Board Thread:User Rights Requests/@comment-477304-20170417190140/@comment-30679113-20170418020941

Myself 123 wrote: BlueSpeeder wrote: Myself 123 wrote: This has nothing to do with politics, this is about an admin acting out of line. Actions that still aren't being addressed, by the way. And now the thread has boiled down to childish retorts and threats. "An admin acting out of line" is an overreaction. He closes threads, you whine, make a demotion thread for such a little complaint. May I add that this demotion thread got to about eighty messages before becoming a pool of "childish retorts" and "threats" when there's nothing left to be said. With the exception of you and Genesjs (who will probably take another hour or so to finish commenting on whatever he has left to say), everyone believes we should close this thread already.

Tell me, is this really a demotion for the greater good for the wiki or for your/Genesjs's personal agenda to eliminate Journalistic? Right now, it's looking like the latter, and even when you started this demotion you didn't add any sources, nothing to back up your argument, everyone who sided with you, with the exception of Genesjs, rejected their statements and decided to oppose this demotion soon afterward, and now it's literally become the same users shouting back and forth, repeating each other.

I repeat from my first message from this thread: y'all are intolerable. It's the closing of threads and general attitude of Journalistic wich is the problem, you can downplay the attitude all you like, but it's there nevertheless. You may consider it an overreaction and if that be the case, it's because of Journalistic's reluctance to actually respond to people when they have a problem with them. If I cannot get a responce from him, and (as you've stated multiple times) talking about him tp another user is wrong, then there's little I can do to address this problem. I'm well aware that at the current moment the community does is not in favour of the demotion, rules are rules. If you're unwilling to adhere to that rule, why should anyone follow any of the rules.

And what agenda would I have, exactly? What makes you think I have some ill intentions towards Journalistic? I've respected him in the past and agreed with some of the actions in the past. What would I personally benefit from by all this. I thought you'd be more level-headed than that. I'll admit I could've done better to initially represent my position, but it's absurd to imply I have ulterior motives. If you ask me I'd say your attitude towards this whole thing is no better than what Journalistic did.