UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Obnoxious Sigs

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Policy

This would be a policy allowing signatures that are likely to be found obnoxious, for any reason not covered in other policy, to be put up for deletion on A/D (announced in the deletions page queue, but votes taken on a separate deletions sub-page dedicated to sigs).

Before any sig is put up for deletion, the user must be contacted on their talk page and a polite request made for them to change it voluntarily. No case may be started until at least 24hrs after.

As a guideline, an obnoxious sig is one that draws undue attention to itself. Some examples of how signatures can be viewed as obnoxious are, by:

  1. being unduly large,
  2. using colours that stand out in a casual scan of a normal page (ie, a page without background colouring),
  3. blinking or scrolling,
  4. using offensive language or images.

Just meeting one of the above (or any other criteria) does not automatically make a signature obnoxious. Nor does the fact that signature doesn't meet one of the above criteria rule it out from being deleted. Voters should be voting on whether the signature draws undue attention to itself, not on whether or not it meets any of the criteria alone.

Placing a signature up for deletion for the following reasons can be considered vandalism,

  1. if you simply don't like the user involved,
  2. for a joke,
  3. as retribution for your own sig being nominated for deletion,
  4. because you dislike sig templates as a whole, or in and attempt to force policy change.

If the signature is changed with 12 hours of being nominated, so as to become acceptable to be person who first nominated it to A/D, then the vote may be ended then without going further. Repeatedly changing signatures to end votes can be considered vandalism. Once the 12 hours is past, the signature shouldn't be changed until voting ends, unless the user wishes to plead "no contest" and comply with the conditions below.

If said signature gets more delete votes than keep, the signature, rather than being deleted outright, will be:

a) if it is a template on the open wiki, edited by the ruling sysops to be a plain text link to the member's Userpage and talk page.
b) if it is only editable via the preferences tab of the user, s/he will be expected to edit it into the required format within 3 hours of making their first post after a sysops makes a ruling on the deletions vote.

Failure of a user to comply with section b) will be viewed as vandalism.

Sigs modified to comply with this policy should be in the form, User talk

Requests, at the end of a signature vote, to include a different display name will be considered by the ruling sysop, if the name has a long history of being used.

Anyone whose sig is voted down in this manner should be aware that any similar case of their sig being voted down in the next month will result in them not being allowed to change their sig from the default for a period of 3 months, and not to use any sig other than the approved one, even if manually entered onto a page.

See Also

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. For - Makes sense. Omega 01:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. For - This has been a long time coming. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. For - Mmhmm.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. For Makes sense to me. - Whitehouse 02:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. For--Jorm 02:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. For --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. For - Always thought the pimped sigs were lame anyway.--The Envoy 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. For- Makes sense. Although I haven't seen any obnoxious sigs lately.. --Darth LumisT! A! E! FU! 03:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Nalikills was pretty obnoxious. Anyway, id prefer templated sigs were just plain banned. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Vote changed
  9. -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. For --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 07:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. For -- Common sense. Concur with Grim_s on nuances. --Pgunn 07:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. For - --~~~~ [talk] 07:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. For - Kill them with red tape. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 07:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. For - Contrary to what the first three folks voting against said, cool but inoccuous sigs make the wiki more fun to read; obnoxious ones are just obnoxious. --WanYao 08:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. for I can't have one so why should you! seriously though there really is no need for them. --Honestmistake 11:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. For - Pavluk A! E! 13:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. For - Ryiis 14:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. For - The man 15:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. For Four tildes have always worked for me. --Karlsbad 22:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. For - TEMPLATED SIGZ R NEXT!!!!1!111 --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 01:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. For - Sigs shouldn't be obnoxious, thats what a userpage is for Anti gorefest5 TalkMEMS --anti gorefest5 23:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. For --TeksuraTalk 19:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. For --I believe in the first amendment but some things are just plain annoying. Leave in the vulgarity and offensive things but please, please make them shorter and not so flashy. Big sigs suck. Put all of your fancy decorations on your user page. --Xan2020 Nov 23, 8:51 GMT
  24. For - Having fun is OK, but having stupid sigs that blink and are too large is really annoying. As Xan said, you can always put some decorations on your pages. Sigs are used to sign something you wrote.--  Savant  Chit-Chat  11:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. For the wiki is obnoxious enough... Johnny Lunchpail 02:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. For - this policy wont outlaw colourful sigs, only those that are annoying enough to piss off most people (that won't be many). Getting rid of templated sigs will not fix the problem of annoying sigs as the code can just be placed in the preferences sig area directly. This policy is needed because we can't objectively define what makes an annoying sig without banning a whole lot of stuff that can also be used to make tastefully done sigs -- boxy • talk • 04:04 27 November 2007 (BST)
  27. For - --Abi79 AB 16:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. For - Nothing makes professional and thought-provoking contributions look like total trash better thanobnoxious sigs.-- RKM 17:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Against

  1. I like obnoxious sigs. Just check this one-->Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  2. Sad to say, obnoxious sigs make the wiki fun to read.--ShadowScope 04:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  3. How 'bout no?--Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  4. More ridiculous nannying of the wiki community. A little bit of gentle persuasian was enough to get rid of the last lot ot really stupid sigs. Now we need a whole page dedicated to full community votes on them? This is overkill, for the sake of red tape, created by an out-of-control beurocracy. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 08:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  5. Grow a pair and make a real solution instead of VOTE VOTE VOTE DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA. Oh wait, this is the wiki we're talking about. – Nubis 09:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  6. Just ignore them if you don't like them. If you're in a situation where you might get into trouble for looking at something inappropriate, you shouldn't be online in the first place. Magnum Odus 16:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  7. If I have my sig ruled as "stooopid lwaols", then if I dont change it in 3 hours after making an edit, it's vandalism? This is the stupidest fucking policy I've ever heard in my entire fucking life. Fuck fuck fuck. At this rate, the stupidity of this policy might beat south park. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fucking STUPID! This basically makes a perfect outlet for assholes to flame each other! Nubis nailed it right on the head. I think I'm getting angry at something on the internet...my life has reached a new low.--Wooty 17:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
    Moved to Talk page. – Nubis 21:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  8. As Nubis and Wooty. Behold my obnoxious sig! Sheana T / TMZ 04:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  9. As above. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  05:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  10. This seems like it would be fairly useless. --Barroom Hero 05:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  11. The main issue I have with this is that a users signiture is an aesthetic choice, and voting on it's style or obnoxiousness is going to come down to inidivdual taste. Now this is almost certainly going ot lead to bad feeling and opens up the possibility for all sorts of people to attack others based on their signiture, because they will, even if you try to make it impossible for them to do so they will find a loophole where it's "not technicaly agiangst the rules" for them to do so. The way I see it, the only way to make this fair and remove chances for drama is to ban all templated signitures, no exeptions. This makes it a hard-and-fast rule as opposed to one based on individual taste. As well intentioned as this is, it does seem to function on the beleif that people will use it to benifit the wiki as a whole and not use it to launch personal attacks againgst other users.--SeventythreeTalk 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  12. For several reasons: sigs are not generally found in contiguous bodies of text, so they are not generally disruptive. Sigs are personal expressions, and unless they violate an objective set of unambiguous rules, deleting them on the basis of their being "annoying" to a majority of voting users is an example of draconian majority rule. Especially since those most likely to watch the votes for obnoxious sigs are probably those who are most likely to be annoyed by fancy sigs (they have a strong interest in removing them, while users who are not bothered by them will be more likely to ignore the process altogether, unless they're pulled into it). Policies which turn vague, subjective standards into "rules" create bitter flame wars and not much else.--FT MCDU: Black Knights 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  13. Against - Ive been uncomfortable with this since the start (Though i went with the crowd at the time), and i vastly prefer an objective set of criterion rather than blatant subjectivity, especially when it comes to votes. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    A set of criteria cannot be defined without loopholes. If there was a fixed set of criteria, there would be no need for a vote. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 08:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  14. Look to the right of this message and tell me if that's obnoxious. I think not. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 11:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  15. I thought everyone likes to look at boobs?----Sexualharrison ה •QSG•TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 12:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  16. Only way to do this fair is to ban ANY custom sig. And I doubt that would get passed anyway.--Actingupagain 19:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  17. When a sig policy that doesn't encourage witch hunts and overly extreme punishments comes along then I might vote for that, but until then it's just another way to pick on people you don't like.--Karekmaps?! 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  18. As Grim. I would prefer a set list of no's no's rather than someones personal taste. Step in the right direction though.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 22:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  19. Against - Too vague. "As a guideline, an obnoxious sig is one that draws undue attention to itself. " Even the examples are too vague for an effective list of criteria. If an agreeable set of criteria could be listed I would be more favorable. -- Blake Jawl ( Talk | GSE) 23:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  20. Against, because it took me forever to make this sig and it actually looks alright. That's one of my favorite things about the wiki, is learning how to code on here and making sigs is another fun thing to do on the wiki. Behold the obnoxiousness! (and actually I don't think this is obnoxious at all) --> --Th heartbeat-1.gifDr. Allison Wolf MEMS Talk PIF 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  21. Against - True offensive sigs should be banned, but their offensive content should be banned in itself not as part of a policy on sigs. Plus, lots of these colourful sigs make me grin - they aren't obnoxious. --xensyriaT 02:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  22. Against - The people above me said it better than I ever could.--Labine50 MEMS | MHG 04:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  23. Against - Too general and open to abuse. -- ZEDU medic T MEMS 06:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  24. Against - Too vague, too easy to exploit, too drama-laden. And really, whytf are we concerning ourselves with aesthetic obnoxiousness but countenancing obnoxious behavior and/or content? Seriously, y'all. Priorities. G'night. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 07:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Oh yeah, and boobies. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 07:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  25. Against - i can smell the drama brewing already... Paul Tagg 15:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  26. This is over-complicated for such a small problem. Plus, I think harsh policies are generally a bad idea. --Toejam 23:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
  27. Against - I think people should be allowed to express themselves using their sigs, so long as they are not horribly offensive. 1337 N3r0 01:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  28. Against - We have more important things to worry about than whether a sig is "obnoxious". Maybe spelling/grammar errors should be counted as "acts of vandalism" if we go down that route. Besides, they annoy me far more than any sig on here. Some things you just have to put up with, dude. --Ms.Panes 23:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  29. Against I see this creating an unreasonable number of grudges between users - Vantar 08:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. No. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. i have to agree with whoever siad this befor but obnoxius sigs make the wiki fun to read. I hate even the current rules for sig, i like my eatbrians and stupid gas or whatever.--zinker M! 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Voting closed. Policy fails, 28 For to 31 Against. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Obnoxious_Sigs&oldid=927230"