbidden words. Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused ... what does real world have to do with Wikipedia??? Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Deb, I'm dropping a on your entire argument. I've called plenty of people cunts, usually to their face, and at least once on an American street. So what, exactly, could I be prosecuted for? And while I've never lived in the UK myself, I've spoken to many who have/do and they've all agreed that cunt isn't as offensive there as it is here in the US. Of course, this is all anecdotal and completely worthless information, thus the fact tag. And to call it "sexist abuse" is beyond absurd. I've called Mal "a dick of porn star proportions" before. He could call me a cunt of porn star proportions if he liked. It's only more offensive in the visualization. "Proportion" isn't necessarily a good word to pair with "cunt" in this context, if you get what I'm saying. Anyway, fallacies aside, what does it matter? Is it somehow oppressing women for the c-bomb to be dropped? I just don't buy most feminist arguments. Lara 21:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I may have called you a "witch" in the past as well ... not sure ... might have been someone else. The truth though is that, as others have said, "cunt" is a word I've never heard applied to females here, so sexist it is not. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for everyone's edification it almost certainly won't get you arrested. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 21:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(5x ec - wow!)

I cannot believe that someone actually tells UK editors that they are wrong about UK matters!

I am over 45 years old and have lived in the UK all my life, 20 years in Manchester and 20 in the East of England.

In the UK, "you daft cunt" is often used as a term of endearment, admonishing someone for their stupidity whilst still keeping it friendly. "you daft twat" is less friendly; "you fking cunt" would be unfriendly. "What a cunt" can mean a person, an object, or an event (similar to "that was bad luck")

"cunt" is DEFINITELY NOT a sexist term in the UK - I have only ever used it once in my whole life to refer to a woman. In the US it is most probably sexist.

I am appalled by the attitude of many admins that over-react to blocking people, and now those blocks are used to count towards "he has been blocked X times in the past year(s)"? Sort it out guys. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

@Jennavecia: Citation provided - http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/11/on-bitch-and-other-misogynist-language.html

"If you're turning part of a woman's body into a slur to insult someone, the implication is necessarily that cunts are bad, nasty, less than, in some way something that a person wouldn't want to be or be associated with. That's how insults work. When cunt is used as a slur, it is dependent on construing a woman's body part negatively—and it is thusly misogynistic, because it inexorably insults women in the process. Specifically using a misogynistic slur against a man can't be anything but intentionally misogynistic. If you don't intend to demean women, then don't use misogynistic slurs." Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

As said before - it's definitely not my favourite word. But if we're giving anything more than lip-service to sexual equality, where's the big difference between calling someone a cunt, or a dick, or a prick, or a tool ... where? I don't like the word - but there's sound logic in the argument that if it's OK to call someone a dick without being seen as anti-male sexist, then it should be equally OK to call someone a cunt without being labelled misogynist. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari is a man on a mission, so little point in debating with him. And just a reminder, I didn't call anyone a cunt. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

What's this then? Spitfire might not agree with you on that point. Geometry guy 23:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[Pesky hugs Malleus] (>**)> . And if you don't like hugs, fucking deal with it :P You know what grannies are like. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 22:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I am genuinely unsure if Kaldari genuinely believes all that guff, but it does worry me that people continue with this modern form of sexism. The sexism thing is a growing issue largely because of the more radical elements of feminism. As one of my (female) friends likes to say; "they're all cunts, and the sooner they go away the sooner my boss will see me as a person instead of working out whether he can ask me to do the photocopying without it being harrassment". --Errant ^(chat!) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari has been on my tail for ages over this article, which is what this is really all about. Malleus Fatuorum 22:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's rich. I disagree with you in an AfD (2 months ago), and that means I have a vendetta against you? I've heard some paranoid stuff on Wikipedia before, but that's really out there. Especially as the AfD was decided in my favor. Apparently you're the only person who hasn't let go of that particular argument. Kaldari (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kaldari, I'm not sure I have the vocabulary to express just how much of a shit I don't give about some feminist's blog. When I drop a fact tag, even in user talk space, it's a request for legitimate support for the tagged argument. And, not surprisingly, your source supports my whole "be fair" plea regarding calling people dicks. So, not all was lost I suppose. I should clarify, though, that I disagree with the feminist too. I don't believe calling people dicks or cunts "inexorably insults" anyone. I happen to think both are quite lovely in their own way. Best when together, if we're being honest, but I digress. Sort of like calling someone a douchebag. It's not insulting douchebags. Many men would quite like to be an actual douchebag, as it would be their only opportunities to get near a vagina, much less up in one! Regardless, words only hurt if you let them. There was some childhood rhyme about this. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." How many childhood residents of Denial chanted that shit on the playground? o/ FURTHER DIGRESSED, I apologize. I'm still waiting on a source for the above claims. All of them, but particularly the UK sensitivity claims. I call bullshit big time on that one. Lara 22:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember that our Prince Charles once sent a text message to his current wife to the effect that he wished he could be one of her tampons. (Is "tampon" what they're called in the US?) Malleus Fatuorum 22:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. LadyofShalott 23:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This evening at 7:00, I hereby renounce my claim to the throne of England so that I may be free to live as a tampon in the trousers of the woman I love.

— Saturday Night Live

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Here is your citation: Quote: “the word deemed the most offensive word in the English language”. Evidently I am not as odd as you would like to think.
2. Kaldari has explained clearly why and how “c...” is a sexist insult. One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness, which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it.
3. To suggest that a phrase like “you daft c...” could be used endearingly is astonishing to me. I don’t know anyone who would use a phrase like that without expecting to give offence (and I work in manufacturing industry where swearing is commonplace and a lot of people can’t say a single sentence without using the “F...” word several times). Possibly this is a case of regional parochialism: maybe in Manchester it is considered acceptable to use abusive terms in an “endearing” way. Those who are accusing me of cultural bias need to take a long hard look at their own.
4. The UK law has not changed, though the application of it may have done. There are individual cases where the use of bad language has not been considered to fall within the spirit of the Public Order Act – that doesn’t mean you can’t be prosecuted for it.

The only thing about this that really concerns me is the number of contributors who appear to be piling into this discussion as an excuse to use terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment. It’s a case of double standards in operation, from precisely the people who are accusing others of hypocrisy, and that’s sad. Deb (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What worries me is your complete lack of understanding that other people's view on the word in question differs from your own. We do not get a thrill out of saying it, we are not using this as just an excuse to say it. I personally have no problem with it and have used it in the workplace and heard it in the workplace, countless times. You have a complete inability to recognise that your opinion of the C-word as highly offensive and sexist is exactly that, your opinion. It is an opinion I do not really share, although I do live in Scotland where young men regularly replace "guy" with "c***", as in "See that c*** over there?" and it's not meant to be offensive, just vulgar slang. Cultural differences, y'know. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 14:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a work environment. Oh and LOL at anyone citing the Daily Mail as a reliable indicator of general public feeling. Parrot of Doom 14:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

terms they would not think of using in a work or educational environment; really? Well I was called a cunt by one of my students a few weeks ago - which led to a pretty interesting class discussion about the term, including me using it. It gets used in the office too, i.e. my work environment. So... :) One of the major problems with sexism is its insidiousness; what about dick? Really there are only two differences between use of the two terms - one is the insidious sexism that because it's a male term it doesn't matter as much (some of the more alert feminists are actually now realising this). Secondly because historically womenwere disparaged, so it is easy to see the term as sexist. Really it's just a word - and a large part of the problem related to it is because of individuals leaping on those who use it without malice (toward women), accusing them of insidious sexism and failing to understand that they simply persist the problem. which I suppose partly explains why the otherwise intelligent people contributing to this discussion apparently don’t recognise it when they see it. oh get of your fucking high horse. One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts. And they give even less crap about most of the radical feminist ideas. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

We are probably gradually going the way of the French, whose primary school teachers often tell their charges to stop playing the cunt (faire le con - or is it la) etc. I not sure Malleus is not slightly ahead of his time though, in this as in other things. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

@Errant, nice wording. "One thing I found out whilst working with abused women is that they really don't give a crap about people calling other people cunts." This hits the point home too! As a woman and feminist, the word does not offend me in any way. If someone calls me a cunt as a genuine insult I'd be no more offended than if they used "bitch" or "asshole". There's even a feminist movement to reclaim the word, much like gay people reclaiming "queer" and using it as something to be proud of. (That's on the Wikipedia page about cunt). ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 15:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I'm going to have to pass on The Daily Mail as a reliable source for this. I remain unmoved. Possibly because I find it intensely pathetic when people allow themselves to become offended or (gasp) degraded by a word. For full disclosure, I went through such a phase, but then I graduated middle school. It's sort of like the childhood lesson about bullies: You'll only be the target if you react. Cry or get angry and they'll keep on you, because that's what they're looking for. The words don't matter if you don't let them. Like Ooh Bunnies!, I could not care less if I'm called a bitch, cunt, whatever. They're impersonal insults. WTF do they matter? They don't. "They're sexist! They degrade women! It's abusive!" No to all the above, stfu. Crying about shit like this does more to hurt women than the use of these words. That is my opinion. It's value is equal to yours, Deb. Lara 07:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The way to deal with bullies is to refuse to be bullied, and to let them know they may have bitten off more than they can chew if they persist. I've never been one to back away from a fight, no matter what the odds, a bit like you in that respect I think. And I've got no time at all for the feminist twaddle. All the women I know are as tough as old boots, well able to look after themselves. Malleus Fatuorum 13:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm pretty sure if I'd ever called anybody a cunt on here I'd have had the civility police out in force making me feel as if I'd committed the worst atrocity known to man and would never have had the support Malleus has had. Women like a bad ass Malleus, you, our resident Dirty Harry, sure are on good terms with the ladies on here despite the supposedly "sexist" and "vulgar" word. they are smitten with you mate. Wikipedia needs a bad ass to stand up to the pretentious "establishment" on here and reduce the significance of adminship to what it really is, a mop and brush, janitor work. And yes I totally agree its completely pointless the willingness to block people just so they can go "yey look how powerful I am, I can control a better editor than myself" or simply to be pointy and treat every word as a taboo however light hearted it is. In this case the blocker was Hawkeye7 though who is a brilliant editor with a superb listed of good articles and was only following the "consensus" an ANI so he us excused but the admins on here who are not and slap the cuffs on anybody for anything know who they are. I've had it done to me and it can be pretty pathetic at times. As its common knowledge that the website has scores of the types Lara identified above it is about time that the NPA thing changed. The way some people act or what they do on here is usually far worse than any one comment anybody says but the NPA system ignores the real damaging behaviour which drives away our top editors like Yellow Monkey in favour of punishing even the most juvenile of playground remarks. You are very right that bullying is a far worse problem on here and unless somebody actually calls anybody a word or is particularly "offensive" then it goes unpunished. So in other words Malleus, don't be a cunt and let them win, come back here once the block is removed and just swing your large cajones in the face of any admin you think is a being a dick and continue to focus on what you do. Oh and Merry Christmas BTW!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well stated, Blofeld. Although, as a point of clarification, Hawkeye7's consensus was fabricated by Hawkeye7, so he's not excused. Lara 16:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

He lied, as did his mate Kaldari. Malleus Fatuorum 05:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't leave without saying this

I wish to make only one statement: the notion that I'll take this block "on the chin", and continue editing here in five days time is so far from reality it makes my eyes water. Grow up people. Address the real problem here, which is Jimbo and his acolytes. Get rid of his toxic personality and maybe one day you might have a project that adults feel comfortable contributing to. Malleus Fatuorum 01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've come to chat with you. I missed all of this because in a huff I unwatched hundreds of pages and was working blind (not such a bad thing), and didn't realize until last night what was happening. I want you to know how much of an inspiration you've been and how much I've learned about writing from you, fwiw. Try to celebrate the holidays in some sort of good cheer, though personally I'll say this sucks. Big time. I have no other words about this to be honest. Take care. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My hope is that this will clear the air surrounding civility blocks, but my expectation is that it won't, as there's so much dishonesty here. Keep on doing what you do TK, don't worry about me. Malleus Fatuorum 02:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I do worry about you, because I know how much effort you've put in here. You can be cavalier about it, but writing is hard. That's what the people who don't write don't realise. Not only have you written consistently good content, you've copyedited (often work that you didn't want to copyedit), and you've taught your craft to others. That's a gift. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+1 Parrot of Doom 02:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+2 Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:15, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+3 Hchc2009 (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

+5 Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that the people who don't write do realise how hard it is to write. That is why they don't write — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.47.229.149 (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, a lot has been said already on the RfAR, and I haven't added to it myself, as I think that my comments there would be superfluous, and I prefer to stay out of the drama myself. I don't expect to find myself at any time in the same situation as you, as I don't in general have much of a different tone in communication as that what is at times enforced, yet I have some decent hopes for a somewhat reasonable outcome. It's easy for me to talk on this one, as I'm not in your situation, and don't expect to be at any time, yet what kept nagging me in the back of my head is the question who will speak out for me when I come in a situation where my opinion, presence or presentation is not appreciated no, I'm not equating your blockers, the supporters of your block, or those that are keeping quiet about it to nazis, it's the general principle that I'm refering to.

Anyway, I don't think you know me, I'm not a prolific content creator myself, as - in general - I find it pretty hard. Possibly even too hard for me. I do think however you need to know that your content work - and content work in general - is not only appreciated by those who are good at it, and spend a lot of their time there, but also by at least some of those that content themselves with trying to keep the place workable by doing a bit of dusting and brushing up in administrative areas, so that those that do the real work can keep doing what they do best.

I hope you will enjoy the holidays, and - against my better judgement - that you will find some way to keep contributing. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll second that, and similar thoughts above - Malleus, I came here to let you know that Reculver was promoted to GA this evening - well, yesterday evening now but I'm still here! My thanks to you for your careful copyediting and encouragement - much has changed in the article since then, but I felt more confident in the quality of the article and the GA process after your input. Here's to you! Nortonius (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You deserved it, you obviously put a lot of good work into that. Malleus Fatuorum 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

putting words in your mouth?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_uninvolved_Richwales is implying you have made some sort of retirement vow which I don't think is an appropriate or necessarily valid interpretation; rather than postulate my own interpretation I'll be happy to transcribe any comment or clarification you would like to make. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 15:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Richwales is talking out of his arse. What I've said is that the block will end if and when I decide that it does, nobody else, not even the almighty ArbCom. And when it's ended I may or I may not continue to contribute here, again my choice. As for making a "vow", well, words fail me. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from one blocked editor to another

Obviously I can't post on your talk page WebHamster, just as you can't post on mine. I hope you'll soon be allowed to continue the good work you did here but whatever, I wish you all the best of luck mate.

And that also goes for PoD, Ealdgyth, Nev1, SandyG, ... too many to list. Malleus Fatuorum 02:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Malleus! I've been enjoying the last few days tremendously myself. I wish you a similar experience.Maunus (talk · contribs)

Reason's greetings! Have a mild and rational Newtonmas. I look forward to all this excitement dying down and to the unblocking of you and Hamster, for the improvement of more articles. Oh fuck, I forgot to bring an opener for the Orval. -- Hoary (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of WebHamster - a look at the investigations concerning his account show the validity of the original comment that led to Malleus's block. A significant piece of evidence used in closure of The Pink Oboe's account was that both account holders had said that they had suffered a series of mini-strokes that made it difficult for them to type or to spell properly. Everyone involved in that bit of vindictive nastiness should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. Richerman (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I like how an editor (admin?) called both Webhamster and an IP "DICKs" and a CU didn't even flinch in their response. Totally okay. Lara 16:39, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

There's no honesty here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For what little it is worth, HelloAnnyoing is not a checkuser. No checkuser made any edits to the page while the "21 November 2011" part was up. Not that it makes any practical difference, but yeah... J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Belated greetings ...

	Seasons Greetings
	The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth. Edith Sitwell (1887 - 1964) Merry Christmas and a Happy new year :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You should've contacted the Christmas User Notification Team of which Malleus is a founding member. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 16:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

	Best wishes and all the best for 2012!
	Obviously a sincere and hard-working contributor! You put the F in Frikipedia. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Hope you have a great one! Jonayo! Selena 4 ever 00:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Forget about the block, you're going to be banned

According to Jehochman, you have "zero chance"of coming out of this unbanned. Lara 04:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think he's almost certainly right. Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

... :( Lara 04:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that anyone really thought I'd return to editing once the block expired. I'm not a child and I refuse to be treated like one. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jehochman, eh? Here's an editor who responded to a very politely worded and reasonable question with a snarky and impolite reply. Who sent me indeed? Obviously I am not free to criticise his (poorly thought out) actions - someone must have coerced me into doing it. I hope no one gives an ounce of weight to his opinion. ^OohBunnies! Leave a message :) 04:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"The community" has to make a decision. Who adds value? It can't though, so Jehochman is right. Malleus Fatuorum 05:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, those who spend the vast majority of their time searching for and involving themselves in drama tend to be experts in how such drama will play out. Hypocrisy does not go unnoticed either, of course. Lara 05:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If it turns out that Jehochman is correct, then the time will have come when the English Wikipedia needs to be split into a US version and a non-US version --Epipelagic (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens has some very obvious personal feelings about you and should recuse. But I am doubtful he will --Guerillero | My Talk 07:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• MF complains of being treated like a child. He should please note that it is not unusual for adults to be so treated. Here's some recent examples:

• Why swearing in Barnsley could land you with an £80 fine
• English FA uphold Rooney's two-match ban for swearing
• Chef bans swearing in kitchen
• Justin Trudeau apologizes for swearing at Kent

Warden (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Childishness appears to be something you're quite familiar with Colonel Warden, considering the primary school quality of your writing. Parrot of Doom 13:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well if Malleus is banned for calling somebody a cunt it would prove what I've thought about wikipedia all along. That wiki politics and correctness and often unfeasibly high standards of personal conduct are considered way more important than what matters most, content and development of content to GA and beyond. The sooner the site starts treating people like normal human beings who are prone to losing their temper or snapping at people every now and again the better. Unless its racial or religious abuse and something very seriously threatening I really would take it with a pinch of salt. If somebody intrudes and you feel they are point pointy or patronising when they are totally not wanted its a pretty natural reaction to tell somebody to stop being an ass and to get the hell off their talk page. Blockable, maybe, banning would be very extreme.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much that the standards are unfeasibly high, it's that they're not applied to everyone equally. Dimbo Wales, for instance, had he not been so revered by his acolytes, would have been banned ages ago because of his toxic personality. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What I detested the most about people turning up sticking their beak in was their holier than thou attitude like some school headmaster grounding a mischevious child when in reality if they were to meet you in RL it would be a different story. Yeah you see some people getting away with everything by their persistent bullying for many months and then you so much as utter a single word which could be seen as offensive the civility police are out in force. It can be a complete joke at times but if it was solely based on the warped "establishment" I'd have given up editing long ago. You'd have to pretty mad to edit here otherwise if you didn't get anything out of editing or improving content yourself! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

If they were to meet me in real life I think they'd get a bit more than most of them bargained for. ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 17:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly.. And I wonder how many spotty kids love playing the warden or judge on here... ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, Yes. On matters to do with Larry Sanger, Wales quite clear has a conflict of interest but he was able to campaign off-Wiki to have Sanger's biography changed. Think of what would have happened to any other user who did such a thing! He is recently posted a fair amount of crap on Cla68's talk page and that has encouraged the acolytes to join in.

I'm not in your class as a writer but I have contributed some serious content. Wikipedia lost roughly a year's worth of contribution when Wales responded in a typically pompous way to my frank words about a troll. Wales put in his usual five seconds of thought into making a typical crass comment about being professional. But I suppose no more should be expected from someone who thinks that Ayn Rand was some sort of profound philosopher instead of a mad-eyed cult leader who thought that any man she wanted should become her living dildo.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Malleus, in response to your comment last night, I find it difficult to believe that you would find it difficult to believe that anyone would think you'd return to editing after the block expires. This same situation has played out more than a half dozen times. It always goes pretty much the same, with the same threats, and then the same ending. I think we all know that if you're not banned, you'll be editing. And the project will be better because of it.

That said, you are, of course, correct that there is a serious inconsistency in the way this site is moderated. Largely because the promotion to adminship is arbitrary and there is zero training once you're in it. People want to talk about how this is a professional environment, and calling someone a cunt in a business office would get you fired. Blah, blah, blah. People need to stop talking out of their asses and start thinking about what they're actually saying and how intensely stupid and pathetic it makes them look. This isn't a professional environment. It's anyone and everyone, from every age, gender, sexual orientation, SES, religion, [and everything else] blindly working with no qualifications and no pay while being governed by a power-hungry subset.

This is not a professional environment. It's not a professional endeavor. No matter how many hats hang on one's rack, it's all pointless. The titles are worthless. But most won't admit that, and so they live in Denial and pretend that it's important and profession so that they can continue believing that they are important and professional. Wikipedia wasn't built to scale, and the inherent lack of structure in the model, chosen solely by our benevolent GodKing, ensures it. These problems will never improve. And the games will continue, largely with the same players, because this has become their lives. Lara 19:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I was blocked indefinitely, so indefinite it will be. And I'll be the one to decide if and when it ends. Malleus Fatuorum 20:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh no, you won't! 86.150.92.140 (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's set to expire 02:17, 29 December 2011. Lara 20:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall agreeing to that. Malleus Fatuorum 20:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well said, I think a lot of people here, Jimbo included, think of wikipedia as a professional political institution rather than an amateur encyclopedia. I get the impression he sees himself as a world political leader rather than head of an encyclopedia information project. In fact I rarely see him comment on the encyclopedia as a information development and strategies for mass improvement except for the annual fundraiser. It would be different if we were all getting paid and working for a formal institution but the reality is wikipedia is far from it. We can all strive to make the encyclopedia as good as we possibly can and more professional itself in writing, that's far more important than pretending we are all professionals working for some important organization and trying to be politically correct and "civil" about everything. A lot of people here I believe have completely lost track of what we are supposed to be about. The most important things are content and for it to be enjoyable and educational to read and produce and in all honesty others here destroy this for other people with their pretentious policies and policing. Malleus might not be the most "civil" of people at times, but to me he has always seemed to be one of the editors who care most about the quality of wikipedia improving and trying to cut all of the bullshit that goes on on here and we need more people like this who at least care about improving quality and the quality of prose. Readers couldn't give a monkeys about whether the person who wrote the article was "civil" somewhere, they care that the editor took the time to provide the information and write the articles. I'm not saying that means anybody can run about as they like on here, within reason, but I think far too much goes into trivial things people might say instead of the real damaging harassment and bullying over many months on here which is never accounted for. In all honesty I rarely comment on forums these days as the way things run I am pretty appalled. At times it seems like I'm the only one who really sees how ridiculous things often are and how unnecessary things can be. I'm very glad to see that at least some others here scoff at it in the way I do. But I've learned there is little I can do about it so I myself try to ignore it and just look at articles.. When Malleus decides to return it will be on his own accord and on his own terms not because somebody took his handcuffs off. Good luck anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

New userbox for Malleus supporters

I've made this new userbox so editors can show support for your unblocking. Yworo (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. But I don't want to be unblocked, as it's obviously a poisoned chalice for any administrator daft enough to do it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but that's a separate issue from whether other editors would like to see you unblocked. :-) Yworo (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer "This user recognizes that "cunt" is colloquial English outside the USA," since our goal is to remove a provincial puerile block, for which wider support is preferable.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion. I've got to go walk my dog, but will update the userbox when I get back. Yworo (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Whilst you walk your dog I honestly think you should reconsider this. It seems a woefuly bad idea for people to start appending this to their user page - on so many levels. However to take just one objection I would have; We can make the basic assumption that the block(s) was/are bad. We note the fact that Malleus will not request unblocking (per his long standing precedent), and is not even that fussed if he is unblocked (per above). Thus this statement (demand?) is akin to making a protest to demand that a badger must look like a horse. Pointless, distracting and irrelevant even if (with modern surgery) technically possible. Pedro :  Chat  18:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me add this box, which I believe to be more informative and conducive to gaining support for Malleus. I apologize for not having read the previous statement.

It seems not to compile correctly?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, I'll remove the unblock request and add the language suggested by Kiefer... Yworo (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

My box is for American users. I would suggest international language for your box. Something like "End the Americanist cock up! Unblock Malleus".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think Native Americans have any objection to the word or its equivalent. Perhaps "American colonialists"? Yworo (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I suggest restoring the demand to unblock Malleus. I agree that Malleus should not have to (and perhaps should not) ask for an unblocking.

Otherwise, I would suggest adding a demand for removing the bits of the administrators who committed such stupidities (and then wrote hypocritical attacks, etc.).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd been thinking about that and without the context, the infobox is pretty meaningless... Yworo (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

But I don't want to be unblocked. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best if we respect Malleus and let this whole thing go? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 19:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• For fucks sake Keifer and Yworo get over yourselves. A "userbox" (whatever you take that to mean) protesting something on a website???? Protesting to whom we don't really know and protesting what is fairly unclear as well, given Malleus does not want to be unblocked. Bloody hell, really? Head, table, bang. Pedro :  Chat  19:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 This is pointless on so many levels. Holding up your protest signs outside of the court house isn't going to result in an admin unblocking, unless they're drama-addicts and want to become involved in arbitration. And while I'm the LAST person to claim there aren't a fuckton of drama-addicted admins, some of which are unsurprisingly already ass-deep in this situation, there is a certain place they prefer to be, and the list of those involved is not it. It's about causing other people problems, not themselves. If you want to help Malleus, start compiling evidence for the case. And keep in mind it's a game. A game that has been played on this site for years. Mal doesn't want to be unblocked, he's leaving and never coming back. Until the game restarts in a week or two. So get involved in a way that fixes the glitches in the game or go write an article. Otherwise, it's counterproductive bullshit feeding into the drama cycle. Lara 19:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

AMEN!---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 19:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I had a mini dream of reaching 125,000 edits, seemed to me to be a solid contribution to the idea of freely available information. How daft I was. Malleus Fatuorum 19:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Parrot of Doom 19:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Given the above, you'll no doubt have some clown create the "Malleus Fatuorum Barnstar". That's posterity right there. Who gives a fuck about content if you can have a barnstar and a userbox named after you - giving away infromation to help expand the mind and think criticaly simply pales to insignifcance. Pedro :  Chat  19:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The peanut gallery and behaviour in the chimpanzee cage

It's my view that all broadminded and intelligent people will ignore the Arbcom case completely; even if that means certain people striking their comments and pointedly taking it off their watchlist. There is nothing more pathetic and voyeuristic to watch than a group of people playing with themselves - which is exactly what this case is. If that is how certain people get their kicks, who are we to deprive them of that solitary gratification? I know for certain that Malleus has enough friends to have himself unblocked anytime he likes - that he does not want to call in favours or give his enemies the pleasure of seeing him ask shows his complete understanding of these people's love of ritual humiliation and he quite rightly choses not to indulge or distract them further. The time for protest and action is when these people tire of enjoying their own company and turn their deeply provincial and addled minds to further persecution of Malleus and/or other editors. Malleus is holding a full hand of trumps - I don't see any cause for concern, and while he's holding it; he's keeping these people off the streets and from bothering others. Malleus is to be congratulated rather than advised here. Giacomo Returned 20:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

That Malleus holds the trump cards, and that arbcom are impotent, is self-evidently true. That's what's so destructively brilliant about this type of trolling, as you well know Giano. When you get slightly tired of people stroking your ego over your (granted impressive) content contributions, you simply behave like a spoilt dick, in the knowledge that it will infuriate some, and yet their fury will be rendered impotent as your sycophants defend you (so adding to the frustration and fury of your detractors). You then get to sit back and watch the drama, feigning your own martyred victimhood. Not a bad day's work. The only weakness is the need for the blatant pretentiousness that has to maintain the pretence of virtue. Yes, arbcom are mugs for taking the case, because they haven't the balls to do do anything, except that which will prolong and exacerbate. (Oh, I expect this post to be removed as being too close to the bone!)--Scott Mac 20:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)