Board Thread:Administrators Discussion/@comment-4811793-20130620225343/@comment-5384369-20130623004953

3cooldog92 wrote: Um, wrong. I've been editing the Sam & Cat wiki and reverting edits there, so you're the one lying. Please don't say false things just to discredit me. And of course it's bullying to say unpopular things. You people have this irrational love on anons and you're using admins tools and out right lies to shut anyone up who doesn't. I guarantee this "warning" nonsense wouldn't have happened had I towed the line like a good little brainwashed drone you want me to be.

Just because you don't agree with my points doesn't make me rude. And admins should be upholding the right to an opinion, even an unpopular ones, instead of spreading lies to discredit ones they don't like. But I guess I can't expect that sort of reflection from you, since you'll go along with anything stupid or destructive to please your masters. Abuse of admin tools should be disturbing to everyone but I guess it's unreasonable to expect this group to see that when they won't listen to reason on the subject of the pests.

As for the question of disabling, hopefully staff will do what should have been done long ago since people here are too thick headed to listen to what I've been saying. It's funny because the other wikis don't seem to have a problem in comprehending this stuff. What staff is doing is for the good of the wiki whether you realize it or not right now.

I'm sorry I made a false accusation, but in all fairness, when I look at your edit count, it doesn't recognize you as making any article edits, like it does with other users.



And no, it's not rude to have an opinion, but it is rude to take that opinion to insult other people. You need to be able to differentiate between having an opinion, and taking that opinion to an unnecessary level to where you are clearing insulting someone by calling them "parasites", "idiots" and "pests". I know that the Sam and Cat Wiki is a little less strict with some language rules than we do, but calling someone names is not something that will be allowed.

I do not have this "love" for anons, I don't know a lot of anon users because I normally don't comment that often, but I know when I draw the line. There is a difference between having an opinion, and flat out discriminating. Being rude, when you simply don't know some of the people on here is extremely prejudice.

In my own opinion, I think you're taking experience you've had with other anons, from other wikis, and generalizing them. So you're just assuming that all anons here must be like they were elsewhere.

The warning came because you clearly intended to insult people on the wiki, not because I want you to be this "brainwashed" user or whatever. I can't find one place where calling someone an idiot is considered a good thing. It was intended to be hurtful, and that is bullying.

Frankly, you can go and tell Wiki staff that you like the idea, and I mean that in the sincerest way. But like you are entitled to your opinion, we're entitled to ours.

Also, would you even consider changing your opinion if we could somehow deal with these anonymous users? If you can't, then that really shows that you're a little too stubborn to listen to our opinions and consider more than one thing. Again, I ask, can you give me some links to different examples of vandalism you're seeing, because in all honesty, I'm not seeing that much, if any.

I may be over exaggerating a little that ALL anons are good, because I know that sometimes there are complications, but you must also be exaggerating if you think that ALL anons are bad. Most of the complications are finished within 15 minutes at the most unless it's like, some sort of anon revolt where everyone just starts trashing the wiki...