Acebatonfan wrote: As for undoing edits, we cannot tell your intentions behind an edit if you leave the edit summary blank. If you're fixing grammar, say that (though the grammar was technically correct on that edit). The wiki encompasses hundreds of games that not everyone may have played, which makes it important for you to explain why an edit might be false (and why you are undoing it). In general, if an edit can be improved on versus undone, then don't undo the edit. For the Prison Life edit, you could have said something along the lines of "You can only handcuff prisioners who are in safe zones only if they shoot at or punch a guard". For the MeepCity page, it could have been rewritten to say "Players frequently criticize the game for being unoriginal due to it heaviliy being influenced by Club Penguin and ToonTown. Meeps are similar to Puffles from Club Penguin...". We can't read minds, so all that saw when you were undoing edits was you undoing edits that I thought were in good faith (and they still are, in my opinion. Remember that assuming good faith means that the person is trying to improve the wiki, even if they might unintentionally include inaccurate info). Well you don't need to block someone just because they don't follow quality standards.
I included that link to you undoing an edit that led to an edit war, because it was also an edit that you did not include a reason for undoing. If you wrote something explaining your rationale behind undoing the edit, then maybe the conflict could have been resolved instead of that editor resorting to vandalism. It frustrated me that you were using the block conversation I was having with LocustWorld to talk about how you believed you were in the right. I felt like that made the conversation more tense, like LocustWorld was being interrogated instead of me trying to investigate into the issue and offer a compromise to the page. I explained in that thread how I did not find either edit to be biased, but it felt like you were continuing to argue with me and him. You requested closing the thread, but I personally don't like closing block threads, as it's one of the only easy ways of communicating with an admin about the block. In the edit the summary clearly said that greenlegocats is clickbait.
I provided the link to that final warning as an example of you arguing with us, not to debate the reason for you making that PA contribution in the first place. Some admins edit the content to say [Removed] while other admins delete the entire comment. It depends on the situation and if the contribution can contribute to further discussion if the inappropriate comment is removed. It felt like you were arguing with us, because we deleted the contribution instead of editing it to remove the inappropriate stuff (when if we did that, the comment would be pointless. Removing it, in my opinion, was the best option).
I remember seeing your post about the sockpuppetry concerns, but it completely slipped past my mind. If I'm remembering correctly, one of the other administrators/moderators handled the concerns? Just because someone is making similar contributions doesn't mean they're a sockpuppet of another editor. Please remember that I have obligations outside of the wiki and that just because I don't respond to something that is already taken care of by an admin/mod doesn't mean I'm ignoring you. Then explain how you find sockpuppets of other users.