Well, that's not really all that crazy, because two users have done that.
And by "unsupported nonsense", I was talking about the claim that the other user from a few days ago got hacked. Again, that is not even close to possible, but it is however possible that users will (or will not, that's their choice as we can't go against the ToU) state their age. I wasn't saying it was nonsense that users could or couldn't admit their ages.
(Edit: They won't say "ban me", they'll give it out by their own personal approval without even knowing that'll get them disabled in a day or two.)
But yeah two users have already used these threads to admit their age and I just don't want to see that happening since we are not supposed to ask for ages or birth dates. It's fine just having it reported to Wikia if they give it out in a consensual manner.
The purpose of this post by Trainer Micah is to clarify that the reason I blocked those users is because they were perpetually evading global bans. The reason they were disabled by Wikia is because they were under 13, not because they got "hacked" which the user who got banned is under the impression of. And I've taken note of how Wikia's software requirements make it pretty much impossible for that user to have gotten their account compromised or hacked, and it makes it clearer for future cases this occurs. (Because I predict people who don't quite get how this works will think it's an abuse of rights...) It's also saying that we request anyone to report this if a user claims "I got hacked, I'm Heart or four-word-name-user" because this is a repeat evasion of global bans that is a problem and the users who defend the other side are just using that pretense (which me and the poster of this thread have seen through, which is good). It requests reporting sockpuppetry that we can see beyond what other users and moderators normally don't, and for everyone to report it if a user returns to make a sockpuppet account (I remember they had another one called "god lion [something like that]" and if so this means three accounts were disabled in a time frame that is too short for any hacked account to be requested disablement for and even erasure of the profile as well) rather than pretend that it is a trivial matter or something that shouldn't be worried about, because there are tons of new users every day who write off topic posts (such as one user who kept writing in Russian, which I actually specifically warned them in Russian by looking up how to say "please speak English" online because I don't know Russian unlike easy-to-understand-for-me Japanese) so these are actually everyday matters that we just have to warn and block every time, and it's not even comparable or even funny to the tiny media "issues" running under unpopular companies situated in very few media-heavy states pretending to represent all of America or any other such example.
And as Mira Laime said (apart of the staff of this network for the website), it's highly likely that Wikia banned them for Terms of Use violations (such as writing something implicitly stating they're 11) because there's no way a hacker got hold and requested it while logged in because disabling by choice takes 30 days from initiation and the original account posted 4 or so days ago which means that it's way below 30.
And I didn't ban the user for being under 13, I banned them here for sockpuppeting under different names to post the same nonsense thread and continue to use multiple names that will continue to get disabled and those types of users are not something we need to deal with. What Trainer Micah is saying is that everyone who thinks I am abusing my powers in banning sockpuppets that pretend to have gotten hacked (who claim contrary to what the Wikia staff have reasonably concluded at that), really needs to look at rule 10 and report these sockpuppets if they show up posting under several different names , *rather than* give any attention to the accounts evading their global ban on the main account by pretending there's no issue, as those who are aware of these sockpuppets of Pedro Samuel Leite Dias are on the correct side in observing it from a perspective that goes beyond what most of the wiki will treat as a non-issue (despite the fact that the user getting disabled and continuously making the same type of thread is indeed kind of an issue, and me blocking them before they're disabled may get the message better to that user to understand they were indeed not hacked and as stated, he claims he was hacked but wasn't because under no reason is he to link personal info without permission.