UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008

• Main
  • 2007 Archive
  • 2008 Archive
  • 2009 Archive

Status lines

Fellow Sysops Please Note: I added a section to each of the current cases so that we can keep a better tab on each of the cases...IF you vote please feel free to change the vote tally and thenoverwrite the sig for time stamp purposes. This should help us keep track of things a little easier and able to archive when we hit the magic number of majority which I beleive is 5 at the moment (10 active sysops -1 for who ever is up on misconduct). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another note...I'm not going to get into a pissing match but the point of the status lines is to keep a rolling total cut out from all the blathering if you just want to bury it back with more wall of tripe be my guest...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:25 30 December 2008 (BST)

Don't be pissy Boxy, you know you don't need my permission for shit. Just trying to do something constructive that wouldn't end up in a pointless misconduct case, rabid charge of vandalism, or hurting the feelings of a whole group. I seem to have a problem with that. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Conn has somewhat of a point, it would be helpful in updating them if they aren't replied too and we don't have to get into the question of impersonation at all.--Karek^maps?! 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason you don't want our convo moved boxy? I can't say i really care where it is, and keeping status relatively clear seems like a good idea.--xoxo 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It loses relevance if moved because you were commenting on the actual counts. Your fault it can't be moved anywhere but here, where it will probably end up in a bit.--Karek^maps?! 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Discussion about votes not relevant to the actual case isn't discussion of misconduct it's discussion of discussion of misconduct because it isn't relevant and doesn't fall into that rule". Don't bother looking, I'm quoting myself because it is more correct. --Karek^maps?! 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful not to make duplicate headers when doing this. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)