UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Gage

misconduct Rebuttal

Read your own damn rules before you quote. Rules say:

   * Spaminated - If the removed Suggestion has become eligible for Spamination, you must:
        1. List the number of Spam Votes received and the total number of votes.
        2. State that the Suggestion was Spaminated.
        3. List or summarize/paraphrase the comments/reasons made on the Spam votes.
        4. Move the suggestion to Peer Rejected Suggestions page.
        5. Sign the removal.
        6. Be Polite and make no additional comments. 

As for not signing my complaint- being a newb to wikis it was an honest oversight. I forgot to clicky clicky. This whole thing has certainly discouraged me from wanting to contribute again. Congratulate yourselves both on a job well done, Gage and Conndraka. Great team work. Keep it up.--SporeSore 01:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Running here and trying to force a misconduct case over this is patently absurd. This is not a case for misconduct, this is a case for calling Gage a sloppy editor. Nothing less, nothing more. You could call him for misconduct if it were mod-spammed when it had a dozen keeps, no kills, no dupes and three spams, or some variation thereof. This is not a case where Gage broke the mod-spamination rules which is what misconduct is about. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 02:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, apparently it was not okay for me to delete the above block as someone has reverted it and I have been accused of vandalism. To whomever reverted it: you reverted back to Xoid's last comment as opposed to mine, which was the final edit before I deleted the whole text. Was this a deliberate act of censorship? I have cut and pasted the omitted text below. If it was vandalism for me to delete the whole text, it is vandalism for you to not restore it fully.

Okay. I should have known to post this minor complaint under the Suggestions/Discussions instead of Misconduct. At least I can say I am unfamiliar with this wiki. Moderators should know better; telling me in a civil fashion what I should have done, instead of misquoting the rules and slapping my fanny, would have been preferable and more productive.--SporeSore 13:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Rollback feature restores to the last version by a user other than the one responsible for the most recent edit(s). e.g., You have 202 revisions of a page where all edits (other than creation of the page) were by Xoid and you then revert my most recent edit using the Rollback feature? Instead of only going back a single revision you'll go back 201 revisions. It's extremely easy to forget or overlook. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 04:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that.--Gage 04:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't someone just delete this text block permanently? It is a waste of space. I would have no objections.--SporeSore 17:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Deletion or blanking of discussion on project namespace talk pages does not happen, discussion is merely archived when no longer relevant. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)