UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Text Policy Revision

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

This policy proposal was prompted by User:Revenant's latest signature, which uses extensive vertical lines of characters which cover significant portions of whatever page the signature is transcluded on. For prior discussion on this signature, see here. Hat tip to User:Spiderzed for the initial wording.

Discussion on this policy should occur below.

Luke's gud

Get it to voting already. -- Spiderzed 18:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Technically, policies are supposed to be open for discussion for three days before voting can begin. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 19:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd support it, but...

From the original policy:

If a signature or template is changed in such a way as to seriously impair the operation of the wiki, the damage may immediately be reverted, or deleted if necessary, and the user who performed the alteration will be perma-banned with no questions asked.

Given that the whole point of the wiki is to be a resource that we can read, obstructing the ability to read the wiki seems like something that falls under that provision already. I'm okay with the proposed change, but I'm just not convinced it's necessary.

If anything, I'd suggest adding clarification regarding the one week warning period if we're talking about changes to the sig policy. There's a broad misconception that we can't act on a bad signature until the week-long warning period is up, when it's clear from historical comments and even other parts of the policy that that was not the intent. Rather, the intent was to give someone a one-week grace period before bad faith was assumed (i.e. don't assume that their very first post with a bad sig was intended in bad faith), but the policy itself says

If a user repeats such actions then the initial warning can be skipped and the vandalism case can be brought forth immediately.

That is, we can take immediate action against the user if they post repeatedly with their sig, and the earlier quote I provided makes it clear that we can take immediate action against sigs that "impair the operation of the wiki" (not to mention perma-banning the user too). So, the week-long period is not an opportunity for someone to hold the wiki hostage for a week until they're forced to revert the changes, nor does the existing policy preclude others from taking action. It merely prevents them from punishing the user immediately in some circumstances. Making that clearer would address more of the issues we've dealt with over the years with the signature policy. Aichon 20:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't pretty much all of that already clear from the text as it stands? It seemed that way to me. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 21:16, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Given all of the talk over at Rev's page right now and in the previous instances of problems we've had in the past, very much so not, apparently. Aichon 21:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I find it utterly hilarious that there's a clause in the Sig policy that allows you to perma anyone that tries to break the wiki. Beautiful. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like Gnome's reverted the relevant signature as obscuring page content. Unless someone misconducts Gnome, that looks like precedent to me, making this proposed change moot. Should the proposed changes above get wrapped in with this proposal, or should I withdraw this one and make a new one revising the signature policy per Aichon's recommendation above? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 04:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts

Good work putting it forward asap to have it fixed as soon as possible Bob, but I think the thing that needs to be changed most pressingly is the one-week obligatory waiting period. I think that sysops need the power to make a 'ruling' of sorts on what signatures are damaging, in extreme cases like this and SLR. Waiting one week for this to blow over is too long for something as wiki-damaging as Revenant's signature. That is, it's already within precedent through SLR and maybe even a couple of others that the sysop team can stop this right now through A/VB but I fear that's where your respect/fear towards Revenant is stopping this from being ended now.

The signature issue here is one of having the power to change damaging signatures quickly, and for it to stay that way. Rev's already essentially breaks the image height rule (doing it with text still in practice doesn't change that) and you could make an argument that it's still wiki-breaking, so while adding extra rules will help, it won't help you with the fact that this issue needs to be fixed now. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Already in the signature policy it states:
If a signature or template is changed in such a way as to seriously impair the operation of the wiki, the damage may immediately be reverted, or deleted if necessary
If Rev's latest signature is wiki-damaging, it can (and just did) get reverted. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 04:20, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The next step is, as said above, is to vandal ban him for continuing to revert it. If you guys did that you wouldn't need to change this policy. A ZOMBIE ANT 11:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee

For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee I For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee oppose For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee this For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee and For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee all For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee the For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee buttfuckery For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee that For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee birthed For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee it. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee It's For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee not For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee like For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee this For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee is For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee a For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee heavily For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee trafficked For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee site For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee which For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee will For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee suffer For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee for For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee the For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee occasional For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee sig For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee issue. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 00:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

i agree with fuckface -- HEY! HANDS OFF MAH BOOBS!   bitch   COBRA!   אמת 01:42, 6 October 2015

YEAH
Signed, Revenant, 10:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

#supportobnoxiouslylongsigs --3.1415926535897932384626 43383279502884197169399 37510582097494459230781 6406286208998628034825 342117067982148086513282 3066470938446095505822 317253594081284811174502 84102701938521105559644 62294895493038196442881975665933446128475648233786783165271 (talk) 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

this

is the worst kind of discrimination

the kind against ME

Signed, Revenant, 10:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC).

meh

Does you guys still need to write rules in stone ? Just use some common sense on when a sig interferes with the discussion, politely ask the user to change it if it does, and change it yourself if the user refuses to do so after a few days -- filling a vandal request on a/vb to allow other psyops to place their opinion. --hagnat 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools
advertisements