UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/What is not vandalism
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
If you want this to be taken seriously, here are some tips:
- Take this to the Policy Discussion page.
- Don't make personal attacks.
- Make it make sense.
Thank you. Cyberbob Talk 12:59, 12 June 2006 (BST)
- Fixed the fith horseman's incomplete moving.--Vista 15:36, 12 June 2006 (BST)
This is already the case and doesn't need to be mentioned specifically. taking a personal vendetta to this level is childish and not something me need. I propose you retract this quickly The Fifth Horseman.--Vista 15:39, 12 June 2006 (BST)
The personal remark has been removed now. However, given that there is nothing in the rules that specifically prohibits moderators from using what I described as a basis for vandalism charges, I refuse to retract the suggestion itself.
Cyberbob viewed it that way. In the future there might be others who will do the same, and that means a lot of wasted time and possibly several unjustified warn increases being dispensed.
I doubt any of us would want that to happen to any more users.--The Fifth Horseman 15:55, 12 June 2006 (BST)
- I actually don't view it that way, and never did. I can't believe I'm still explaining this to you. The Guidelines page always had the Moderation category on it. I saw you remove it. I knew you had done other things, but in a rare lapse of stupidity I thought that the rollback button would only revert your last edit. I didn't think it would revert your other edits. So I never viewed it that way! (I'm repeating myself here so I hopefully won't have to in future posts) Cyberbob Talk 16:07, 12 June 2006 (BST)
It never had, until I added it. Furthermore, there is no such cathegory. --The Fifth Horseman 16:23, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Oh. Well, I guess that'll teach me to take in the whole picture before acting... which doesn't change the fact that I thought I was doing the right thing. I'm positive there was a Moderation category... wasn't there? :(
Regardless, the change you're proposing is already part of the rule. The thing that happened before was a simple mistake on my part - I didn't check the entirety of what you were doing. Sorry. Cyberbob Talk 16:31, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Very well, if you say that's how things are... retracted. --The Fifth Horseman 13:14, 13 June 2006 (BST)
All the moderation pages are without any category whatsoever, from what I've seen. With the exception of guidelines because Fifth added the rather sensible Policy Document category to it. Regardless, since this is done; does this page even need to exist anymore? Wait, I see there is a section for archived policy discussions. Situation fixed. –Xoid S•T•FU! 13:22, 13 June 2006 (BST)
