Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-3247345-20130622203716

BloodyRose11 wrote: I feel like it's so degrading how you're calling the anons "parasites". You can it "degrading" or whatever else you want but I'm sick of having to fix their screwups when they could easily be prevented by disabling.

Jessie1010 wrote:

Exactly. I completely agree with everything Selenaroxx is saying. We are still going to put up a fight with this.

And like Sel said, people think that anons are always vandalizing. In my last reply I did explain my opinion on that but I do have more to say. So if anons are disabled, the vandalize rate drops. That'd be nice. BUT, if anons are disabled, the wiki will also loose popularity and many users. Vandalism is something that an admin must take care of. I'm not supporting disabling anons just to make my job as an admin easier. I'm not that kind of user. I will work as hard as I have to to take care of vandalism. But if disabling anons mean loosing popularity drastically on the wiki, then I'm voting against it. Some admins may get them disabled just to lower the vandalism rate, to make their job easier. But I'm thinking about the wiki here, not myself. I find it funny that popularity is an issue with this but it wasn't when that stupid "no irrelevant comments" rule was concocted. Not to mention making your work harder just for the sake of working more is a waste is a waste. Working smarter is generally better than working harder. Plus isn't generally better to eliminate the source of a poison than to be constantly cleaning up its nasty effects?