Wikipediocracy goes on a short journey to tiny glory

[Boink Boink]

How the mighty have fallen. Once a BADSITE, now reduced to this....

https://wikipediocracy.com/2023/06/09/w ... sorry-now/

It is unsurprising nobody wants to put their name to this crap, because Watergate it is not. It's not even filler. And Christ knows, their blog needs filler.

Wikipediocracy's last blog post was in January, something about how Wikipedia fights court attempts to identify editors who engage in multi-year multi-account campaigns to use Wikipedia's legendary open and unsupervised editing model to smear real people. As you probably realised from this thread, even though it was authored by Wikipediocracy's "legal specialist" this blog post doesn't come to a sensible conclusion like, STOP MAKING IT SO EASY FOR THE WMF TO USE THE LAW TO HIDE THE IDENTITY OF EDITORS. Rather, they ask the WMF to "do more to help those volunteers detect when Wikipedia is being used as a way to attack people, and prevent it." What a fucking joke. What more can the WMF do when pieces of shit like Black Kite clearly aren't spending their days screening new biographies in case they smear real people? They're spending their days whining about the expulsion of Eric Corbett (who never patrolled a new article in his miserable weasel life as far as I know).

So, what is their current nothing burger of a blog about? It's an amazing scoop that reveals Wikipedia has been calling Journey guitarist Neal Shon by the full name "Neal George Joseph Schon" for a decade. Only it isn't his real name. The "George" is vandalism. I'm actually not sure why anyone is supposed to care. Where is the prospect of real harm here?

I think there's enough respect for this site now that when we bark, others listen.

Bark? Seriously?!?! This is a squeak, at best.

Nobody cares that Wikipediocracy is finding ten year old vandalism, because they don't have the guts to identify the real problem. Given Wikipediocracy is stacked to the rafters with devoted Wikipedia cult members just like Ritchie333, it would be quite embarrassing if they came to a logical conclusion.

WIKIPEDIA ALLOWED A FALSE NAME TO BE USED FOR A MODERATELY FAMOUS MUSICIAN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH EDITORS PATROLLING RECENT CHANGES OR SWEEPING OLD ARTICLES FOR BASIC QUALITY ISSUES

The logical question then is, why doesn't Wikipedia have enough editors? It's no more complicated than the fact it has Administrators like Ritchie333. That fucking prick excused and defended the weasel Eric Corbett for years.

Eric Corbett was so protected by the Administrators who can still be seen swannng around Wikipediocracy referring to the site as "we", people who didn't even dare (or care?) to do anything to the "bear" that was Eric Corbett even when he unambiguously did something wrong to someone who was unambiguously innocent.

Allowing Eric to unload with impunity obviously wasn't Wikipedia policy. It wasn't even common sense. But Ritchie333 and the rest of Eric Corbett fan club, with the full assistance of Wikipediocracy, have been presenting it as such for years. They are at this very moment engaged in a revenge attack against Scottywong because they still believe it, and are deeply upset that Scottywong's principled defence of policy eventually worked. Eventually.

Is your encyclopedia dying? Is the brand losing respect among the young? Are you having to seek funding from Big Tech and dying Boomers to make up the shortfall as they take their eyeballs and their $2 elsewhere? How embarrassing.

Wikipedia doesn't have enough editors because nobody is getting paid to be there, and when you're not getting paid, it's asking a lot to expect volunteers to willingly be around assholes like Eric just for the good feelings of being able to spot and revert obviously suspicious edits on the millions of article Wikipedia has that they don't really care about.

The hilarious part? This blog post was probably written by Ritchie333 himself. He's the exact sort of sad bastard who wanders around Wikipedia improving the biographies of aged moderately famous in their time but long forgotten rock band members. Like anyone gives a shit. Like it isn't already TEN YEARS since readers of Wikipedia didn't automatically assume that the contents of biographies of moderately famous long forgotten people weren't highly likely (almost fucking certainly) going to contain deliberate falsehoods.

[ericbarbour]

https://wikipediocracy.com/2023/06/09/w ... sorry-now/
It is unsurprising nobody wants to put their name to this crap, because Watergate it is not. It's not even filler. And Christ knows, their blog needs filler.

Yeah, that's really sad. Here's a thought: why don't YOU contribute a screed to their blog? You could easily do loads better than whoever is writing that crap. The blog has been an abandoned drifting barge for years.

I've done more than my part already.
https://wikipediocracy.com/2015/05/10/w ... ney-going/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2015/04/26/c ... is-hoaxes/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2015/02/01/arbs-gone-wild/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/10/05/o ... the-stars/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/09/07/w ... s-dignity/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2014/06/09/a ... wikipedia/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/12/02/i ... h-wiki-pr/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/10/07/w ... anisation/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/12/w ... s-blocked/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/08/06/t ... wikipedia/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/06/30/d ... r-mathsci/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/05/17/a ... ka-qworty/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/29/w ... novelists/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2013/04/01/w ... se-milani/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/12/12/p ... ted-frank/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/08/22/p ... p-lenssen/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/07/25/a ... a-feather/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/06/27/t ... -digerati/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/05/23/w ... atrollers/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/05/04/t ... lt-disney/
https://wikipediocracy.com/2012/04/04/wiki-paranoia/

WIKIPEDIA ALLOWED A FALSE NAME TO BE USED FOR A MODERATELY FAMOUS MUSICIAN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH EDITORS PATROLLING RECENT CHANGES OR SWEEPING OLD ARTICLES FOR BASIC QUALITY ISSUES

Never effectively did, and it's slowly worsening as time wears on. Soon it will be The Encyclopedia That Only Special People Can Edit.

The hilarious part? This blog post was probably written by Ritchie333 himself.

chances are good (but since WPO has gone full Wiki-Shitty, they will NEVER admit ANYTHING)

[Boink Boink]

The biography of Neal Schon stopped growing around about 2015/6. This was arguably peak Eric Corbett. By then, he was actually subject to some serious sanctions, stuff that sounded REALLY TOUGH, but which in reality, most people just didn't even bother to try and enforce. Why? Because those who did try, soon realised just how difficult it was.

This is Wikipedia. You can't really do anything when Administrators are hell bent on subverting policy and protecting special users. The Cowardice of ArbCom in this era was extreme. Arbitrator Worm actually APOLOGISED to Eric for placing an incorrect block length as part of Arbitration Enforcement. Keilana had blocked them for a month. The weasel defending wikilawyers insisted it should be 72 hours. Worm bungled the reduction. It was quite pathetic all told. Worm is of course a member of Wikipediocracy.

As Keilana explained at the time, rather graciously....

I operated under the impression that the different provisions were combined in terms of escalating blocks - otherwise this allows you to game the system by only violating one provision at a time. But if this interpretation of the policy is problematic, I'm happy to discuss further. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Eric's enablers were of course gaming the system, as they had done for years.

Keilana hasn't exactly left Wikipedia, but four edits in 2023 tells its own story. People like Keilana used to be deeply committed to Wikipedia. Naturally, nobody apologised to the community when, rather predictably, Eric did something just three months later that did unambiguously mean Eric Corbett could rightfully be blocked for a month. Long time Wikipediocracy groupie Yvangottidir abused her tools to reduce this to one day. She was desysopped as result. Just one of many idiots who made great sacrifices for Eric, and got nothing in return. NOTHING. Ha ha.

Moderator note: This post has been shortened to be more readable, the original version can be found here.

[boredbird]

It's a lame blog post. Filler as you say.

Unfair though to blame Eric Corbett for crappy content on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia would maybe be people calling each other names but the articles would probably be fine. Your model seems to be Corbett drives people off > not enough people > vandalism doesn't get caught.I don't think he really drives people off. That's administrators, who drove him off too.

How much responsibility do administrators have for lowered participation? Two answers. One is, almost none as their recruit pool has dried up for completely different reasons. But that same answer says that they are very responsible because that pool was a lot more limited than they told themselves it would be. Everyone is replaceable, someone else will show up and do it, until no one does and there's no one left.

[Boink Boink]

It's a lame blog post. Filler as you say.

Unfair though to blame Eric Corbett for crappy content on Wikipedia. His Wikipedia would maybe be people calling each other names but the articles would probably be fine. Your model seems to be Corbett drives people off > not enough people > vandalism doesn't get caught.I don't think he really drives people off. That's administrators, who drove him off too.

How much responsibility do administrators have for lowered participation? Two answers. One is, almost none as their recruit pool has dried up for completely different reasons. But that same answer says that they are very responsible because that pool was a lot more limited than they told themselves it would be. Everyone is replaceable, someone else will show up and do it, until no one does and there's no one left.

I'd be very interested in the counter-argument, but what typically pisses the Wikipedia editors off when dissecting the "Eric Corbett Problem", is that that the facts do rather speak from themselves.....

Wikipedia worked fine in the boom years. There was already had maybe 600+ Administrators on Wikipedia by the end of 2005, and a further ~175 had been promoted by the middle of 2006. That's a shit load of Administrators, far too many to be controlled by anything but policy and community feedback.

According to some people (Team Eric) these are/were the cowboys, the so called "legacy" Admins who have no respect for policy, and were just in it for the power. They had some crazy ass views. To quote one currently being roasted at AN/I (AlisonW)....

editing the content in order to increase that record of knowledge is and will always be far more important than getting hung up on 'process' and 'policy'. The only policy that matters is to *add useful stuff*.

That is a perfect Wikipedia Administrator. They are currently being head hunted by the likes of Boing! for, well, nothing really. Rather hilariously, people have been forced to take her to ArbCom because a mischievous IP pointed out how odd it was to have Scottywong there for far less while AlisonW was seemingly only going to get a warning.

Wikipedia peaked around 2008, after which came the recruitment crisis. What significant things were going on in that year? Well, by mid-2008 Eric Corbett had been left with no uncertainty that while people thought he was a good content creator, he was not remotely Administrator material.

His first RfA was torpedoed by Eric himself.

This was the first oppose.....

Oppose Malleus is a very devoted and skillful article writer, and one of the few users who doesn't mind doing the dull task of copyediting, but I'm afraid I don't think he's quite ready to be an admin. He has had virtually no experience in admin related areas, so I have doubts about his need for the tools and his knowledge of some key guidelines and policies; he is still not fully aware of the guidelines in the areas he is working in at the moment, eg. here. I also don't think he is coolheaded enough; his conflict resolution skills could do with a lot of work, eg. here, here, here, here, here, here, here. When offered to be nominated for admin, he stated here that the only use for the tools he would have would be to protect articles and block editors; as he has no history of vandal fighting, I imagine he intends to use these tools during content disputes; this is something I don't feel comfortable about. Epbr123 (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Epbr123 was not an Administrator at the time. Rather amusingly, he did what Eric never could or would have done. They responded to community feedback given via an RfC and their first unsuccessful RfA, and were successfully promoted in June 2008 in his second, with only two opposes. Eric did what Eric does. He tried to argue Epbr123 was a wrongun by pointing to the RfC.


Epbr123 was promoted on these credentials.....

Epbr123 has been active on this project since August 2006 and has made 65,000 edits in that time. His contributions to the project are not only numerous but they are also of a high quality: Epbr123 has made significant contributions to 7 featured articles, a featured list and 5 good articles. I particularly enjoyed reading the article on Birchington-on-Sea, which was virtually written by him alone.

Epbr123 has plenty of experience in the areas that administrators routinely deal with. He has a firm understanding of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria and deletion policy. His deleted contributions show over 1000 pages deleted following being identified and tagged by him this year. He is an effective vandal reverter and has made over 600 reports to WP:AIV. Where I have come across his reports they have always been full and accurate, with vandals warned appropriately. His efficiency in these areas generates a lot of requests for admin action, and I think the project would benefit were he able to block vandals and delete obviously inappropriate content himself.

Look at that. Proof that Wikipedia was doing well even with hundreds of Administrators. It was doing so well It needed more, and they were clearly selecting people for the right reasons.

That must have really pissed Eric off, given that it came only a month after Eric's hilarious second and last attempt to become an Administrator. He was forced to withdraw that one too.

By then it was pretty damn obvious what the future "Eric Corbett Problem" was going to be.....

Very Strong Oppose. Malleus is fine as a content editor, but frankly: he's one of the rudest and most immature editors on the entire project. Q3 sounds nice, but if you're looking for ad hominem attack and sophistry look through Malleus's contributions to talk pages. It's not just unprofessional, but often cruel and boorish to the point of being fatuous. It is precisely as a content editor that I oppose. Some of the most frequent targets of his savagery are the hardest working content editors on the project. I was surprised Iridescent linked to Larry Sanger's farewell: "To treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will". Is that a joke? Malleus fails at this spectacularly. A good copy editor who demoralizes 50 other editors is not making a positive contribution. This seems harsh, and brings me no joy at all, but it's nothing compared to what he dishes. --JayHenry (talk) 19:56, 18 May 2008

Eric's heartfelt desire to burn the whole thing to the ground probably began right there and then. But he was of course already addicted, and well protected. But obviously, protection can't bring promotion on Wikipedia. Epbr123 last showed real commitment to Wikipedia in 2013. By then, Eric Corbett was clearly untouchable.

JayHenry had already left Wikipedia, in 2011. As an editor, they had earned 10 FA credits in 5 years of editing.

You find evidence like this EVERY TIME you look into Eric Corbett's time on Wikipedia. He pissed off plenty of so called legitimate content creators, if one buys into the myth that all other types of contributor was secondary. These pure blood FA writing editors hated his little wesel guts, and this was all coming to the fore just as we were to learn Wikipedia was approaching its peak. It wasn't there before Eric turned up, as far as I recall.

They hated him precisely because they were never given the credit or respect they were manifestly due for doing what Eric was incapable of. They could create high quality content and hold the trust of the community as Administrators. They could show personal growth and respect for policy/community. They could show empathy and understanding.

Model Wikipedians.

Blaming Administrators for poor recruitment/retention is valid these days, because of course, there are nowadays even more Administrators on Wikipedia who have no problem with Vested Contributors like Eric...

I didn't see that at all. What I took away from that thread is that Novem Linguae thought Onel5969 brought a lot of positive contributions to NPP and is one of the project's most prolific participants, and while his conduct could be improved, it wasn't directly at the point of sanctionable behaviour, in their opinion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Novem Linguae is currently sailing through RfA, even though Onel5969 is already clearly a massive problem for Wikipedia, an editor who has a disproportionate effect on new users by being the most active NPP, but who already holds toxic attitudes like 'I don't bother responding to AN/I reports about me because they're almost always bullshit' and has now taken to pointedly referring things to AfD out of spite.

That shit never happened before 2008. People like Onel5969 got blocked, and people like Novem Linguae got found out at RfA, the rose tinted nomination statements of the likes of Ritchie333, exposed. Now they fucking run the place.

If Administrators were to blame for driving Eric Corbett off, they did a very poor job. Dealing with Eric was latterly left to Arbitrators. And if they don't know policy of the support of the rank and file, who does? Eric had a very long editing career all told, and could still be editing today, if he hadn't created SOCKS.

Moderator note: This post has been shortened to be more readable, the original version can be found here.

[ericbarbour]

There was already had maybe 600+ Administrators on Wikipedia by the end of 2005

Most of whom were installed by Jimbo originally, "by order of the Sole Founder". In other words, people who sucked up to him. And that is why Corbett was eventually pushed out despite writing a ton of good content: he refused to suck up to Jimbo and his suck-ups.

Wikipedia was born damaged. Because Wales was the "Supreme Leader and President For Eternity", and whatever he wanted, they stupidly did.

This is why the Wikipedia institutional hatred of Scientology is so hilarious. They wound up building a cultlike organization very similar to the COS, while brutally fighting off COS editors.

[Boink Boink]

Eric Corbett didn't even start to come under severe sanctions until the back end of 2014, which is a long way after the infamous May 2009 block of Bishonen by Jimmy Wales which most serious people would concede marked the point that Jimmy had lost the ability to influence what any Administrator did, let alone the cadre. He had of course handed over his actual powers over Administrators when he created the Arbitration Committee in 2004, with all but one of the members being voted in (rather than appointed) by 2006.

Whichever way you slice it, 2006-9 was a tipping point. I would say this was the period Jimmy Wales lost the ability to have any effect over what Administrators do, and the real power rested with the Administrators who realised the little people really didn't matter, neither did their policies. They realised the power of first mover advantage and the filibuster. The power of, well, power. They realised they could protect and retain a vicious little weasel like Eric even though it went completely against a core Wikipedia policy and everything Jimmy Wales had previously said (and kept saying) was a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.

They are the reason it took so long for Eric to be expelled. It is almost laughable to even suggest that his precise manner of departure, was any kind of victory for Wales or anyone who was even remotely listening to him back when he had actual authority.

Eric actually won the battle, clearly. He openly insulted and taunted Jimmy on several occasions in his pomp, that tipping period, and nobody did a damn thing. Eric lost the war because he lacked the good grace to accept he had actually won. He became an embarrassment to his own side. He broke their golden rule. You can be as big an asshole as you like, as long as you stick to the one asshole one account rule.

It was Wikipedia itself that Eric was rebelling against, and thus every last person who held a power he didn't or had a respect he didn't. Stupid fucks like Black Kite never did realise that. Or worse, they did and actually helped him.

Editors started leaving faster than they could be replaced from 2008.

Seems pretty fucking inarguable why that was. If the people who opposed Eric's attempts to become an Administrator in 2007 and 2008 were merely doing what they thought Jimmy wanted, well, it was a pretty damn successful recipe up to then, was it not? All graphs lines went up.

Sadly, enough bad seeds had already slipped through by then. Bishonen was promoted in 2005. Enough that by 2008, a nasty prick like Eric was already capable of getting 50% support.

Why are Eric's most loyal defenders so miserable these days? Lacking any of the cock-sure arrogance of their heyday? It's certainly not because they are still in mourning for the little weasel.

It's because they know what they did.

It's because they know they killed Wikipedia.

The failure Wikipedia is today, is their fault.

Jimmy is long gone, as is anyone who was conceivably his loyal supporter. Wikipedians are entirely unaffected by outside moral forces, they are entirely free to self regulate. Bishonen, Floquenbeam, and the rest, have unfettered power. Not even ArbCom can touch them, even if they wanted to, which they don't. Vested Contributors and FUCK OFF are de facto policies.

Have the graph lines returned to a healthy state? Have they fuck.

The truth will always be the truth. Most people don't want to volunteer for a hostile environment.

This is why Wikipedia now relies on retards like Davey2010 to make up the numbers. Won't be knocking out any FAs any time soon that fella.

People see Black Kite attacking AlisonW for her passionate if outdated views of policy this very week. They wonder why it is that he cares so deeply for the principle of INVOLVEMENT there, but he and a whole bunch of Wikipedia Administrators are all on record, now and forever more, of taking Administrative action to benefit the little weasel, LONG after it became rather obvious they had strong opinions on his value.

They see that, and they tell anyone who listens, do not join Wikipedia, it is a toxic vicious cesspit where the power users make it up as they go along to suit their personal agendas regarding their philosophy of Wikipedia. They are so shameless, they do it even when attacking other Administrators for allegedly abusing their tools to pursue their own agendas.

Jimmy played no part in that. He may have been many things, but he didn't take potential recruits for fools. He knew what that would do to the average person's will to work for free.

He reaped the rewards. Jimmy is famous. Bishonen's whole world is Wikipedia.

[ericbarbour]

Bishonen's whole world is Wikipedia.

Bishonen is batshit crazy, but that's just my worthless opinion, maaaan.

Anyone wanna see Corbett's block log, now obliterated on WP itself? This is "only" from 2008 to 2014. I gave up after that--he was blocked and unblocked many more times until he got the perma-boot in 2019.

23:45, 14 October 2014 Chillum (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Gross incivility)
14:36, 29 July 2014 DangerousPanda (talk | contribs) unblocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (Consensus appears to be that although an uncivil edit-summary, it was not clearly a violation of WP:NPA)
10:36, 29 July 2014 BrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: Blatant personal attack in edit summary, and incivility in the substantive comment)
20:39, 1 November 2013 Drmies (talk | contribs) unblocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (time served. minor comment in a discussion full of baiting and other uncivil behavior)
20:14, 1 November 2013 DrKiernan (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =579782299)
02:23, 31 October 2013 Mojo Hand (talk | contribs) unblocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (Consensus at AN)
15:32, 29 October 2013 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Enough is enough.)
15:17, 29 October 2013 Fram (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 months (Personal attacks or harassment)
21:12, 28 October 2013 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 3 hours (telling another editor to fuck off is always over the line)
23:48, 24 July 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) unblocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (see my comment at AN)
23:36, 24 July 2013 Prodego (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 21:05, 3 August 2013 (restore block until consensus is developed to remove it)
22:41, 24 July 2013 INeverCry (talk | contribs) unblocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (end a bit early so user can return to article work)
21:05, 5 July 2013 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 29 days (Restoring previous duration (which, for the record, I also strongly disagree with); indef block was in bad faith. When Eric returns, we'll see what he would like to do then.)
14:29, 5 July 2013 Scottywong (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (change block length per user request at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =562881268)
08:40, 4 July 2013 Fram (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 month (Multiple clear personal attacks towards different editors)
09:14, 18 May 2013 WilliamH (talk | contribs) blocked Eric Corbett (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second (Posterity: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... usurped%29)

22:12, 18 May 2013 Dennis Brown (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (User is abandoning account and is now using User:Eric Corbett)
00:07, 30 December 2012 Floquenbeam (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (no consensus for this block at AN/ANI)
00:00, 30 December 2012 Kww (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, email disabled) with an expiry time of indefinite (personal attack: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... assessment)
21:43, 21 October 2012 Boing! said Zebedee (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (Malicious block)
21:38, 21 October 2012 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 48 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
23:45, 29 September 2012 Black Kite (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (clearly provoked and block length out of line with that which would have been expected from any other editor)
23:29, 29 September 2012 Bongwarrior (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =515225273)
21:59, 7 April 2012 Steve (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (Those who agree, know. Those who don't ... well. Paint a bullseye, don't be surprised when a shot lands. Response not worth driving any editor away for.)
18:01, 6 April 2012 Courcelles (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Disruptive editing: Personal attacks)
23:08, 22 December 2011 28bytes (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 02:17, 29 December 2011 (Malleus does not wish to participate in the ArbCom case, so restoring Hawkeye7's block per his request.)
15:51, 22 December 2011 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (unblocking for the limited purpose of responding to an Arbcom request)
07:17, 22 December 2011 Hawkeye7 (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Long term abuse)
23:47, 21 December 2011 John (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (Per consensus at AN/I; disproportionate block contravenes policy)
22:34, 21 December 2011 Thumperward (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (long-term hostility well beyond acceptable bounds)
03:45, 26 October 2011 Mkativerata (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (ANI is clear. I made the call not to block. An editor does not get blocked because one out 2,000 administrators happens upon ANI and decides to. First come, first served.)
02:58, 26 October 2011 Kaldari (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
13:50, 3 February 2011 Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (per discussion at ANI and elsewhere, block was excessive)
13:16, 3 February 2011 Geni (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Disruptive editing: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =411711626)
18:40, 15 October 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (not in the mood)
16:49, 15 October 2010 SarekOfVulcan (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
01:42, 15 October 2010 Ucucha (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (borderline personal attack if any; block is not going to solve anything)
01:27, 15 October 2010 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
02:00, 11 July 2010 Moni3 (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (Oh, for Pete's sake! )
01:49, 11 July 2010 Rodhullandemu (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours (Personal attacks or harassment)
03:32, 7 March 2010 Moni3 (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (ineffective block)
03:20, 7 March 2010 TenOfAllTrades (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =348205197)
17:21, 7 February 2010 David Fuchs (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 hour (Personal attacks or harassment: Dragging personal issues and feud with Roux into ANI thread)
08:20, 11 December 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 10 seconds (Personal attacks or harassment)
01:14, 5 November 2009 Georgewilliamherbert (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Personal attacks or harassment: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... =324002285)
19:22, 10 June 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants)
18:23, 10 June 2009 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Personal attacks or harassment)
00:46, 7 March 2009 Coren (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 19:28, 9 March 2009 (Unblock was out of process, no wheel warring, please. Discuss the block, or bring the incident to a suitable forum.)
00:38, 7 March 2009 Ddstretch (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (Blocking admin is involved (he/she interacted with Malleus and Malleus was brusque with him/her), the length was excessive, and no block notice was posted)
00:28, 7 March 2009 Aitias (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 days (Personal attacks or harassment: and Incivility: cf. WP:AN/I: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?&ol ... f_civility)
18:33, 19 August 2008 Gwen Gale (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) ("time served" - asking this editor to be more civil though)
10:23, 19 August 2008 Ckatz (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Incivility: User was warned, continued with incivility; not an isolated incident; see also Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Malleus Fatuorum)
00:29, 25 May 2008 Balloonman (talk | contribs) unblocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (block inappropriately applied)
17:26, 24 May 2008 Swatjester (talk | contribs) blocked Malleus Fatuorum (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (personal attacks and incivility after being warned.)

If you like to read LONG and stupid rants about Malleus, try this (and don't blame me if it's TL;DR)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... t/Workshop