Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-5384369-20130623162546

I’m not going to condemn you here over a little debate. Truth is, although I understand that it is (normally) human nature to take information and apply it to other situation, I think by doing that, you’re not giving an honest answer about OUR wiki, because you’re taking information from other wikis, and just assuming that it applies to ours too.

I can understand your wariness on anonymous editors as seeing them on other wikis. But I disagree with your statement as me “distorting” your position. The first thing I said in that message was how I saw this whole thing. So, all in all, not fact, but merely an opinion.

By “question that was never asked”, I look at this as plain and simple. As not once did you actually ask what the vandalism rate or how anons act on this wiki. And by asking, I mean, ending with a question mark. We, or at least I, saw you as just stating facts. That is why the admins such as Jessie1010 and I were so assertive in this situation. If you said something along the lines of “I see other wikis who have stopped anons from editing and it would be a good thing to do to ours to” then it things could have been handled a lot better. Because we, or at least I, saw you just stating things for facts when we knew it wasn’t entirely true. I also have to tell you that I think you’re being a little hypocritical in one aspect. “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.” In all honesty, I did see you doing the same thing, by taking other people’s opinions and disproving them.

Also, if you read one of my opinions to one of yours, it does show how I thought about it. It was not creating a “side argument” as you consider it, but merely taking what you said, and telling you why what you’re saying doesn’t apply to this wiki. So, in my opinion, we took a direct quote from you, and told you why we thought it was wrong. For example, you said, “Well first off two of those wikis (Victorious and ANT Farm) have already disabled anons for the reasons I've been trying to point out here. The anons totally destroyed the ANT Farm wiki (by vandalizing it and posting X rated comments) and it took a major cleanup operation to make the place look presentable. The Sam and Cat wiki is planning to disable anons as soon as they get enough registered users. I can tell you from talking to them that the admins there recognize what parasites anons can be. I guess they don't share the irrational attachment to letting anons run amok as some do here. “ and I responded by saying “[Also,] you said that the Victorious and ANT Farm Wiki disabled anon editing because of heavy vandalism and X rated content. That’s the difference between them and us. We do not have anonymous users spamming everywhere, like you think. Please, send me a link of 3 different examples of a large amount of vandalism caused by an anonymous user that is on the Wiki. Not one that was in page history a month ago, but fairly recent, and as bad as you deem it to be. I can only think of one thing that was done about 2 months ago and was quickly taken care of.”

As for the warning, I can be fairly sympathetic. I understand how you thought that we were just giving you the warning for no good reason, because I know that happens sometimes. This Wiki does have strict rules in some aspects, but not in all of them. I know how on other Wikis, such as the Sam & Cat Wiki, the admins let people say a few swears or whatever. But on this wiki, we are extremely strict about those kinds of things. We just don’t like people using language such as that. Admins expect a person to set higher standards and not swear in the first place, and we want users to feel comfortable on the wiki. It becomes extremely difficult to do that when we have someone that uses “not nice words”. It doesn’t set a good example for admins, and it doesn’t set a good example for the wiki

In all fairness, I did tell you to review the Guidelines. All official warnings have that message. It’s not just a suggestion we make, it’s proof which shows that we didn’t just make it up, that we have standards to which we go by. So, other than copying and pasting the whole Austin & Ally Wiki Guidelines, we just give you the link because it’s not something that we just come up with.

I think the reason why Jessie1010 became so mad is because you were stating things as a fact, when Jessie knew it to be false. I think because you stated you opinions as facts, Jessie1010 saw that as defamation. Again, this is why I believe why Jessie1010 became so annoyed with your behavior.

You do not have the right to state things as facts when it’s not true in the first place. Because I, as well as you should, know that unless you can somehow prove otherwise, you do not have that right. You may have been giving an example, and explaining how it’s not the best way to handle a situation, that is perfectly fine. But when you stretch those limits and say things you clearly don’t know for a fact, and is merely an inference, that is where we have to interfere. For example, you stated as a fact 1. “Everything is okay to him no matter how abusive or unfair.” 2. “His real issue is that I dared question an admin decision.” 3. “Jessie hated it because I questioned an administrative action, which seems to be the equivalent of questioning the word of God around this place.” 4. “One he thinks abuse of power is okay unless he's forced to pay lip service to the principle that it isn't.” 5. “Two he engages in abuse on his own so why would he correct abuses of others?” 6. “And three he sees himself as unquestionable, an ubermensch of sorts.” 7. “And he gets super pissed when someone doesn't think of him or his fellow admins of anything less.” You have made seven different assumptions in one paragraph. You cannot say things that you have no real proof of. And by proof, I mean, not just observing how Jessie1010 acts on one or two occasions and then applying that to everything.