User talk:78.37.85.217

Vindicator minigun
What's your problem? An admin made a change, you CANNOT just undo it without discussion. You will not be editing that page again anytime soon. -- 17:53, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * My problem is you, the die-hard, boneheaded bureaucrats. The thing is, I had used this page as a test site, until one of came and banned me.

Another thing is that I am a registered contributor to quite a number of the pages. Now I see the policy of this wiki very, very clearly. Bigots, all of you, just like Lynette. Unless I edit the pages as a registered user, you have a tendency to ban. Indiscriminately.

I am aware of the fact that 'wikias are not democracies', but I still reserve the right to oppose, however futile it may be.

Have a good day.


 * Goodbye. You won't be missed. We don't need people around here with that attitude. For the record, it's not because you're unregistered, it's because the change was made by an admin and you reverted it without discussion. -- 18:02, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I reverted your change because we aren't in the practise of telling people how to play the games (quest walkthroughs nowithstanding). So, you should probably read up on our editing guidelines before actually editing.
 * I find it hard to believe that a registered user wouldn't know that by this point. Nitty Tok. 18:04, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The funny fact is when I log on, I don't get banned, mildly unsettling posts included. When I post as anonymous, I do get banned. See? There is no attitude problem, as long as I am logged in. I believe this is hypocrisy and bigotry. Please, if you can, prove me wrong.
 * I would hazard a guess that you log off to make edits that would get you banned, so that it doesn't happen to your registered username. Really, that's not hard to figure out. -- 18:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * And you would be whom, exactly?
 * You're 100% right about anon discrimination, though. Nitty Tok. 18:12, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * That is very correct. I cannot allow myself to jeopardize my main account, so I shall remain anonymous.
 * See? That is exactly my point.
 * Uh huh. Riiiight.
 * You aren't going to be banned over something this minor. Nitty Tok. 18:19, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * My first account got banned for exactly this reason; posting spoilers, that is. Stop being so uptight and allow 'normal people' performing edits. Otherwise, it's very similar to masons, that means 'no one allowed into our precious society, unless invited by someone of us.'
 * I wonder if I can ban people for skirting around issues. You can go now, I'm already angry at you. >:( Nitty Tok. 18:26, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Anger is one of the first signs of being wrong. You see, you haven't actually debated with me but simply responded as an uptight butthole. Relax, my good sir, most anons do not mean you any harm at all. You're simply being lazy to rollback spamminated pages.

Implement CAPTCHA and it's all good.


 * Um, are you a dumbass? I'm trying to ask you questions, and you keep dancing around them like a self-stylized Guy Fawkes ballerina. If you think you're being super clever, then you're not. Seeing as you had a chance to go and explain exactly what you're talking about, but didn't. Nitty Tok. 18:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

I do so love users like this, their kind and loving nature, only leaving intellegnt and whitty comments. They sure do know soo much more than us, uptight rule followers. My god we're dumb! Why don't we include all the BS that they want to add. 18:44, October 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * So what is wrong with me except for standing against bureaucracy and posting semi-spoilers, which is allowed to logged-in users? Please, tell me, for I cannot tell! Let me repeat myself, how and why is anonymous/freshly registered user worse than a bureaucrat? That is my question.

Blocking, admins, anonymous users and accusations

 * 1) I reviewed the Vindicator page edits that got this IP address blocked. Am I correct in understanding that the reason for the block was edit warring - an activity we have a policy against? If I am correct, then I see no reason to complain about the block. It is a judgement call, but the beligerantly worded edit summaries on the part of the anonymous editor and lack of any other discussion probably tipped the balance.
 * 2) I see on this page accusations of bigotry and a pattern of abuse-of-power. What I don't see is linked examples. I and other admins would be happy to review actual evidence and specific examples of complaint-worthy behavior. Absent such evidence and examples, there's nothing to discuss. Generalities can't be proven one way or the other.
 * 3) I suggest everyone drop the argument on this page. It is unproductive.
 * 4) Anon, if you have anything to say to an admin, I encourage you to visit my talk page.

--Gothemasticator 21:08, October 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It is not often I see a sensible admin. No examples because of my fear of being recognized. Thank you, Tor. So yeah, I'm dropping this argument for now, as it's kinda pointless; nothing is going to change soon enough. A stalemate, that's what we have here, as I am able but not willing to provide the examples, and the opposite side, in my humble opinion, has a bad case of Bailiff Syndrome, which is a nasty predisposition towards rolling back edits made by anonymous contributors.

Anyways, thank you, and have a good day. Luckily for me, my voice has been heard.