UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Appropriate Signatures

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.


Throughout my time on Wikis I have noticed that the template signatures have the potential to be used for vandalism and there have never been any clear guidelines to stop people from changing these into something destructive. As you know edits to your own user page cannot be considered vandalism unless you impersonate someone. However an edit to a signature can be much more destructive to a wiki then any amount of attempted vandalism may be. This is because 1, User pages are protected so the signature cannot be edited by anyone else, and 2, because if the user has signed allot of pages then it'ld be very hard, if not impossible to eliminate all of the users vandalism due to the fact that hundreds of people would have made edits over the users edits. This policy aims to allow moderators to revert this form of vandalism.

What wouldn't be allowed

  • Signatures which have images higher then 14 pixels high.
  • Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.
  • Signatures which impersonate another user.
  • Signatures which have inappropriate or offensive images.
  • Signatures which link to PHP scripts and other such technologies.
  • Signatures which contain images larger then 50kb

What would be allowed

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


If a signature doesn't meet the above requirements then these steps will be taken.

  • The user of the signature will be warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply.
  • If the user does not change the signature then a vandalism case will be brought fourth where the user may receive a warning or banning in accordance to the vandalism page. The user has three days to comply extending out till when they next sign, if they continue to sign with said signature then they will be placed forwards for another vandalism case.
  • If a user repeats such actions then the initial warning can be skipped and the vandalism case can be brought forth immediately.

In the case of a template style signature a moderator may revert it back to its last proper functioning form. If a signature is changed so it breaks the wiki as to render it useless the user who alters it shall be perma-banned with no questions asked.

This policy was originally written by Jedaz, Amazing and Draaj from the Scroll Wars Wiki--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:44, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
  • # ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.


  1. No threats this time, but I do honestly think that the Urban Dead wiki needs some kind of protection against this kind of vandalism. - Jedaz - 05:55/8/12/2022 07:00, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  2. I failed cool school because I still only use four tildes. As such, the policy sounds good. --Karlsbad 07:05, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  3. Since the section about swear words has been removed I can see no issue with it. Pillsy FT 08:57, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  4. I'm for it. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 12:52, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  5. I'm happy with the current version. --SirensT RR 14:25, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  6. Sounds good. Count me in. -- Nob666 18:10, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Asheets 19:56, 11 October 2006 (BST)
  8. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 01:50, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  9. I vote for. Even a single text link should be enough for a signature. --nzag1971 9:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC+3)
  10. Weak For. The "rules" will need refining, as some of the reasons the againsts have are valid. Otherwise, I think it is a reasonable policy. Perhaps rework the proposal with the feedback from naysayers? Daniel Hicken 09:13, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  11. DJSMITHCDF 21:56, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Sounds good to me. - Nicks 21:56, 21 October 2006 (BST)


  1. PHP Scripts are too previlant to be singled out in this way. The proposed policies author violates this at the time of proposal. Any external link may be redirected to a PHP script without the signers knowledge. This really makes no sense. Anyone voting for should check there sigs, if you link to a forum you most likely violate this proposal. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 20:02, 10 October 2006 (BST)
    You know the kind of script that I was reffering to, as in, one created by the signer.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:07, 10 October 2006 (BST)
    Along with the very opened ended and other such technologies. I do hope that should the policy pass it is not misused in this way. I agree with many of the other limitations it suggests chiefly restricting the use of lewd and large images. Thanks for taking the time to speak to my concern, and again I hope that these comments will suffice and be considered by those attempting to report and act on reports of such policy violations. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 23:03, 10 October 2006 (BST)
  2. This is a great idea, and I supported it in its infancy...but the whole 'inappropriate or offensive images' is still too vauge for my liking. I'd like to THINK this was a matter of common sense, but given the recent trend of 'iron fist' rule...? --MorthBabid 04:47, 11 October 2006 (BST)
    The problem is that it will either be too lose or too tight. If I tighten the definitions people will find a way to get round it.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:42, 14 October 2006 (BST)
  3. I agree with the limitations that protect the wiki, but the inappropriate and offensive images part is subjective unlike the other clauses which are objective and verifiable. I have to vote against it because of one bad clause. Bubba 04:29, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  4. "Signatures which have inappropriate or offensive images." Define "inappropriate or offensive". Oh, you can't, because it's subjective. That one part of this policy opens it up for abuse - either in being implemented or being argued against. --Funt Solo 13:38, 12 October 2006 (BST)
  5. The fourth clause is too vague for me to vote affirmative. Bongonesia 01:58, 13 October 2006 (BST)
  6. TheDictator 06:11, 13 October 2006 (MCT)
    Care to give a reason?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:43, 14 October 2006 (BST)
  7. Weakly against. All of the clauses except the fourth are could be described as abuse of the wiki; they break it in some way for users. If the policy were just those clauses, I'd be strongly for. But clause 4 is closer to abuse on the wiki and is just too subjective for me, as it's currently written. And how are we defining "offensive," anyway? In some online communities, your average zombie images would be considered too offensive because of the gore. Paul Brunner 13:38, 13 October 2006 (BST)
    Linking to zombie images would be considered offensive in the context of a sig. You have to remember this appears on every page they sign.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 23:50, 14 October 2006 (BST)
    Yeah, but, the 14 pixel high restriction prevents most really "offensive" material without making moral judgements. Its a practical restriction because signatures shouldn't be bigger than the context they are appended too. Makes sense. So why not resubmit the objective clauses and scrap the judgemental clause, as suggested in the discussion page before this came up for a vote. Bubba 06:10, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  8. Offensive images are problematic for the same reason offensive words were. Why did we take one out but not the other? Why do people hide morality in policies that are supposed to be about functionality? No pork barreling for me! Also, Max brings up a good point. --Ron Burgundy 02:10, 14 October 2006 (BST)
    I'd say that part of functionality is morality. We don't allow groups or users to post pornographic images or graphic violence on their pages as a way to ensure that we aren't always choked with complaints. I assume that the same sort of loose standards would be applies here. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 18:28, 14 October 2006 (BST)
    Loose standards means whatever the mod feels like at the time. Besides, graphic violence images ARE appropriate for what is, essentially, a violent RPG game. Clause 4 does NOT protect the WIKI in the same way as the others. It should be struck. Bubba 20:45, 14 October 2006 (BST)
    In other words, we should allow pornography, should we?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:40, 14 October 2006 (BST)
    Ideally, yes. --Ron Burgundy 01:18, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    There's a time and place for pornography (not in my case though, it's tasteless Ron!;)), and I don't think it should be here. That being said, what would count as offensive? Eye of the Beholder. Toilet roll on Pedestal; is it art? In the end, if this passes then it would cause another voting bit: What is acceptably offensive? -- Shamus Oakshod 08:40, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    And it is THAT question, Shamus, which we've really failed to ever answer. The natural follow-up to THIS policy would be a policy that addresses that issue. But this policy shouldn't attempt to try and dictate that on its own. It should stick to what its good at (setting a sig system), and not try to also tackle the "Appropreate Use" issue. This was brought up awhile ago in this policy's talk. --MorthBabid 19:58, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  9. Externally linked images are no longer a problem; unlike scroll Wars we are not going to enable them. That makes that part of the policy unnecessary. As it is at the moment, you could still make your signature be a real pain. See how I signed my vote for an example. --Xoid 09:48, 15 October 2006 (BST)
    Dammit, Xoid! --Ron Burgundy 04:27, 16 October 2006 (BST)
    Heh, heh, nice trick. Bubba 06:03, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  10. No stamp of aproval from me here. --Axe Hack 19:15, 15 October 2006 (BST)
  11. Offensive is too relative a term. -Certified=Insane 03:12, 16 October 2006 (BST)
  12. Also against, only becaquse of the term "offensive". Perhaps a change to "not work safe" or "adult only" Dading2 19:25, 17 October 2006 (BST)
  13. Too vague. Rheingold 08:41, 22 October 2006 (BST)
  14. Too vague. Doesn't mention special:userlogout and special:randompage signatures either. --Bonefiver 17:58, 22 October 2006 (BST)