Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-3247345-20130623083521

I'll admit it was a mistake to make comparisons of anons on other wikis in light of the situation here. I even said that much in my apology to the one admin who handled this situation professionally. But is it really that unreasonable of a mistake to make? It's an easy mistake to make having dealt with anons in the past that have been a real pain. Sure it might not translate onto this wiki but I would hope you'd be able to understand my frustration with what I've gone through. And you have to admit, being able to edit without an account is sort of an invitation to mess the place up just for the heck of it. Also, I've talked to admins that feel the same way about anons as I do on other wikis, so my view isn't as far out there as it's being portrayed.

And you're distorting the facts about my position. Yes it changed, but that was in response to new facts, namely the fact that the person monitoring vandalism isn't having a major issue with them and/or is keeping the situation under control. Unlike certain users here I'm willing to change my views if the factual and/or logical basis underlying them changes. So yes my views changed but it's not like I'm flipping them around for the heck of it. Having been on very active wikis without anons I think the fear that disabling will inhibit growth is largely over blown, especially in light of how active this place already is. That's a view that can reasonably be debated but it doesn't change my view that the wiki would benefit from disabling anons. The reason I say disabling would be desirable but not an absolute necessity (excluding the legal aspect of course) is because if the bad effects of keeping anons are kept under control then I don't see a compelling reason to seriously oppose keeping them if it satisfies a desire of a large number of users to have the benefits of keeping them, however negligible I think they are.

Then you talk about how how I thanked the rollback for questions that were never asked. That's not true. She responded to a point I made. I said anons are responsible for most of the vandalism and bad edits. She told me that wasn't the case on this wiki. I took her word for it since she monitors this stuff. You're right that she proved me wrong. I'm willing to accept that and change my views accordingly, which I did. My point there was that had she just told me my assertions were wrong at that point it would have ended without the circus that followed. I appreciated that she responded to what I said instead of going off on tirades about how rude I'm being or whatever other complaint they want to bring up that dodges the main issue. This whole discussion would have gone a lot smoother if people would have stuck to the arguments I made rather than creating diversions about how I was making my points to try to discredit me without responding to the points themselves. The rollback gave me an actual counter-argument and I changed my view because of that. All I ask that if you think I'm wrong that you tell me why you think so instead creating side arguments that obscure the main issue. I conceded when told that they're not a major problem on this wiki. But you have to understand that I've talked to 4 admins on other wikis who share the same views on anons as I do. No, it's not relevant to this wiki but I would hope you could understand why I went in with that assumption.

As for the warning: I've read the policies and from the looks of it once you get a warning it's a free for all when handing out blocks. So you imagine what I thought your intentions were when the warning was issued. I'll admit some of the things I've said aren't the nicest things that could be said but does that really merit the heavy handedness of a block? I can tell you that two admins who have years of experience on several wikis and reputations for being some of the fairest admins out there called that unreasonable. Between the fact that @Red Compassion, Red Love, Red Hate and @Jessie1010 seem to despise me for questioning their actions and the nearly limitless scope of "being rude and bullying" you can't really blame me for thinking the warning was just so you could have a carte blanche to block me whenever you felt like it. Since there's in effect no limit on the scope of the bullying rule it wouldn't be that hard to cook up something.

Then there's the way @Jessie1010 handled the abuse of power accusation. Instead of looking into it rationally he got enraged that I'd even suggest such a thing. This thread is a good indication that this of how Jessie1010 normally handles situations like these. His handling of this seems to be standard operating procedure for him. In that thread he not only encouraged abusive behavior but he threatened to block the victim of the abuse. Only when Red said something about it did he change his tune to avoid looking like the serial power abuser he is and if you look at it he was really defending the abuse while paying lip service that power shouldn't be abused. He's either unwilling or unable to review this type of thing. Everything is okay to him no matter how abusive or unfair. You can see how angry he got at me. He claims he got mad because I was being rude to users but that was after the point I said anything that was less than nice. His real issue is that I dared question an admin decision. Yes I called the warning those things because to suggest that deserves a block is unreasonable. Jessie hated it because I questioned an administrative action, which seems to be the equivalent of questioning the word of God around this place. So why did he get so angry that I questioned an admin action? One he thinks abuse of power is okay unless he's forced to pay lip service to the principle that it isn't. Two he engages in abuse on his own so why would he correct abuses of others? And three he sees himself as unquestionable, an ubermensch of sorts. And he gets super pissed when someone doesn't think of him or his fellow admins of anything less. That's why I said he has a problem with critical thinking. It's because critical thinking necessarily requires you to question assertions whether they come from Jessie1010 or not.

So given that situation, can you really fault me for thinking this warning was just to clear the way for to block a user that causes the admins headaches by not seeing everything they do as justified just by the fact they did it?