Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-5384369-20130623063358

Let me do a quick run through of how I see/saw this dispute:

First, you keep on saying how it’s not that hard to create an account. I disagree with you saying that sometimes anons just prefer to stay anons. Then you talk about how anons can be pests, and all they really do is vandalize. I disagree because it’s not true. Because majority of the anons don’t vandalize, and I talk about how a lot of people won’t come on as much due to the new rule Wiki staff wishes to make. I argue that the “rule” wouldn’t be effective. Jessie1010 wondered if there are any other options other than not allowing anons to edit, as well as why other Wikis haven’t been targeted. Jessie1010 also gave a few more reasons to why some people don’t want accounts/ can’t have accounts.

Then your response to some of the messages is that some wikis don’t have anons anymore because of high vandalism rates, most likely caused by anons. In the process of that you call anons “parasites”, when in reality, we were all anonymous first. You also mention how almost all of your edits have been caused by anon vandalism. Jessie agrees that vandalism rates will drop, but it will also have a great affect on the Wiki’s popularity, Jessie also says that admins aren’t going to support this just to make our jobs easier. Jessie1010 also makes the point that we can’t let bad overpower good in this situation. Jessie also asks you to refrain from calling users parasites. Then you reply saying that apparently popularity is a big issue in this situation but it wasn’t on the “stupid ‘No irrelevant comments’ rule”. You also make a comparison to an anon edit as “poison”. You reply to another users comment, again considering them “parasitic”, even after the first small warning was given. Jessie1010 replied that again, as stated before, admins are looking at creating benefits for the entire community, not just admins. And again, makes a point to why some anons do not have accounts.

You replied to that how you have been viewing the recent activity on other Wikis and how 90% are just problematic. You completely disregard what some of the users are saying, because you’re always saying how all of these anons are just troublesome and no good. You also tell users to go against their parents/guardians. To your messages, I reply that some people just don’t want to make an account. Plain and simple. I don’t know why, but they just don’t. I also remind you that this Wiki is different than other wikis, so it’s illogical to compare two completely different wikis, expecting and treating then as the same, when it’s not. I also ask you to give me any links to any recent activity of vandalism on the wiki. Also, I mention that anons aren’t as bad as you think they are. And you relate them to parasites 4 times and an idiot 2 times. I give you a formal warning because referring to someone as a parasite and an idiot is considered name calling. You can actually visit the Wiki Guidelines, and in there, it states that we do categorize name calling as a form of bullying. I look at your edit count, and there is nothing that says you’ve been editing articles, here or on any other wiki. You then, call me a liar for giving out false information. You then accuse me of attempting to “brainwash” you into becoming a “drone”.

After replying to a few users, you mix up you facts. You say how I give false information and warn you for having an opinion and that’s it. You then argue how the reason why you received a warning is because you have an opinion. But, if you didn’t read what my warning actually said it was for name calling, and you also, after saying calling anons parasites, being warned lightly by 2 admins, I decided to take a more formal approach to warning you that calling someone names is just rude, (even if you don’t particularly like them). Then after being warned by me, you call everyone here “thick headed” which is another insult. A user agreed that some of your points were valid, but they were also a tad hurtful and rude, and they felt as they were being attacked by you. You then use the phrase “a load of crap” and “BS” when describing a situation. We all know that BS is just an acronym for a swear word (which is in no means allowed) and the use of the word “crap” is not allowed either. I then reply and give you cold hard evidence that with that single piece of information, I couldn’t have possibly known that you have been editing other wikis, because that does not show me any information about that. And then I have to re-explain the reasoning for your warning is not for having an opinion, but merely for name calling. I then ask for the second time for links to actually see some of where you may be coming from, because you see kept on mentioning how so many anons just cause trouble.

Then, you seem to disregard my last message which contained my reasoning for making the statement about having no article edits, and my explanation for your warning. You assume my warning is for an easy way to block you a way to prevent you from arguing. You make this assumption obviously not reading the Guidelines, because right underneath Message/Forum Rules, #7: Not one form of cyber bullying will be accepted (no name calling, making fun of, bullying, intimidating). Then Jessie1010 tells you that you will be blocked and gives you a direct example of you being rude. You claim that all you’re doing is thinking critically of the situation, when really, all you’re doing is taking information from other wikis, and placing it on us, not really knowing how we handle things. Also, there is a large difference between being rude, and thinking critically. Although thinking critically may not lead you down the same path as others, and you may find yourself believing the exact opposite of what others are thinking, there is the ability to expand your vocabulary. Probably if you chose words that wouldn’t be considered so offensive to most of the users here, and if you didn’t chose to insult everyone by calling them “thick headed”, you probably wouldn’t have to be warned in the first place. Your own choice of words is what caused you to we warned, not your opinion.

After a few conversations with Jessie1010, again, and after a user asks to close the thread, you decide to now target Jessie1010 and me. You dig up a situation that was unnecessary.

Then after a rollback says that they monitor vandalism, and they don’t see any anons causing vandalism, then you thank them for the answer to a question that was never asked. Even after Selenaroxx, Jessie1010, and I have all said something along the lines of seeing a lot of good anonymous users, more than actual anon vandals. This also disproves a lot of your theorizing. If a rollback was unable to see vandalism by anon users, how could you possibly see how 90% of anon user have been making unhelpful edits to this wiki. I really do suggest going to a wiki where you’re more familiar with how things work, or how the issue of anons are ordered.

Really, you can’t say 90% anons on this wiki cause trouble, when you really don’t even know the anons on this wiki. Before you were calling them parasites and pests and considering it a blessing that anons wouldn’t be able to edit, but now you consider the idea a “good idea” and that it’s not necessary. And from there, we see the skip from your original stance to now. Because frankly, for me, there is a noticeable difference between having it a blessing and 90% anons being problematic to the idea being good and not an absolute necessity.

Also, the reason why a lot of people agree with the admins in a lot of situations isn’t because they’re scared, it’s because they know that admins are supposed to be looking for what’s best for the Wiki. It’s not like admins just jump into these things headfirst. We have to all talk about this and take a stance we all agree on, and from then, we choose on how to approach the situation. Between a user and an admin, a sense of trust is established, and admins, have the responsibility to make the Wiki the best it can be.

Admins feel that anons are necessary to the growth of the Wiki. Not having them can have a serious impact on gaining new ones, and retaining older ones. Is there any way we could compromise to appeal to both federal law and your needs as well as our needs?