UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signatures

From The Urban Dead Wiki

< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Policy Discussion
Revision as of 19:10, 24 January 2009 by The General (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Intro

The use of templates in signatures is nothing new in this wiki. Several users already do it, myself included, and everybody seems to be ok with that. But... if i remember it right, i was all against this when i first discovered this feature back in april. In April the use of template as signatures was something unkown to several users.

The Problem

The problem with users being able to sign using templates leads to a very troublesome scenario. Let's say User:John creates a template for his signature, in User:John/sig, like most of us do. He starts voting in suggestion, say a few words in a group talk page, say some others in moderational pages (like this one). Soon his signature is everywere. Mine is in over 50 pages, Hammero's in more than 250! (round number... i didnt count). One day User:Pony, a well known vandal, decides to spread chaos in the wiki. He finds User:John's signature page, and edit it in a way to create chaos in every single page he ever placed his signature.

The Policy

With this policy i request that every one that wants to use a template as signature must REQUEST it in a special page. This template will be created by a mod, and then protected. Only AFTER the protection of the page, the template can start being used as signature. If a user wants to change what is written in the template page, he must request the change in the same page. A mod will then change the signature to what the user requested.

Since mods are expected to not abuse such feature, they dont need to request the change of their own template signatures in this page, but the page is still protected. If they abuse the feature, they shall be punished as vandals.

Also, all template signatures on use by the day this policy is aproved will be protected.

Voting Section

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

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.

For

  1. we need this approved for yesterday. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:30, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  2. Meh. I don't like it, but the wiki would crash without it.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 19:40, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  3. On the discussion page, Hagnet says, "Someone just edited Xoid and Hammero's sigs to display the Amazingking template over and over. It was nearly impossible to use the wiki during a few minutes." Correct me if I'm wrong, but those signatures appear hundreds of times on the wiki and if someone changes them to include a very large image, it will destroy the wiki's bandwidth and crash the thing. Sounds like something we should fix- I like my wiki workin! --Ron Burgundy 09:27, 24 September 2006 (BST)
    Because if this doesn't pass I'll sign everyones pages who voted against and change my own signiture template (which last time I checked can't be counted as vandalism acording to this) to crash their pages just to prove how vulnerable the wiki is. - Jedaz - 20:00/1/03/2021 06:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)
    Vote of permabanned user struck --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:29, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    he was banned AFTER this vote. More then a week after the vote! So it stays. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:32, 6 October 2006 (BST)
    Incorrect. See here andhere. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:37, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  4. For If it cuts down on the wiki being down it is obviously important. And it's only template sigs so what the hell.. no big deal. --MrAushvitz 05:09, 26 September 2006 (BST)

Against

  1. If you know the first thing about using the wiki, you know that this could be done with ANY template. LAWL, LETS PROT3CT TEHM AL! This kind of vandalism is easily reverted if you have a brain.--Gage 20:52, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  2. Just revert the template page, hurrrrr --CaptainM 20:57, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  3. Jeez, why not just protect everything. No change, no damage! Learn to use revert. Bubba 22:15, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  4. This is still a wiki, right?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 22:38, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  5. Everyone can handle a revert. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 23:34, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  6. What? Reverting a vandal is going to take what? A few seconds at most? --Axe Hack 23:38, 23 September 2006 (BST)
  7. Anyone may ask to have their pages protected now. I don't think requiring it through policy is necessary. This just moves any potential vandalism which will always need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 00:34, 24 September 2006 (BST)
  8. I actually haven't seen templates being used as signiatures EVER. I go on many wiki pages here, but I don't see any of these signiature templates. Therefore, I am against this ludicrous policy. Xtralife 20:29, 24 September 2006 (BST)
    Look at the sigs of Hagnat, Thari, Gage, CaptainM, The General, Max Grivas, and myself on this page. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 20:33, 24 September 2006 (BST)
  9. Why take away more and more resources from the average user? --Zod Rhombus 07:33, 26 September 2006 (BST)
  10. Too much bureaucracy, against the wiki spirit, and I think, though it's not ideal, Template Substitution could be a better solution. --Toejam 02:10, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  11. I like being in control of my own signature. And I really hope Jedaz crashes my talk page! Jimminyjillikers!--The Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Talk | CC CPFOAS DOЯIS Judge LOE ZHU 13:36, 27 September 2006 (BST)
  12. against because having it open to the select few who even know how to get one is bad. All or nothing, so ... all, since nothing is not an option.--DavidBeoulve 21:37, 28 September 2006 (BST)
  13. No. --YbborT
  14. Bango Skank T W! M! 17:11, 30 September 2006 (BST)
  15. Even I know how to revert a page. Not needed. - David Malfisto 15:29, 1 October 2006 (BST)
  16. More pointless controlling. This is the Nanny-Wiki --Dog Deever TNec 01:42, 2 October 2006 (BST)
  17. Wow, its amazing how much time I can waste by kill voting useless policies. --Coldflame 01:36, 3 October 2006 (BST)
  18. I have to say against. This is still a wiki, and it's just more work for the Mods. --ERNesbittP·T·MalTel 02:47, 3 October 2006 (BST)
  19. TheDictator 20:48, 4 October 2006 (MCT)
  20. I know your trying to help, But this is the wrong way to do it.--Labine50 MHG|MalTel 15:15, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  21. extra uneeded steps --ag 18:11, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  22. I don't think we need a policy for this nightmare situation, mostly because of the regulation that common sense and the collective community has. If such a problem does occur, it will be on an individual basis. As such, individual moderators or users could handle it case per case rather than bogging us all with red tape and wrist-slapping. --MorthBabid 19:30, 5 October 2006 (BST)
  23. Pillsy FT 11:02, 6 October 2006 (BST)
  24. What the other guy said --Grant Page 21:21, 6 October 2006 (BST)
The substitution thing sounds like a better compromise. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 04:42, 10 October 2006 (BST)
Invalid vote. I really need to watch the dates on these things. -- Alan Watson T·RPM 12:46, 10 October 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements