I believe that LS032 does not deserve to be demoted, for many of the reasons previous commenters have given. In my opinion, the evidence given by TeeJay87 is not enough to result in a demotion for LS032. In addition, I would like to add that TeeJay87's comparing the actions taken by LS032 to Vladmir Putin's actions taken again Ukraine is completely ludicrous. The conflict happening in Ukraine is a tragedy and abuse of human rights, and the decisions made by Putin are infinitely worse than any decision that has been made on this wiki.
For these reasons, I vote against LS032 being demoted.
Mid server 5/10 :/
Let's hear it.
MCU fans learning about other actors :0
Garfield and persona (specfically persona 3)
Garfield and the minions
Garfield in fortnite
King Nermal. I think it sucks. pretty silly. 2/10. No offence to king nermal enjoyers but y'all are stupid :P
While I do believe and appreciate that you are taking the steps to improve as a user of the wiki, I don't think that you should be re-promoted to admin at this current point in time. I've done a lot of looking over the conversations on this wiki and while I do think that you are improving as a user, I have yet to see anything that would make me believe you could be a good admin.
I very strongly believe that everything I said in my original callout post from over a month ago remains relevant, and the fact that you responded by claiming I had 'master race syndrome' and constantly mentioning the 1st Amendment, something that has no relevance to me since I do not live in the USA, shows me that you were unable to form a formal response. You were unable to respond to what I said and instead responded to the idea that the person who was saying this was a teenager. This is an ad hominem attack, something you accused me of doing. I do not believe this is the appropriate behaviour of an admin, as you should have been able to take the criticism and respond to it appropriately.
I have spoken to quite a few of my friends and close ones about this and a lot of them do believe you got off too easy with your punishment being barely a slap on the wrist. While I do not entirely agree with them, I think that you haven't done anything that would make me want you to be an admin on this wiki. You haven't truly apologized to the wiki for the behaviour I wrote about and while I do appreciate the apology you left on my message wall, I do not think that you have proven yourself worthy of being an admin at this current time, especially since your resignation wasn't even a month ago.
I do fully believe that you are improving as a wiki admin and taking the steps to do so, which is very good to see. However, not enough time has passed for me to think you would deserve the role of admin again. Another factor would be the fact that I believe you should write an apology to the general users of the wiki, as from my knowledge I am the only one you have apologised to and there are plenty of users who have dealt with aggression from you.
I also want to make it clear that I have a lot of respect for you and the time you've spent making this wiki into the great place it is now. While I originally joined with the intention of being a jerk and a troll, I've found this wiki to be a great resource to me and I've spoken to some great people through it. The work you've done on this wiki is excellent and of high quality and I enjoy being a member of this wiki.
I believe that for you to prove to me that you should be an admin once again, you would need to post an apology for some of your past behaviour. I don't think you would need to go into specifics as that would make it long-winded, but I think you need to prove that you truly are sorry for your past actions. I also think that not enough time has passed since your resignation.
Tl;dr: TeeJay87 hasn't proven that he truly regrets his past actions and not enough time has passed since his resignation, I do not believe he is worthy of being an admin at this current time.
Hello
30 Votes in Poll
I agree with this. While I don't really like TeeJay87, trolling him and being generally disrespectful/rude to him for no reason is uncalled for. If you have an issue, complain to the other wiki admins, or the staff. There's no reason to attack him.
20 Votes in Poll
Thanks for the support everyone.
By the way TeeJay87 I am Anti-Nazi and Pro-choice. And I'm 20. Not a teenager.
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.
TeeJay87, darling, you can believe whatever you want to believe and I won't stop you. However, you're not perfect either, sweetie. <3
Cool i don't care
No this is right, my uncle works at Nickelodeon and it looks just like this, even with the PowerDirector watermark
Hey, does anyone know anything about the garfield movie meant to come out this year in june? There's barely any infomation on IMDb and it still says pre-production, despite the release date being around 50 days from now. I've attached a link below. Also on wikipedia it says the release date is 'TBA' which seems odd.
Teejay i did it
Ok
What do you mean by that
