Hi im new here.
3,939
pages
ALL POSTS
2
0
(Edited by TeeJay87)
You are a grown adult who spends hours on the Garfield wiki mocking people and being generally cruel. You told someone that they were 'claiming that autism addles their mind.' and told that same person in response to them saying that they couldn't control that they had autism that you "know personally people in real life and online, who have diagnosed with autism and they do control themselves. Lack of will doesn't mean you don't have the ability to do something"
When that same person felt so hurt and attacked that they went on Twitter to talk about how they were feeling, you used this against them. You attacked and acted cruelly towards this person to the point that they felt a need to leave the site. If you're making someone feel uncomfortable, haven't you failed as a moderator?
When the person you're talking to makes a typo, you use it against them, calling them 'drunkards' repeatedly. Despite this, you make numerous typos (Just look back up at your previous response, where you said 'puublic' instead of public). Now, I'm not usually one to care about typos. However, the hypocrisy is clear. I am well aware that you're not a native English speaker, however many of the people you refer to as 'Drunkards' for their typos are also non-native English speakers.
Now, looking over the rules for the wiki we can find that you've broken quite a few. If we look at 1.02.01 we find general harassment, which is defined as "Any obscene behaviour directed to another user that is dehumanising, discriminatory and defaming is seen as harassment and will be followed by an immediate ban. This rule applies to both users and administrators." -Note the last part, that it applies to both users and administrators. Now, I'd consider going into someone's Twitter, finding a tweet talking about how uncomfortable and hurt your actions made them feel, and using that against them to fall under this definition. It also could fall under the definition of ableist, but that's a whole other thing that I'd prefer not to get into.
If we go down to 1.02.01.03 we see name-calling, something you love to do. We can see this in your constant use of the word 'Drunkard' to seem above whoever you're talking to. You also have been known to create drawings to mock other users on the wiki.
If we look at 1.04.02 we see the rule 'Administrators cannot block users over personal annoyances or vendettas. Administrators need valid reasoning before they can apply such blocks.' which I believe you have broken multiple times. The example that comes to mind is me referring to you as a wuss, which resulted in me being banned for a month. I think that while this response was fair, especially considering the rules I'd broken in the past, you also do name-calling a lot, with the use of the word Drunkard.
Now, I'm going to talk to you about some of my own experiences on this wiki. I think that there's a nice community here and some rather nice people. However, in December of 2020, you banned me. Now, I can see that it was fair of you to do so, I was acting rather rude. However, one of the reasons given was 'Not denying your prejudice towards non-native English speakers under the veil of confusion and random replies.' which I disagree with. I never mentioned that you were a non-native English speaker, it was never relevant to the conversation. You brought it up randomly, and I proceeded to not respond to it, as I didn't find it relevant. I don't think that means I'm prejudiced towards non-native English speakers, does it?
Then, in February 2021, I referred to you as a wuss. This resulted in my month-long ban. However, as mentioned above, name-calling is something you do often, such as calling people 'Drunkards' constantly.
Now, I do not hate you. I don't even think you should be banned. I just think that having someone who mocks the users on the wiki, who points out every typo, who harasses users and finds tweets, who bans users for saying something even slightly rude to them doesn't set a good example for the wiki and all its users. Banning people for breaking rules you always break isn't a very good practice.
I understand that chances are you'll just ban me, or you'll pick one specific part where I make an error and focus on that or you'll go through and cherry-pick the points you can use against me. However, I've spoken my truth. I've done what I wanted to do.
Sources-
Claiming that someone was claiming to have autism/general harassment/finding someone's Twitter-
https://garfield.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000009756/r/4400000000000022843
Refering to someone as a 'drunkard' (most recent example)-
https://garfield.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000000029546/r/4400000000000068679
Creating artwork to mock other users of the wiki-
http://www.fanart-central.net/pictures/user/TeeJay87/862331/Sorrows-of-Klansman-gift
My experience where you called me prejudiced towards non-native english speakers (The original interaction is linked in your message wall post)-
https://garfield.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:Cat_in_the_Hat_Fan?threadId=4400000000000010355
My experience where you banned me for name-calling-
https://garfield.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:RogerBlake?threadId=4400000000000027826
Thank you for your time.
0
Here you go:
1) "You are a grown adult who spends hours on the Garfield wiki mocking people and being generally cruel". - Like a typical teenager, you claim that older people than you have no right to enjoy Garfield and you limit them your beloved 1st Amendment. An exemplar of hormone imbalance.
2) "You told someone that they were 'claiming that autism addles their mind told that same person in response to them saying that they couldn't control that they had autism that you "know personally people in real life and online, who have diagnosed with autism and they do control themselves. Lack of will doesn't mean you don't have the ability to do something"'" - I did not say those exact words. You're testifying a lie under the veil of the 1st Amendment -also hormone imbalance. Or perhaps you can't read with comprehension?
3) "When that same person felt so hurt and attacked that they went on Twitter to talk about how they were feeling, you used this against them." - Yes, keep claiming that I have fewer rights than you, teenagers because I left the teenagehood past behind me. A model example of teenage hypocrisy.
4) "You attacked and acted cruelly towards this person to the point that they felt a need to leave the site." - Because I have stronger nerves than teenagers like you do, eh? It's not my fault puberty issues weaken the neural system, child.
5) "If you're making someone feel uncomfortable, haven't you failed as a moderator?" - If you're making someone feel uncomfortable, haven't you failed as a human, kiddo?
6) "When the person you're talking to makes a typo, you use it against them, calling them 'drunkards' repeatedly. Despite this, you make numerous typos (Just look back up at your previous response, where you said 'puublic' instead of public)." - Yes, keep pushing your teenage propaganda against me. Goebbels and Molotov must be proud of you.
7) "Now, I'm not usually one to care about typos. However, the hypocrisy is clear." - Yes, claim that YOU have a monopoly for hypocrisy because you're a teenager. An ego inflated by hormone imbalance.
8) "I am well aware that you're not a native English speaker, however many of the people you refer to as 'Drunkards' for their typos are also non-native English speakers." - First you attack me for typos, then you say you're aware that I'm not a native English speaker. Not to mention you once again claim that the 1st Amendment is an English-speaker priviledge. Teenage hypocrisy.
9) "Now, looking over the rules for the wiki we can find that you've broken quite a few.If we look at 1.02.01 we find general harassment, which is defined as "Any obscene behaviour directed to another user that is dehumanising, discriminatory and defaming is seen as harassment and will be followed by an immediate ban. This rule applies to both users and administrators." -Note the last part, that it applies to both users and administrators. Now, I'd consider going into someone's Twitter, finding a tweet talking about how uncomfortable and hurt your actions made them feel, and using that against them to fall under this definition. It also could fall under the definition of ableist, but that's a whole other thing that I'd prefer not to get into." - Report me to FANDOM staff, if you have courage to do so. I see you don't.
10) "If we go down to 1.02.01.03 we see name-calling, something you love to do. We can see this in your constant use of the word 'Drunkard' to seem above whoever you're talking to. You also have been known to create drawings to mock other users on the wiki.
If we look at 1.04.02 we see the rule 'Administrators cannot block users over personal annoyances or vendettas. Administrators need valid reasoning before they can apply such blocks.' which I believe you have broken multiple times. The example that comes to mind is me referring to you as a wuss, which resulted in me being banned for a month. I think that while this response was fair, especially considering the rules I'd broken in the past, you also do name-calling a lot, with the use of the word Drunkard." - Again, report me to the FANDOM Staff.
11) "However, in December of 2020, you banned me." - You weren't the only one I banned, besides, your conduct granted you a ban. I'm well aware that you don't percept things like healthy people due to puberty issues, but this doesn't mean you can show off master race syndrome.
12) "Now, I can see that it was fair of you to do so, I was acting rather rude." - See? You have the answer for 11).
13) "However, one of the reasons given was 'Not denying your prejudice towards non-native English speakers under the veil of confusion and random replies.' which I disagree with. I never mentioned that you were a non-native English speaker, it was never relevant to the conversation. You brought it up randomly, and I proceeded to not respond to it, as I didn't find it relevant. I don't think that means I'm prejudiced towards non-native English speakers, does it?" - Wow, what a nice ad hominem attack. I bet it was also built on hormone imbalance.
14) "Then, in February 2021, I referred to you as a wuss. This resulted in my month-long ban. However, as mentioned above, name-calling is something you do often, such as calling people 'Drunkards' constantly." - Because if people act like drunkards, I call them like this. Things in my homeland are called by their true name, even teenagers from my homeland agree on that.
15) "Now, I do not hate you. I don't even think you should be banned." - Your long comment above is proving the opposite. There's no need to lie.
16) "I just think that having someone who mocks the users on the wiki, who points out every typo, who harasses users and finds tweets, who bans users for saying something even slightly rude to them doesn't set a good example for the wiki and all its users. Banning people for breaking rules you always break isn't a very good practice." - And I think that acting like a drunkard, who vomits at the rear seat in a bus, isn't a very good practice either. Pretty much like claiming that your beloved 1st Amendment has to be the privilege of native English speakers.
17) "I understand that chances are you'll just ban me, or you'll pick one specific part where I make an error and focus on that or you'll go through and cherry-pick the points you can use against me. However, I've spoken my truth. I've done what I wanted to do." - Come on, since you think you're smarter than me, you should know that since April 2021, FANDOM Staff issued a ban control and since then, I need REALLY GOOD reasons to ban users. If I ban you for showing off hormone imbalance in petty comments sewn with master race syndrome, I'll have to explain myself to FANDOM Staff and it's not a pleasant experience.
18) As I thought - you misunderstood my words about the Nermal fan - he said that autism addles his mind and I testified his words. Congratulations on following Goebbels and Molotov to discredit me.
19) "Creating artwork to mock other users of the wiki" - What's wrong with that? Or perhaps you're jealous that I can draw and you can't, eh?
20) "My experience where you called me prejudiced towards non-native english speakers (The original interaction is linked in your message wall post)" - Yes, keep blaming me for you making such impressions. Back peddling caused by hormone imbalance.
21) "My experience where you banned me for name-calling-
https://garfield.fandom.com/wiki/Message_Wall:RogerBlake?threadId=4400000000000027826" - I can admit this part was a mistake from my side.
22) "Thank you for your time." - You're very welcome. And I don't mean sarcasm here.