UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Suicidalangel/2009

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)