Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-3247345-20130622214909

Jessie1010 wrote:

Nope it wasn't because how much can the popularity go down with that rule. It's much easier to just go to chat or the forums instead of leaving when you find out you can't make an account. And you're not really getting what I'm saying. Yes, working smarter is a good choice. BUT, I'm not going to choose working smarter (with only benefits the admins) over helping the wiki (which benefits the entire community). And also, I'd really like to know what you have to say about my reply to your "anons do more bad than good" statement.

My answer is simple. I check edit diffs hours each day and 90% of the time (if it's an anon) it needs fixing. That's a 9:1 ratio of bad to good. Selenaroxx wrote:

And irrelevant commenting is now a stupid rule? Funny; I'm positive that a part of irrelevance is called giving out personal information. You know, the information that can lead to kidnapping? Right, but that's only part of it. You can easily have a rule that forbids giving out personal info without prohibiting the rest, which is by and large harmless. Selenaroxx wrote: And it is terrible how you refer to anons as parasites; behind each and ever one of those "accounts" is a person, a human (not a parasite!) just like you and me. You might feel differently you had to keep reverting stupid edits without rollback tools or tried to talk sense into some idiot anon who doesn't listen to reason about why their edit is stupid.