UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Suicidalangel/2009

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Suicidalangel » 2009

4th November

Edited a protected page solely to troll another user.

Admin guidelines clearly state:

"As a subset of their administration powers, system operators also have the ability to edit protected pages. Given that sysops and bureaucrats are the only users who can edit protected pages, it is expected that system operators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason."

Is anyone of you going to stand there and say that inferring that a user is similar to genitalia is "in good faith" and for "good reason"?

For sake of completeness, Finis' contributions clearly show he hasn't edited in over a year, and here is the approved request for protection due to his intended absence that he has yet to break. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Despite it being a mistake, the protection was always in place for this very reason. I would only press for a warning. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you're the second person who apparently didn't see MediaWiki:Protectedpagewarning, with the last being Nubis. This means I can logically discern that Nubis = Engel = DCC. Therefore, ban him!!! Also, maybe make the template bigger, or red, or add superfluous text, or something? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dun, tried a little red. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 04:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, that is hideous. Why don't you make it more disgusting, so that when it is looked at, they void their bowels, and thus cannot possibly miss it? :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:51, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DDR, I would even add a clause to the template that says something like, "Take care that any edits you make to this page are in good faith and for good reason, or you could be facing a Misconduct case." Just some kind of reminder of the (potential) penalty for editing a protected page. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary. The only users that will see that are sysops. Sysops should be aware of the guidelines before they take office, they're not newbies who need to be baby-sat on the wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if Kevan ever updates the wiki to make the semi-protected policy viable, a lot more people will be able to edit semi-protected pages -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:24 4 November 2009 (BST)

Kevan? An update? Have you actually contracted a sense of humour? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that. My concern was that if this is not the first case where a person apparently "didn't see" the template, then it could just as much be an issue with the template as with any sysop. So while I agree that all sysops should be aware of the guidelines, I'm just trying to address all potential issues. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Words aren't the problem, the old version tended to blend in with the default background of the wiki. DDR's new version should correct this problem more than actual wordage within the template. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't looked through the history to see the old one. It does blend quite a bit, and the red is a huge improvement. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Iscariot pretty much summed up what I intended by the change. It isn't a matter of knowing the concequences, the template's only purpose is for us to see that the page is actually protected. It's easy to miss the 'unprotect' bar at the top of the page and the template is meant to help us in that respect. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - This is only slap on the wrist material though. I'm pretty sure I've accidentally edited a protected page before myself; granted I noticed that it was protected a few minutes later and reverted, but it's really easy to miss that message (especially on a user talk page, which you wouldn't normally expect to be protected in the first place). Cyberbob  Talk  05:39, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Really? You committed misconduct? I wonder if there'll be another case coming soon.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh fuck off. Do it and I will be VB'ing you for bringing a deliberately petty case. Cyberbob  Talk  07:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're going to try and prevent a misconduct case being brought against you that's an exact copy of this one in which you've voted misconduct? So it's not petty to bring SA here, but it is for you? Double standard much? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My edit was not in "bad faith" (ie. I wasn't insulting anyone with it) and I reverted it like three minutes later. Difference. Cyberbob  Talk  07:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

"it is expected that system operators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason" - Adding your personal opinion to pages that a normal user can't and spoiling my page history is against the guidelines and therefore misconduct. As this occurred before self-punishment was banned, if you were actually sorry and regretted your mistake you could have noted it and given your own procedural warning. You could have also altered the media-wiki page as DDR did. You didn't, prep your VB case, hell post it now, as soon as I have a precedent in this case you're getting one. You are not above the same policies as SA. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

boo fucking hoo, don't you have anything better to do with yourself? Cyberbob  Talk  07:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have a play to write, but exposing your hypocrisy is taking up a lot of my time. However, I'm not a vengeful man, so I don't intend to apply for the death penalty. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

oh no, your page history... such a tragedy Cyberbob  Talk  07:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I like nice clean things, you broke mine with your cavalier attitude and disregard for the policies of this wiki. I see no reason why you get to be exempt when SA gets warned. You could just put the case up yourself, say mea culpa and get it over with instantly.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I did suggest to you a quick and easy method of resetting the history - which you chose not to do. It's a bit late to suddenly decide to make an issue of this, sorry. Cyberbob  Talk  08:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't have reset it at all, it would have put the dates completely out of sequence with the other pages. It's a CDO thing. Unfortunately you don't get to tell me it's too late or not, there is no statute of limitations to misconduct and as soon as I have an identical case that proves it is, you'll be getting the same. Keep trying to argue your way out, you voted misconduct, your actions are therefore misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CDO more like OCD Cyberbob  Talk  08:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

CDO is like OCD, except the letters are in the right order like they should be. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not identical, as outlined above -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:26 4 November 2009 (BST)

His personal opinion got added to a protected page when a normal user could not do the same. This is in breach of the guidelines. He should have responded on my talk page if he wanted to make his opinion known. He decided to put it on a protected page. Sysops have no right to place any personal opinion in places that other users cannot respond in any way. He admitted to it being misconduct on his page. Don't believe me, the links will be provided when the case comes. Though if you want to make it precedent that there are rules for normal users that sysops can ignore by abusing their abilities, vote not misconduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Complimenting you is not the same as calling you a penis, and the fact that it was undone in minutes also show that there was no intent. If you really have a OCD about sysops editing empty, protected talk pages in your namespace, you would make them redirects to your talk page instead of leaving them blank -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:36 4 November 2009 (BST)

It wasn't a compliment, it was a statement of how he felt. I shouldn't have to, nor do I have obligation to, redirect any page in my personal userspace. The onus is on sysops editing on the wiki to ensure that they are not editing protected pages. There was no "good reason" to place the remark on that page rather than my own talk page. Simple fact is, he fucked up, committed misconduct and admitted as much. If there really was no intent I would expected an alteration to the template as DDR did or the lodging of a procedural warning as self-punishment had not been removed then. He did none of these after committing blatant misconduct. You can go on about it being undone minutes later, so was SA's edit in this case, it doesn't change the fact that misconduct occurred when he saved the page. Or would it not have been misconduct if Grim had immediately re-promoted everyone? Didn't think so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're so excited to have "caught" someone in one of your little traps... and that's what it is, because despite you not being obliged to do it, redirecting those pages would have been the logical thing to do, and would have taken one one thousandth of the effort it took to write that last post. Thanks for confirming you have nothing like an OCD... what you have is called trollitis -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:54 4 November 2009 (BST)

Again you seem to have avoided the question, is it OK to commit misconduct provided you cover your tracks quick or is the misconduct at the time of the action? Would Grim have got a slap on the wrist if he re-promoted everyone? Please stop trying to imply intent on my side. My pages were perfectly legal and I wouldn't have to be writing any of this if Cyberbob hadn't pressed save on a protected page, yes or no? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Holy shit you are the dumbest crybaby I have ever seen. Please write some more words, you haven't spent quite enough time whining about something that happened ages ago on the internet yet. Cyberbob  Talk  08:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The irony of you saying this after what you've repeatedly tried to pull with Read is staggering. Do you deny that you admitted this was misconduct? It seems that my page history can be stained and so can SA's record, but yours? Oh no, you're above the same rules that apply to everyone else aren't you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Erm, case at hand please? I know this sounds rich coming from my behaviour this week but: who gives a fuck what Iscariot has to say. Let's have this case done with and ended already. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct with a warning? It'd be more, but for the fact that I doubt it was intentional -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:09 4 November 2009 (BST)

It was not intentional by his own claim and I believe him. The case is about as petty as the crime (while being misconduct is pretty meh) so I'm for a warning. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 10:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Quick question. Is it me, or does that template not always show up? I just checked out the old version and last night? It wasn't there when I went to edit. This wasn't a case of not seeing the template, it just wasn't there. I'll still take the warning, because I can work them off like nothing anyway, but I promise it wasn't there. Fuck man. :/ -- SA 00:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure it's always there, just easy to ignore because we deal with it so often, perhaps. Anyways, case is Misconduct, and Warned. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's there sometimes. And I'll not dispute the ruling if everyone keeps an eye out for the disappearing template, just to make sure. :D -- SA 01:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha k. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 01:39, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

6_th July

Deleted the images from this case when the majority were clearly against it. Pornography is by its very nature subjective and if the majority of the community agree that this is not pornography (and lets be clear here, these people can be very prudish when it comes to porn images) that it isn't porno one sysop should be allowed to come through and delete it anyway. Undelete, let the images serve their time and be deleted/not deleted as per the usual methods (aka democracy) and slap a warning on SA.--xoxo 16:27, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Get ready for a big surprise here folks...Not Misconduct. They spoke for themselves and sysops have carte blanche to delete what they perceive as pornography thanks to the scheduled deletions policy. Remember that when you vote in your sysops in the future...or change the policy. I return you to your regularly scheduled wiki-drama, I have shit to do. (that's for DDR ;) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:54, 6 July 2009 (BST)

We can't undelete images, Jed. Unless someone's got them in their Firefox cache (or saved on their hard drive,) they're gone for good. Linkthewindow  Talk  17:18, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Not voting here since I'm involved, but the reason I put those images up for deletion as they weren't obviously pornographic (I mean, line drawings?) but still rather offensive (actually, the reason I put those up for deletion was because a friend complained about them on IRC.) So I put them up for a vote to let the community decide, as it wasn't obvious porn, but wasn't just a dirty joke, ether. Linkthewindow  Talk  17:17, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Pornography - Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal. That wasn't meant to be sexually arousing. That's called sexual humor. We've all seen Superbad. The famous dick drawings in the movie were within an R Rating because they weren't pornographic. If they were it would probably have made it a NC-17 or not even released. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 17:48, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct bad faith abuse of sops power? Nope. Personal opinion. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:50, 6 July 2009 (BST)

You just answered your own question. He used a conflicting opinion to go against the will of the community with his powers, i.e. misconduct.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:11, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Can someone tell me the purpose why regular users are allowed to vote on deletions? I'm mean, more then 3/4 of voters voted "keep", but apparently sysops can still say fuck democracy and push their opinion down community's throat. Why is the opinion of the community asked, when it's going to be ignored in the end? --Thadeous Oakley 17:59, 6 July 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009#26_March Linkthewindow  Talk  18:06, 6 July 2009 (BST)

You can't give me a clear answer, eh?--Thadeous Oakley 18:13, 6 July 2009 (BST)

No, I was showing you the precedent that a scheduled deletion overrides community opinion. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:53, 7 July 2009 (BST)

How is this not misconduct? The community said keep them, but you still deleted them. I don't see how in the hell that is pornography, just a stupid drawing. OH NOEZ ITS A LINE PENIZ!!!! I mean come on.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:06, 6 July 2009 (BST)

I have to agree with Thad here, Why ask for our opinion when they're just gonna ignore it?... Would posting my revolution template here be vandalism?--Imthatguy 18:14, 6 July 2009 (BST)

I wouldn't do that if I were you, you have already got a warning for spamming it. Templates should remain on user/group pages as much possible not in the admin sections.--Thadeous Oakley 18:16, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Not to go off topic, but your template does nothing. Not even people who dislikes the sysops seem to like it. And it's not the way you change stuff. We have already had a coup here and it was just a big facepalm.--SirArgo ^Talk 18:21, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Which is why I put it up for deletions, instead of just deleting it outright (which I would have done if it was obvious porn.) Linkthewindow  Talk  18:08, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Keep votes outnumber delete from 10 to 4, and the request wasnt supposed to be proccessed until July 12. Even a sysop was among the keep voters. How come this isnt misconduct ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 19:36, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Because the community doesn't know what it wants. They think that "less red tape" sounds like a great idea, until something comes up where they want sysops constrained by red tape -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:27 6 July 2009 (BST)

To A/PD it is then. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:49, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Actually, wait, A/PD's overkill for this. Talk:Deletions it is, then :P Linkthewindow  Talk  03:06, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - Crude knob drawings which could have been done by a 12 year old do not make my definition of porn. On top of that, one sysops opinion does not overrule the communities opinion. -- Cheese 19:40, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - sysops were given the right to decide, unilaterally, what is and is not pornographic, and remove it from the wiki on sight. The fact that the scheduled deletion is not working means that it should be removed. I've only seen it used twice, and both times the sysop involved was taken to misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:27 6 July 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - as everyone else yadda yadda yadda. If SA, or any one of us thought those images were pornographic then out they go. I personally don't think they cross the line but I can see how someone could think otherwise.--Cyberbob 23:11, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As Sonny, I was going to cite the definition of Pornography but Sonny got there first. SA had a right to delete pornographic images which find themselves in that grey area, but there really has to be a line that's drawn, which stops sysops from just going too far on that definition of porn. The pornography clause of Scheduled Deletions is supposed to protect the community, and the community has already expressed through the vote that they don't believe this is pornography. Seriously, deleting a line penis because it is pornographic? Give me a break. If SA's criteria of "penor shooting stuffs" is reason, then why don't I just head over to PA Rebel Alliance and have at that? A 4 year old beauty, oh, my, this one even has colourised semen. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:33, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Undecided - DDR did bring up a good point, If no penis line drawings are allowed, then you absolutly have to take down that image, and tons of other photos. HOWEVER, Some of the buildings names in urban dead have a sexual reffrence to them, "mycock building" I think this is a grey line. HOWEVER, a penis is a penis, and kids play this game, so lets be honest, there are tons of places on the internet to put doodles of a penis, the wiki is not one of them.--Bonghit420 01:54, 7 July 2009 (BST)

one such image is actually a GIF of bouncing titties! I mean, im all for bouncing titties, but if you can't let the ladies have a line drawing penis, then us men should be neglected the titties.--Bonghit420 02:01, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Stop with this Bonghit, these rulings are sysops only. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:15, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Trying to silence the masses eh?--Imthatguy 02:25, 7 July 2009 (BST)

OK, fess up. Who are you an alt of? --Cyberbob 02:38, 7 July 2009 (BST)

????? ive been on the wiki for about 6 months or so, im no ones puppet --Imthatguy 02:40, 7 July 2009 (BST)

You retard, only sysops can rule on misconduct cases. And yeah bob, he's been around for 9 months and made <200 edits. A true martyr for his cause of saving this wiki. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:47, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Ouch.... you dont wanna be up for misconduct next, do you?--Imthatguy 02:49, 7 July 2009 (BST)

There's no civility policy. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:53, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, please try, the instance a sysop gets misconducted for insulting someone (see: "no civilty policy" and "sysops are not moderators") then I'll immediately self demote. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:54, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct. What the hell does a penis drawing have to do with Urban Dead? It isn't a game about cocks or sex and things like that have no place on the WIKI that is supposed to be for information about the game. Even if it was a zombie cock until Kevan adds a SKULLFUCK button to the attacks nothing sexual should be on here. You people think that this is your playground to post whatever stupid shit you want, but it is an information resource about a game. We should really crack down more on copyrighted images, too. Take your smut back to 4chan.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:17, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Who are you and what have you done to Nubis ? He was way funnier than you, and would enjoy a lil' fun. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 03:35, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Nubis is dead. All hail the newbis.--– Nubis ^NWO 03:42, 7 July 2009 (BST)

lmao --Cyberbob 03:42, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I'd have to agree with you - no gray area means no silly misconduct and community rabbling. Also, does the newbis come with new car smell? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 03:46, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Are you willing to pay 37 cents plus 45.99 USD for shipping for one of our patented "long lasting" air freshener extensions to our newest model, the Newbis?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:48, 7 July 2009 (BST)

New car smell gives you cancer. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:59, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Does this new Nubis vote/ actually look at the images he rules on? Because it was quite Ud related. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:49, 7 July 2009 (BST)

This Newbis doesn't come with upgraded wiki software that makes deleted images able to be undeleted. That's a dead horse that has been flogged to pieces on Kevan's page. Please explain how it was UD related. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:16, 7 July 2009 (BST)

teh penis and semen was over the top of some squares from the game's map! i dont see how that wouldnt make the ejaculating penis game related because fgasfgesahtwrywthwetb --Cyberbob 13:50, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Context of it was demonstrating their tactics of their conquer of the fort. Without the images, the Bunnies' recount of their campaign is practically null. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:26, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Yes, because there are no accounts of anything significant without pictures that people agree happened.--– Nubis ^NWO 19:53, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Looks like all the active sysops have voted. Currently five not misconduct to two misconduct. No punishment required, bla bla bla. I now point you here, as, in the aftermath of this case, I think the porn scheduled deletion needs a reworking. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:23, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Like listening to the community?..... how typical, protecting their own people--Imthatguy 04:07, 7 July 2009 (BST)

(you aren't the first to try this row row fight the powah gig on for size and you certainly aren't the best) --Cyberbob 04:10, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:14 7 July 2009 (BST)

Lulz , but the community seemed to think it wasnt.... judging by what i've heard i would probally vote for it to get deleted but SA here thinks he has the authority to over-rule the majority, which he might indeed have this power, which is needless to say wrong --Imthatguy 04:21, 7 July 2009 (BST)

no u (are wrong) --Cyberbob 04:24, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Eloaborate your point please --Imthatguy 04:27, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Eloaborate? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:03, 7 July 2009 (BST)

was gonna elaborate but noticed that's clearly not what he wants --Cyberbob 05:05, 7 July 2009 (BST)

No please elaborate, srry using IE it doesnt have a built in spell checker like firefox--Imthatguy 05:28, 7 July 2009 (BST)

Oh no it's far too late now sorry --Cyberbob 05:30, 7 July 2009 (BST)

So we have decend to an 'I'm right and your wrong, no matter what' mentality have we? --Imthatguy 05:32, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I think it's more like a "he's right and you're dumb" mentality. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 05:34, 7 July 2009 (BST)

We do when our adversary is someone as clueless, ignorant and idiotic as you. At leased Iscariot knew about rules. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:35, 7 July 2009 (BST)

_{Edit conflicted}It helps if you understand the rules regarding scheduled deletions. Scheduled deletions override normal deletions (A/D) - precedent. Since there was no definition for "porn" here, it makes the scheduled deletion rather ambiguous (which isn't a good thing, as seen here.) Don't like it? Go and help get it changed instead of fighting the powah and achieving nothing. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:35, 7 July 2009 (BST)

I have submitted my thoughts on help get it changed cyberbob here just seems to be... well wahtever the hell he thinks hes accomplishing --Imthatguy 05:39, 7 July 2009 (BST)

31st May

SA posted the following on my talkpage:

" Your signature does not conform with policy. I'm removing the colouring because precedent states that not only must a signature link to the user in questions user-page or an identifiable sub-page, it must also be easy to see. The very light yellow colour is not easy to see on the default white background. Reverting your signature to the previous version or something very similar in it's breaking of policy will be considered vandalism. Please check with me with any revisions you make to prevent needless cases against you from being made. This edit is also an official administrative action and is not deleteable by your rules. If it is deleted before this case is sorted out in it's entirety it will also be considered ignoring a System Operators request to fall in line with policy and will be considered vandalism.

Of course you can always just leave the revision I'm about to make to your sig to end this case quickly.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:19, 31 May 2009 (BST)

The signature policy can be found here.

This case concerns only the misconduct portions of this post, the act of vandalism is already subject to its own case.

Warning a user under this policy is not, and has never been a sysop only ability. SA invokes his status during his post which is him attempting to use his sysop status as a badge of authority. This is clear under "This edit is also an official administrative action"

Then he uses "If it is deleted before this case is sorted out in it's entirety it will also be considered ignoring a System Operators request to fall in line with policy and will be considered vandalism." to attempt to use his status to force his post to remain on my talkpage. This is him attempting to use his sysop status to override Specific Case Editing Guidelines which give me every right to remove whatever I want from pages in my userspace for any reason I see fit.

Finally, saying that my signature is blanket vandalism is patently incorrect, one sysop cannot rule vandalism and bind the rest of the team. He abuses his status by attempting to threaten that a legal signature will be found vandalism. I am also allowed a week to change my signature according to the policy (although I do not have to as my sig in no way breaks any policy).

We await the block voting to save another incompetent sysop from an ineffectual warning. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Having your signature white against a white background is questionable and I was just about to come and ask you to change it myself. However, I'm sure we've been over this pre-emptive sig changing thing before with Read and a couple of other folk so I'm going to go and check out the archives before I rule on this case. -- Cheese 16:31, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Given your previous inability to read the sig policy, would you care to follow the link above and tell me what my sig breaches on that policy? And what, therefore, you were going to talk to me about? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:45, 31 May 2009 (BST)

It isn't actually white, it was a very very pale form of yellow, I believe. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:32, 31 May 2009 (BST)

DDR's right. That said, it's a very, very pale form of yellow. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:45, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Boxy would have changed mine before talking with me if I used a template which I don't. Moar in a bit.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:33, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Precedent? -- Cheese 16:41, 31 May 2009 (BST)

That's to do with banning a user IIRC, this is to do with his wording and thereby using his status as a sysop as a badge of authority to breach three policies. This is the subject of the case, the incorrect act of editing my pages is the subject of a vandal banning case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:47, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Alright, here's my defense. Iscariot has been known to disrupt parts of the wiki for whatever reasons he may have. He also has been known to ignore requests and attempts to work with him by the administration.

I personally find his signature disruptive (Shut up guys, I know my past sig was hell. We're not talking about that), as it masks where his link is. At least Swiers always used a period or other small character that you could still see. Iscariot's was for all intents and purposes invisible. I changed it because it was a small change and Iscariot should show good faith and be willing to work with the admin team to correct a problem. I didn't outright punish him or anything, I simply made a change to get it out of the way and provide an example of an acceptable signature.

I wouldn't have had to sound so hard and hammer-droppy if it wasn't for this next bit that I say.

I used my sys ops status as a way to make sure the post would stay on his page, yes. But was I abusing it? No. Isacariot has been known to delete even complimentary Admin posts from his page for no reason other than he hates the admin team/he can. Being that I was the one to bring it up, and also probably be the one to close it in the end where it may have been Vandalism, I think I'm entitled to say that this particular case was a sysops only action. Especially if that's the only way to make sure Izzy would see the post and not just delete it and ignore it like he is so fond of doing. This was my was of sorting it out without having to start a vandalism case just because he'd delete the comment. If you notice I include a clause that states that when the case is done he can remove the comment, but not until it's done to help make sure he gets it fixed.

I think I covered everything. I'm going to the store. Be back soons.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:59, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Great a whole bunch of ad hominem attacks, brilliant start to a defence there (please note the 'c' in defence).

Notice everyone how his language changed, on my talk page we have "Your signature does not conform with policy" and here we have "I personally find his signature disruptive", the backtracking begins. I tell you what SA, if you can point me to the section of the sig policy (I have linked it in my opening post) that my signature breaks I'll drop both cases. We both know you can't and you're attempting to force this through using sysop dislike of me. Fact is, nothing's wrong with my sig. We both know your merry band of admins will rally round you because of their dislike of me, but I'll still await you showing some good faith and reverting your vandalism. I won't be holding my breath though.

No doubt I can further take that response apart, but I'll wait for the inevitable double standard of the other sysops to begin before I make those points for the benefit of the community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:10, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Notice how me saying it does not conform while not conversing with the rest of the team is still the same as saying I personally do not believe it conforms with policy. You're smart enough to look around and see if I discussed it anywhere else with anyone else.

Not only is there precedent in stating that your sig must be easy to identify, but "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." (My bold) can easily be interpreted, and has been in the past, to mean that your sig must be easy to identify. Yours was not. Go ahead and drop the cases now, but we both know you won't.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:18, 31 May 2009 (BST)

As you'd know if you spoke correct English you'd understand that the sentence must be taken as a whole, meaning it must contain a link to your userpage or user sub pages so that a reader of a comment or edit can follow the sig back to your pages in order to discover more about you. It does say nothing about colour now does it?

Since you're having problems with the policy, I'll help you:

"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature."

The handle portion of my sig does link to my user page. People are able to follow this link to learn more about me.

"Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below."

I have no superscript adorments, images or other parts of my sig that link anywhere.

"What wouldn't be allowed"

"Signatures which have images higher then 14 pixels high."

No images.

"Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means."

The wider wiki and its format was not altered by my sig.

"Signatures which impersonate another user."

I don't do this.

"Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP."

The only link is to my userpage.

"Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions (closing the browser for example)."

No external links.

"Signatures which contain images larger then 50kb."

No images.

"What would be allowed"

"Anything that doesn't come under what isn't allowed."

That would be my sig then.

Your attempt to backtrack over whether it is considered vandalism by you or anyone else is undermined by "If it is deleted before this case is sorted out in it's entirety it will also be considered ignoring a System Operators request to fall in line with policy and will be considered vandalism." - Notice the 'will', that's a definitive, not a possible. You didn't say 'might be vandalism' you said 'will be considered vandalism'. You admitted previously that you did invoke your status, this sentence shows you are attempting to express authority on this wiki with that statement. You're guilty, just can't admit you're wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:33, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct You and SLR were doing the same thing and it was upheld in his case. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:29, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - the signature ("I") was deliberately intended to go against the spirit of our sig policy, which is basically to ensure that signatures make it easy to identify the poster, and arn't page breaking/malicious. Just because it is done in a way that can be wiki-lawyered to not break the word of the policy, doesn't mean it isn't something done in bad faith. It's entirely reasonable to revert something like this, and warn that a vandalism case may be brought if it's repeated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:54 1 June 2009 (BST)

Just as a point now the obvious rally round so that one of our own can't be convicted, I'd like to illustrate to the community just how incompetent these rulings are. I point you at this vandalism case, edited by Cheese (who above said that he was about to talk to me about my current sig), Boxy (who violates the sig policy by ruling my sig illegal) and Nubis (who seems to think these two cases are the same, even though I demonstrated earlier that they aren't). So vandalism case with three sysops on it from the 28th December.

Now compare this, the exact same sig used before. The sig was there for longer than a week after they edited the case with that sig and not one of these trusted users has a problem with it. Odd how that it becomes illegal when SA resorts to bullying tactics isn't it?

One rule for us, one for them, a completely different precedent whenever one of them can be convicted. Odd that... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:17, 1 June 2009 (BST)

It's sad how desperate for attention you are. It's interesting how you always find these amusing wiki-lawyering cases. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:15, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct because Iscariot is right.</sarcasm> Bad faith and you know it. and SA giving you a soft warning is well within his authority. If you want a real one I'm sure somebody wouldn't mind putting it up on the vandalism page. And by the way..the community consensus is: One should be able to ID who made a post by looking at the signature. Once again I urge a ban on all "custom" sigs (but know that will never happen) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:15, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Your sig is technically a "custom sig". ;) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:37, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I think he means templated sigs... --Pestolence^(talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I know. It's just fun to poke fun at Connie every once in awhile. Show him that we don't hate him, even if he messes up occasionally. You know?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:55, 2 June 2009 (BST)

well you know us old folks are still having problems figuring out how this internet thing works...I mean hell the last time I did any REAL programing COBOL and FORTRAN were the new thing...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:09, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Wow, I mean, I knew you were old, but well...Damn. I've never even bothered to learn Cobol. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:15, 2 June 2009 (BST)

LaLaLa... The only time I ever tried programming was on a ZX81 Spectrum; it was brand new at the time :( --Honestmistake 10:07, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Notice everyone, that while SA is allowed to break basic rules and policies of this wiki and then be resolutely backed up by his incompetent comrades, not one of the biased lot have raised the point that his sig is now illegal. Odd that, don't ya think? One rule for normal users, one for sysops. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:54, 2 June 2009 (BST)

At least it is instantly recognizable as a sig. It probably should have the link to his page for the first bit tho... Still if you don't like it there is a procedure for complaining about it that you could try using instead of just playing martyr--Honestmistake 10:13, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Actually we don't have a system in place anymore, I'd have been given a week and a polite request to change my sig. As this has been ruled misconduct by the incompetents, the former system is defunct. But I bet if I went and edited SA's sig to bring it into line with policy, that would be ruled vandalism, but his edit wasn't. Odd that...

It doesn't strike you as even slightly strange that the sig in question, used for over two weeks and seen by sysops all over the wiki wasn't against policy then, but now is? Coupled with the fact that the moron in question now has an illegal sig and not one of them has said a thing, not to mention the length of time Axe Hack's been wandering around with an illegal sig, has any of them said anything? Of course they haven't. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:30, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Call me tired at 4:30 AM, but how does SA's sig break the rules, exactly? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 10:33, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Signatures need to include a link to your userpage (they also need to be obvious). His doesn't have such a link. --Cyberbob 10:48, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Iscariot says a little ways up: "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 10:51, 2 June 2009 (BST)

I'm not trying to skirt the rules, just poke a bit of fun at Izzy. I did not think it broke the spirit of the rules, as it's link to my page is still easily identifiable (hint it's the entire damn link), and I say that the quote is from my talk page, which upon clicking the link, it brings you to my user page. Upon clicking my talk page and scrolling down, you will see that it is indeed on my talk page. The link is not hidden, unlike yours is right now (Though not as bad as before). It doesn't impersonate you, because a direct quote with a little half-assed citing isn't impersonation. Hell, it actually encourages people to click that link and go to my talk page to see what would consume you in a fit of inbred stupidity to say...

"I invite you to explain why you are obeying these rules constitutes a difference with Cheese's rules explains the difference between what you're saying and precedence's example"

Yeah. MY signature is valid, as it's not hard to figure out who posted this message or that message, just mouse over the link, like you have to do with other users occasionally. The only difference between mine and theirs is that theirs is some sort of nickname (Krazymonkey-->cheese) whereas mine is a quote. Deal with it, this is being archived soon as it seems I have gotten off the hook, and besides, you whining about my sig is grounds for another case and has nothing to do with this one. Though I encourage other sysops to hurry up and decide if they plan to make a decision. These cases don't have to sit for days you know.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:49, 2 June 2009 (BST)

You're kidding about your signature, right? You know perfectly well you have to link directly to your userpage or one of its subpages. I would not count the talk page as a subpage. --Cyberbob 14:11, 2 June 2009 (BST)

He's talking about the fun sig on User:Suicidalangel/Sandbox. He's had a signature that only links to his talk page for a long, long time now, also. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Ah, I see. Who gives a shit about that "fun one"? What relevance does it have? --Cyberbob 14:45, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Shit, which sig are we talking about? The templated one, or the non-templated one? Because no I think I realize I've been defending the wrong one, because Iscariot said "If I edited it, I'd be vandal banned", and you can't edit my sig I currently use...

Also, in the guidelines it does say that it must link to the user page, or a sub-page. the talk page seems better to me for people to link to because it allows them to communicate with me more efficiently. At least that was my thoughts back when I made that sig. Now, I really just don't care anymore. People will make it there eventually.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:24, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Bleh, I still think you're wrong but I cbf'd getting into some big argument over it. Got better things to spend my time on. --Cyberbob 14:45, 2 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - as Boxy, Nubis and Conn. The cases with Axe Hack and SA's signatures are potentially valid, but this isn't the time/place for them. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:11, 2 June 2009 (BST)

It's been 4 days since the last ruling, so I am going to have this finally archived as Not Misconduct. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (BST)