UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Obnoxious Sigs

The tribe has spoken? -- boxy • talk • 02:24 10 November 2007 (BST)

Discussion 1

Oh thank god.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Because you are just a shining example of not-obnoxious sigs. – Nubis ^NWO 02:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My sig is fine. And I was referring to Haggie.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, yours is annoying, just not high end deluxe annoying.--Karek^maps?! 02:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Gnome's sig is also annoying. At least when i am using linux his sig as annoying as mine is. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it the colors? Or is it because it's a box sig?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The colors are fine... it doesnt draw tha much of attention. But the font you are using... that's where the problem lies. Amd boxed sigs only work fine if they are short, your's ain't. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the font? Could I get a pic please? Everything looks normalish in Safari.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See here and put this image in SD as soon as it doesnt serve no more purpose. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Kinda choppy. Looks nice and elegant in me browser. Will change then.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Is there a useful list of fonts that work in all browsers somewhere?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A change for the worse! – Nubis 15:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It looked pretty good in FF.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please dear god.--Jorm 02:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Whats wrong with these boobs?----Sexualharrison ^{ה •QSG•T} 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Harsh Enough

We don't need a voting clusterfuck. Set some guidelines, and expect people to conform to those. Font size, color, number of links, etc.

Also Hagnat can go die. – Nubis ^NWO 02:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We've already got one, but clowns are always finding new ways to be attention whores that skirt the boundries. This will pick up those -- boxy • talk • 02:32 10 November 2007 (BST)

there is no mudkipz in this policy. Didnt you got the memo ? All new policies must have mudkipz! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought mudkipz were implied whenever obnoxious is mentioned :P -- boxy • talk • 02:53 10 November 2007 (BST)

Hell yes there 'oughtta be a law' here! I think we should start naming these policies the same way they name super special laws to protect the community here in the USA. For example, there's a law making it easier to track Child Abductors called "Megan's Law" - named after a poor girl named Megan that was snatched. I'd say THIS rule could be called : NALIKILL'S LAW  - Dude, your sigs have been super yucky lately! I believe the term I used on your talk page (which you of course deleted) was "Like a cheap whore's hot dog stand."--Squid Boy 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are we debating punishing people for their sigs? IS it just me who thinks this might be just a little on the harsh side, and, oh, I don't know opening up a whole new can of juicy drama-worms? Who says which sig is terrible, and which one is ok? Personaly I don't go in for flashy sigs myself, and it annoys me when someone's sig is overly so, but realy, is it worth al the drama that's gonna go with it?--Seventythree^Talk 15:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That would be the reasoning behind the vote, Seventythree. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Granted, however, I'm just trying to get my point across on this, which is, sure some sigs can be annoying but is it worth the unceasing drama that would occur? I can see it now.... SOmeone gets pissed off with, oh, I dunno, Dux Ducis (Just using him as an example, becasue his sig has colours in it and stuff. Personaly I quite like it), they can then go on and start a great big vote that is a barely concealed attack on Dux to get him to remove his sig! WTF?--Seventythree^Talk 15:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If people don't find someone's sig annoying, they won't vote to remove it. I don't see any real differences between this and the way the page deletion system works. That, too, has the potential for drama such as you describe... but really it is fairly rare. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but people get rather attached to their sigs. I can jsut see this as being used much more as a way of launcing thinly veiled personal attacks on people. --Seventythree^Talk 15:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but I would argue that one person's "attachment" to their signature is outweighed just a tad by the hordes of users being pissed off. When you take into consideration that much of the pride people who have obnoxious signatures is taken from the knowledge that it annoys people... should we really be letting them get away with it? Like I said; if people don't find it annoying, they won't vote for it to be deleted. A sysop can always override a bid if things get out of hand. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Too Vague

Or you know, some specifics instead of an very very vague policy that could cause problems. I'm thinking No blink, no borders/padding bigger then 2px, must be readable, and of course the already existing requirement of a link to your user page.--Karek^maps?! 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

And not too long.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem... define it down and the attention whores will just find the limit and push it. For example, background colour in signatures can be beautiful, or it can be obnoxiously loud, and the colours clash... how do you define that? Leave it as a vote that doesn't need to be justified except upon aesthetic grounds, because people are good at making subjective decisions like that. The community can decide the level of annoyance that they're willing to put up with -- boxy • talk • 02:56 10 November 2007 (BST)

 LIKE THIS? . But yeah, I can see why we need this. So that crap like that doesn't happen.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this is a little too vague... due to obvious tensions between certain users on this Wiki I believe that there should be some sort of rule governing what is eligible for A/D and what is unacceptable to bring to A/D, also what happens if someone reports one and has his/her friends all come and vote delete? I would be pissed off if I took time to make a really good signature and then was told that if I do not get rid of it I can be reported for vandalism. -- BKM 04:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This can happen with people's group pages already... but it doesn't happen, because if people who are here regularly see a group being douches and trying to meatpuppet a vote, they vote against them... and it's only a sig -- boxy • talk • 06:25 10 November 2007 (BST)

I think the current signature policy should also be expanded to include no no's such as blinking text and a maximum rendered length (make it decent). That way we can simply edit largely obnoxious and rule-breaking sigs without much rigmorol, and devote more time to the ones where people disagree or falls into a grey area. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that could easily be tacked on here, it fits -- boxy • talk • 06:25 10 November 2007 (BST)

Maximum 75 characters, no blinking, what else? No backgrounds in sigs over 25 characters? They are too dominating otherwise, but I don't want to be too specific. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

75 seems a bit long to me. Your current one is pushing the limit, IMO. I think a table height limit perhaps... those sigs that overlap the text above or below them should definitely be out -- boxy • talk • 08:05 10 November 2007 (BST)

There is already a technical 14pix limit in the current policy. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That only applies to images, as far as I can see -- boxy • talk • 13:30 10 November 2007 (BST)

The original poster was correct, on the proposal page there is very little which is actually helpful in defining what is or is not an "obnoxious" sig. A policy like this could be interpreted in many different ways, I think a clarification is necessary. Madmonkey24^{Talk CPM User Profile} 20:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A more detailed listing of what is and is not allowed should be provided, or at least a much stronger guidline as to what is considered Obnoxious.

• "unduly large?" isn't very clear, but easily could be. For images: What width/height in pixels? What file size? For text based: how many digits, & what font size? Combinations of Image and Text requires more thought.
• "using colours that stand out in a casual scan of a normal page" is far too vague. We can easily list a span of colors that are allowed or not allowed.
• "blinking or scrolling" is very close to being a good description. Use of the associated CSS/HTML properties could/should be banned. Use of blinking or scrolling images is a less easy to define concept. Does a rolling "ROFL Emote" count as scrolling? Does an animated gif that pulses colors a bit break the standard? Harder to judge.
• "using offensive language or images." Does the wiki community already have a policy on what we consider "Offensive languages or images?" If we do, does it make sense to apply it to Sigs? Maybe we should ban things more specifically... Full Nudity ok? If not is any amount of Nudity ok? Can we use the F-bomb? If not, are there less dangerous words we can use? What about concepts that could be implied or spelled out? (Rape? Abuse? Intolerance for religions/races/sexes/sexual orientation?)

A more detailed break down of what is and is not allowed, and what is discouraged is clearly needed. Also, the handling of sigs deemed Obnoxious is good, but the penalties are a bit harsh. 3 hours to fix your sig? Give at least a week. At it's worst these sigs are Obnoxious... not page breaking issues (which are already covered). -- Blake Jawl ^{( Talk | GSE)} 23:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

+1

It's been a while since a policy made of such objective win. This needs to go to voting ASAP. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, before it goes to voting, is my sig obnoxious?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

My eyes asplode everytime I see it. Mine?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it looked nice before. But hey, obviously I have no senses whatsoever any way. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did too. Silly people and their mistral font vendetta.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mines still better though. It has a link to Gone with the Blastwave in it.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that thing ever going to be updated again?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. If it doesn't, I'll cry.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 05:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your sig is fine SA. Trust me, people will let you know if they think your sig is terrible. So far I have only gotten positive word on my previous ones. Also, I don't think this should be rushed to voting too soon - people will rebel if they don't like aspects of it. I say give it a few more days. After all, how many people have posted here so far out of all the regulars on the wiki? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 06:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

How's my Sig?--Seventythree^Talk 13:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Horrible. ;) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

-sniff- -sniff- (Cries gently)--Seventythree^Talk 17:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We all know my sig is the best. 73 and Gnome...you both suck. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

All Of You

I fucking hate *all* of your stupid little sig templates. All of them. Every single fucking one of them. They scream to me that you are going "look at me, I'm a pathetic fuckshit who can't define myself as individual through my words so I must do so through my signature."
Signature templates as a whole should be banned. They're pathetic and sad and irritating.--Jorm 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Im gonna side with jorm here, i think they are fucking stupid, and worse, they build up on several pages to the point where the templates all break. The only reason they dont do it regularly on most pages is because a large proportion of the posts are made by people who dont stick a sig template on the page. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Templete sigs do break the wiki. They should be banned for that reason alone. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Worse still, they provide a vector for vandalism on an almost unfathomable scale. All someone needs to do is edit one and, if the user is prolific enough, you hit several hundred pages. Imagine someone replacing everyones sig templates with a copy of the assylum page, or the suggestions talk page? Holy fuck that would kill the wiki, and its very easy to sneak such a change under the radar on the recent changes page, just insert the page as a template call in the sig template and you call the entire fucking page very time you sign. I experimented with templates within templates not too long ago, and use them on my userpage. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are good things about them too, easier to clean up after, especially if someone makes a vandal sig.--Karek^maps?! 19:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I totally agree. Well, maybe not for the whole 'look at me, I'm so pathetic' bit, but I do agree about the security issues and the page-breaking. I don't think vandalism is too much of a problem as you make it out to be, as we've only had one case I can think of (Mia) that was resolved pretty quickly. Thing is, we have templated sigs. People are used to them. Should we force people to have a limit of around 300 or 350 character raw sigs? (I find Wikipedia's limit of 255 a little constricting). Not many people will want to switch. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Im not saying its a problem, im saying it is a massive and completely unneccesary vulnerability to vandalism. If someone replaces someones sig, Nalikill for instance, and replaces it with {{Talk:Suggestions}}, a goodly number of pages will destroy the wiki when loaded. I can find some pages which are exclusively dedicated to hoarding templates. Those, if used, will also be a wiki breaker. Why leave such a blatant vulnerability in play? (On top of everything else bad about them) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind getting rid of templated sigs, but I have doubts we'll get the numbers for that -- boxy • talk • 13:33 10 November 2007 (BST)

Damn them sigs

This user doesn't like sig templates and prefers an oldschool non-templated sig (and contributes to reducing server load by using one).

I just noticed, template sigs are already against the rules, according to the signature policy, bullet point two, which reads "signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means". It's just not a rule that's being enforced, is all. --Funt Solo ^QT 15:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Quickly, summon the sysop conspiracy! --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've still got the conch shell... --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You killed the joke by mentioning a human groups summoning item in front of zombie supporters. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You killed the joke by being a killjoy. Go away. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you realize that any problems coming from the use of templated sigs, with the only exception of template hoarding on too long pages, is the same with other popular templates? Anyone can change the Template:BuildingDangerLevels or Template:Welcomenewbie is going to cause damage no matter what, and these aren't the most used templates by a longshot (I actually don't know how to look specifically for these). It's not like you get rid of the "evil templated signatures" and this classic wiki's problem will be magically gone as people is trying to say it is. If you want to get rid of that problem you'll either have to ban templates, subst them all or protect them all.

And it would be cool if you stopped trying to get around the democratic process and calling "clowns" the ones that note such petty attempts, mind you... if you don't like the system change it through the proper process. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Those templates all get called only once per page. With regular pages, even using proper templates on them, they would have to hit several hundred pages in length before the existing templates broke the page, which is more than enough. Sig templates, however, are called dozens of times on a page, sometimes hundreds of times in the case of longer pages. They are planted every time a person makes a new comment, and as a result they build up at an astonishing rate of speed towards critical mass. This has happened several times on the suggestions talk page, and is the reason i created the overflow archive for the page. On top of all these problems, they have been demonstrated to be an easy avenue for mass vandalism. There is no need to keep them, or leave them legal, except perhaps peoples stubborn refusal to accept change which, when you think about it, isnt a reason at all. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say, if there was a policy preventing the use of templated sigs, I'd support it. I've dealt with sig-template vandalism before, and it's pretty nasty. And although MAtt has a point, it would be one less way for vandalization.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

_{My comment below is in reply to Matt, not Suicidalangel --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)}

PROTIP: this is proper process. What you are attacking is a discussion on a proposed policy, in case you didn't read the page title. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you could always get the /sig pages protected once the owner feels he's happy enough with the sig.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Or just be rid of all that nonsense and avoid a mess of protection/unprotection crap. – Nubis 16:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

_{Ninja'd by Nubis :V}

Or you could not use them, seeing as they place greater strain on the server and eventually stop working on long pages. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So, should we push for no templated sigs?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that policy Funt linked to above seems to suggest that they aren't allowed anyway. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, in spirit it was meant to deal with sigs such as Jedaz's "evil page" signature and others that broke tables and such. That you're using it now in order to avoid the democratic process just proves my point above. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PRO-FUCKING-TIP: that is a discussion. Do you see any mention of templated signatures anywhere in the policy itself? No? Then kindly shut the fuck up, because I've had it up to here with your inane tinfoil-hat drivel. I try to be civil towards you, Matt, but you really fucking take the cake sometimes. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"in order to avoid the democratic process"! Wahhhh! Jebus, Fahrenheit - stop being such a drama queen. We're having a discussion is all, not trying to strip you of your human rights. Can't you turn your energies to world peace, or something? --Funt Solo ^QT 17:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Even I know this is a discussion, and I'm an evil clown!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No templated sigs allowed make a whole mess on the edit page with long enough sigs (taking several lines of code) and maes these sigs prone to be mistakenly modificated by a careless user that doesn't realize he's writing in the middle of a sig. Some of Jedaz's sigs are a good example of this. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

then again, we don't need all that mess of coding. A change of colors and some links would easily suffice.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, my sig sticks on these boundaries, but because I don't use colourful sigs doens't mean I should prohibite everyone for doing so. Thsi policy should focus itself on avoid cases such as hagnat's latest sig, not calling templated signatures "the root of all evil" because some users thinks "expressing individuality" sucks and like walking around naked in their homes. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That was a really significant contribution you just made to the discussion, Matt. I know it certainly affected my stance on the issue. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

whats wrong with people walking around nekkid in their own house huh? You got something to say to me? :P -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So... we should refuse this policy because of people who don't know how to edit properly? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we're refusing the policy ont he off chance that someone will cock-up some else's sig on accident. Considering that there is always a chance to cock-something up around here...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah. My mistake. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just an example. It's not really newb friendly.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure it is. The start of every comment is defined by a hash symbol - you'd have to be a real newbie to screw it up (and, given the lack of editing skills required to do so, chances are you'd stuff something up anyway). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I hate modified sigs (mostly cos i can't make em!) They should just be outright banned but if they are not going to be and this is going to vote the time allowance to change it should be made 24 hours not 6, I mean not everyone lives on here and checks every few hours... do they? --Honestmistake 16:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is a sig template anyway?--Wooty 17:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A sig template is a signature. You know how templates work right? You use {{template here}} to call the template to the page right? Well, s sig template is a template that is used specifically for signing posts and stuff. For example, my signature is a template. While Jorm's is not. Get it now?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thats what I thought.--Wooty 18:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the actual policy text

I think it's actually nice, but a little bit prone to abuse. I'll say that once voted upon, if the signature was allowed to remain then it can't be brought back to A/D unless it has been changed again. Also, the time limits are quite short: 6 and 3 hours are wiki addict timespans, not normal users one, and I must confess that being a wiki addict myself sometimes I fear that I don't even detect a A/VB case against myself for quite a while (2 days here, for example). 2 and 1 day, or 24 and 12 hs respectively should fit more nicely, and maybe a mandatory "you are being prosecuted!" and/or "you have to change your sig" message on the sigger talk page as well. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

"It will be considered vandalism to place a signature up for deletion because," could be worded better, now it sounds like any act of placing a signature up for deletion will always be considered vandalism for the following list of reasons. I'd suggest something like: "Placing a signature up for deletion for the following reasons will be considered vandalism".

The reasons themselves are a bit arbitrary. None of them can be proven unless the one placing the signature for deletion confesses any of those. Disproving is also hard. They would practically prevent you from nominating a signature for deletion if you:

1. don't like the signature's owner
2. tend to do jokes like this
3. have had your signature deleted recently
4. dislike templated signatures as a whole

especially if the signature is a border-case. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletions?

Using deletions for this is an abuse of that page. Throwing in all sorts of new guidelines and such will only confuse users new to the whole administration pages scene. Why not just have them teken to A/VB, where they are then given a notice by a sysop and if in 24 hours they havent fixed it (And have made a contribution to the wiki since then), they get a real warning and their sig gets replaced with plain baseline, and if they havent shown up, it gets stripped anyway but without a warning, unless they change it back.

Still, i think we should just plain get rid of template sigs entirely. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A/VB? No. The whole point of this is letting the community decide if a sig is annoying. I agree with you about templated signatures, but one step at a time, eh? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I considered the best place to decide on the obnoxiousness of a sig, and yeah, I don't like using A/D, but unless we create a whole new section, it's the best fit. And getting rid of sig templates is a separate issue to what this deals with. It's still easy enough to create an obnoxious sig by simply placing the code in your preferences instead of a sig call -- boxy • talk • 10:02 12 November 2007 (BST)

Well, the policy could be split in two. Sigs which break some hard, binary, rule - such as blinking or scrolling - could be A/VB fodder. There's no point in voting on something that's definite. Also, if anyone comes up with a concrete upper size limit or length definition, that could be included. Things which are more difficult to define, such as obscenity, go with a vote. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

So kind of like "Speedydelete" (Breaks some or more concrete rules) Verses "Delete" (Breaks or bends some rules, but open to interpritation as to whether this is severe enougth to merit deletion) Interesting. I'm beggining to come round to the Idea, I've gotta tell you. Provided, of course that any kind of punisment (VB ect) is very much a total last resort, and we don't get people taking sysops to misconduct, for example for saying that someones sig must go. It has to be understood that after a descision is reached one way or another it ends there. Even if this policy, if implemented is made part of the standard deletions or speedy deletions pages it has to be made known that it is separate and different from the other Admin pages.--Seventythree^Talk 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a point I guess... as long as we get a vote on the subjective obnoxiousness, so that we can deal with anything without having to have a definitive policy already in place as to what is and is not allowed -- boxy • talk • 10:02 12 November 2007 (BST)

May I add something, Boxy? Where your policy states that "Failure of a user to comply with section b) will be viewed as vandalism." Could that maybe be changed to "Failure to comply with section b) will result in your signiture being either reverted to a more acceptable signiture, or a new, basic signiture being created by a sysop, with an explaination for this action being placed on your talkpage. If you then go on to revert back to the annoying sig, or an increadibly similar sig, then this will be vewied as vandalism"--Seventythree^Talk 10:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I want the penalties to be rather harsh, so as to discourage people from creating annoying sigs in the first place. I'm sure that people push the boundaries on purpose -- boxy • talk • 10:13 12 November 2007 (BST)

As do I, however I also don't want people going "IT's not fair, I logged in and got disconnected before I could change my sig!" ect. At least this way people would have to commit an active bad faith action, as opposed to a passive bad faith action to get banned. Much less possiblility of weasaling out of it and much less possiblity of people getting unfairly punished. The penalties will still be harsh, but there is more chance that the action leading to them is deliberate.--Seventythree^Talk 10:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysops can't change sigs unless they are on the open wiki... the A/VB only comes into it in the case where the sig is only editable via the users preferences pages... making it impossible for us to do it for them. There has to be a way set out to force the user to change it -- boxy • talk • 10:30 12 November 2007 (BST)

Wait, what? Warnings shouldn't come into it at all, unless the user continues to post using that sig after it's been voted annoying by the community. If anything, the penalties should be harsher for the templated sigs - they do, after all, place a greater strain on the server (I'm not saying they should, only that if someone needs to have a tougher penalty it should be them). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 10:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I said they had 3 hours after their first edit... and the only way anyone would know that they hadn't complied is that they were still posting with the offending sig... so... um... yeah -- boxy • talk • 10:39 12 November 2007 (BST)

Oh, come on Boxy... I know you've got more common sense than that. Obviously they should be given a chance to show that they know what's going on before any penalties would be applied. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We dont need any more bureaucratic fucking nonsense. I dont want to discuss a sig being broken for two weeks. Matters should be dealt with swiftly, a 48 hour limit on cases. abusing A/D for this is just plain insane, as by the policies very wording, such stuff wont be deleted. Either use A/VB or create a new admin page to deal with it, but dont try to wedge a square block into a triangular hole, like you are trying to do now. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If it absolutely cannot be on V/D, I wouldn't be happy with anything other than a new page. A/VB's no-discussion-on-the-main-page rule would turn this into a sysop-driven process (you can deny it as much as you like, Grim), which goes against the original intentions of the author. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

not everyone logs on everyday and a lot of people probably don't log on at all at the weekend so 48 hours is waay too short a time span! OK so 2 weeks is too long but what would be the problem with leaving it up for a week? Also, putting it on a new page would mean it gets virtually no attention so Deletions would be the best place for this A/VB would be the worst place this could go... The vast majority of these are going to get changed as soon as a few people say "Aargh... blinding!" or whatever and once changed the whole debate ends anyway! --Honestmistake 12:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What a surprise. Grim wants the power to decide himself on the suitability of other users sigs now. Bugger that for a joke. It may be acceptable in obvious cases such as Hagnats obnoxious one that he specifically used to force this issue to a head... but then, I could have made a pretty good case to take that one to VB without any policy. It was obviously deliberately annoying, ie. bad faith. This policy is an attempt to allow the community to set subjective limits to the amount of annoyance they are willing to accept. Giving all the power to decide to sysops will not achieve that goal -- boxy • talk • 12:17 12 November 2007 (BST)

Heh, everyone is completely ignoring the invitation to create a new admin page, focusing entirely on the concept that such things could be dealt with through A/VB, my opinions on how to deal with it in there being spelled out earlier. No, its definately an attempt to grab power! GRIM WANTS MOAR POWER!!! Pardon me while i take a few minutes to get the incredulous laughter out of my system. Ah, thats better. Perhaps i should create, as a joke, a policy to give myself all the power in the universe. Not going to happen, but what the hell, it would be worth it just to see the rabid hordes of individuals such as yourself, boxy, and Matthew fahrenheit assume such a thing was made in earnest, then pull the rug out from under them. A/D is not the place for this sort of thing. Its slow, clunky, and exceptionally vulnerable to clique voting and mass meatpuppetry, an unpopular individual who offends, in some way, one of the larger cliques would lose his sig if it could be wikilawyered into fitting, and we have seen all sorts of similiar shit tried elsewhere in the past. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Your concern, Grim, is met by the stipulation in the policy that frivolous or personally-motivated bids would be considered vandalism. That, I believe I'm safe in assuming, would be up to the sysops to decide. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its very hard to nail a properly wikilawyered thing. Say someone whos sig comes close to the line, people could legitimately put that up and everyone would have to assume good faith and allow the voting to commence. Then comes the terror. Also, im getting a little tired of people assuming im out for power. It honestly never crosses my mind. Power on the internet is useless. Im just here to have fun and do a job. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You lash out at people assuming you're after power... then turn around and assume people will wikilawyer their arses off at every chance they get. Well, that's certainly an interesting stance to take if nothing else. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont assume they will, i know that someone will down the line at some point. The history we have with A/VB alone shows this will happen. Hell, we have Akule wandering around the wiki right now, and he is a perfect example. And since when does making a new page with its own guidelines and statutes to prevent such malicious abuse mean i want power? A simple solution would be to require four users to simply back up the request before its considered. That would shut 90% of wiki lawyers down right off the bat. Toss in maybe two days of discussion on top of that, and then have the problem dealt with. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But Grim, meatpuppets are to be found at every turn! How will such a stipulation - one that relies on popular opinion - help to stave off the hordes of hungry clique members just waiting to wikilawyer their ways into getting what they want? Better to give all the power to the sysops - that way we avoid all that useless democracy bureaucracy, amirite? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Grim rolls his eyes --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

And that's the game. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a policy discussion. Can you please try to be constructive instead of antagonistic? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you? All I've seen from you is drivel about how the wikilawyers will come to eat our children, and that we should put our trust in you, the all-knowing sysops, to show us the Path of Light. Wikilawyering and meatpuppetry will always be a problem, Grim. Literally the only way to 100% protect us feeble, helpless users against it is to make the sysops in charge of every single decision, and to do away with every single process involving a vote. That's the price of democracy, baby. Learn to live with it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Go away troll, your bait will not be taken. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE, don't take offence at this, bob - but it's bloody funny to see you (non-sysop) having a go at sysops. Ironic. You sound like me when I used to shout at you. I'm not having a go at you, btw - it just struck me as odd, is all. I guess part of our behaviour is down to our perception at a given time, rather than our personalities. Hey - kinda deep - right, back to the shouting and the wailing and the gnashing of teeth! --Funt Solo ^QT 13:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, all your concerns (other than messing with the current a/d page) are not going to be fixed by taking this to yet another admin page. Meatpuppets will still be a problem, unpopularity, wikilawyering, still a problem. Sure, it's not perfect.... but it's a whole hell of a lot better than the current system where Hagnat feels his only way of having a say is to annoy others enough for them to act. This fits well with deletions, given that it's a page for removing content that the community doesn't feel is appropriate. It would be similar to voting out parts of page content, like Gages textual "art" a while ago (in arbies I believe it was discussed, not implemented) -- boxy • talk • 13:17 12 November 2007 (BST)

If its going to be taken to deletions it would need its own little guidelines and section on the page, and it would just be tidier to put it on another admin page, which would reduce overall confusion for everyone. Possibly UDWiki:Administration/Signature Protests. A hypothetical way to cut down on meatpuppets would be to stipulate that votes need to be made by a user who has edited some time in the last month and has more than 20 total edits. A possible way to cut down on troll lawyering is to require a number of individuals to vouch for the bid before its considered. To handle the unpopularity, you could stipulate that votes must be justified in some way referring to the offending portion of the sig in question. Removing content is one thing, but given how different your proposed rules for sig removal are compared to deletions, i think it would save everyone a headache or two to just create a new page and be done with it, with the clearly bad faith ones being referred to A/VB --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the edit limit to vote (anti-meatpuppetry), I remember that, as a general policy, being shot down years ago. However, I like your idea of applying it to particular pages. That may be the way to introduce it - to particular pages where you can easily say "why would a newbie want to have a say in this?" --Funt Solo ^QT 13:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, if you want to change the way votes are done on this wiki, do it across the board, don't force it onto this policy, and use it as a reason to be against it. All your concerns are messing with the deletions, suggestions, promotions system every bloody day of the week if they truly are such a problem as you make out... go fix it!

As to the deletions page, well this is removal of content. I see no need to create yet another admin page to handle it... there are enough already. But just in case it isn't just you against the idea of using a/d, perhaps a mini-vote is in order? I encourage anyone interested to vote below, for either the deletions page being used, or for a new sig protest page to be created -- boxy • talk • 13:44 12 November 2007 (BST)

It just strikes me as the whole thing outlines rules and procedures so different to deletions that to have them both working side by side on the same page invites nothing but confusion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see Grims point about this causing confusion on the main deletion page even though I don't think moving it to V/B or a new page are the solution. Would it be possible to list them on deletions with a re-direct to a seperate page dealing with each one... sort of like the current suggestions section? That way it would be made into a sub-section of the deletion page with its own set of guidelines on top but still linked to the main page as it is dealing with content removal in a very specific way! --Honestmistake 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Having ahd to read the whole bloody above convo just to see what's gong on, I'd like to state this. 1)Grim is not out to rule the wiki for himself just becasue he put up a policy concerning democracy on the wiki and 2) Sometimes other people have opinions that may be right. Not everybody is wrong and/or thick. And gratuitously insulting them in replies doesn't do any good at all, it just makes it bloody unpleasent and boring for everybody else not involved. Please, think before you post. Let's face it, we've all been guilty of deciding to reply in kind to an insult, or perceived insult but couldn't we all jsut try to keep that to a minimum? It clogs up the whole discussion and puts other people off. Winds up with two people slagging it out over two totaly polarised veiws backed up with personal insults.--Seventythree^Talk 17:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It isnt a policy proposal, its an open discussion. They are two different things. I even put little notices up on it to say it wasnt a policy discussion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right Grim, It's a discussion, and an interesting one at that. That's sort of what I meant, but got the wording wrong. I stand corrected--Seventythree^Talk 17:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem, i just wanted to clear up the potential misunderstanding, just in case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I got that it was a discussion. Just a terminology problem. Heh, guess I should probably take my own advice and read through what I said before I post huh?--Seventythree^Talk 17:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't like the mechanism of voting on obnoxious sigs, but if the alternative is to allow them, it's better than nothing. It'd be better I think to disallow custom signatures or to have an admin just say "cut it out" than taking this stuff to votes. --Pgunn 16:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sub-Page

repost of my alternative to save people trawling through the above log...

I can see Grims point about this causing confusion on the main deletion page even though I don't think moving it to V/B or a new page are the solution. Would it be possible to list them on deletions with a re-direct to a seperate page dealing with each one... sort of like the current suggestions section? That way it would be made into a sub-section of the deletion page with its own set of guidelines on top but still linked to the main page as it is dealing with content removal in a very specific way!--Honestmistake 11:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I would agree to that, as long as the sub-page is announced in the deletions queue of A/D -- boxy • talk • 13:35 13 November 2007 (BST)

Sounds exactly like what I had in mind... the request would log in A/D but with a link to the sub-page where all discussion would take place. All relevant guidance should be at the top of the page! --Honestmistake 13:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Mini-vote

For background, read the above deletions section, then...

Vote either deletions page or sig protest page.

1. deletions page - (Because having a separate sig protest page will make sig-trollers happy.) --Funt Solo ^QT 14:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Seperate page - Either my idea or Honestmistakes, because keeping it on deletions would be extremely confusing. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
3. sub-page As i describe above this vote. technically this is neither of the options given (or both!) but tough... both options given cause too much possibility for drama, my way is more complex but seems like a fair middle ground. --Honestmistake 14:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
4. sub-page - It makes sense. Not important enough to be it's own section, and shouldn't be mixed in with Deletions. – Nubis 15:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
5. deletions page after a request to modify - we are dealing with deletion of content. sig deletions should be flagged specifically as such on the deletions page. the process may be slightly different, but it is a deletion request nonetheless... but the user should get a talk page message requesting them to change their sig... if they comply, the deletion request is closed and archived, as it is no longer necessary. also, a list of guidelines should made available off a link on the deletions page. among those guidelines would be a requirement that all votes must be justified and must address the content/format of the sig -- if not they will be striken. and any sigs that violate the very and non-negotiable guidelines go straight to speedy deletions. --WanYao 16:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

   I meant to put in a requirement for the user to be requested to change their sig before any case is brought against the sig on the deletions page... will change the main page soon to that end -- boxy • talk • 09:12 14 November 2007 (BST)

6. Separate page/sub-page - Seems silly to put it up for A/VB since ugliness isn't a crime and would only spam up deletions.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Sub-page - Seems like a good alternative. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 21:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Sub-page - Everybody wins people! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 10:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
9. Sub it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Any more changes needed before voting

I'll fix up something to put these sig votes on a deletions sub page tomorrow sometime (sheesh, been busy lately), but are there any other changes that may be needed that I missed, overlooked or ignored? -- boxy • talk • 16:26 16 November 2007 (BST)

Well, besides implimenting the above vote, you could define large to be both overly long when rendered and large font size. People will try to weasel out by claiming the intent was one or the other, and it just so happens that it was the one they werent doing. Given the small image sizes allowed by another policy, it will be pretty hard to have an offensive image. Also, im curious as to what is meant by this "using colours that stand out in a casual scan of a normal page (ie, a page without background colouring)", as technically any colour other than standard blue/red/whatever colour your browser turns clicked links will stand out. Might need a little more harder definition on that, possibly limit it to background colours and colours that arent easily visible, such as white and yellow? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well i will be voting kill on the policy as currently presented! When (if) something like this get implemented it should go on the sub page as i suggested but i just don't like too many aspects of this policy to actually vote keep!--Honestmistake 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Specifically i have problems with the second part of the policy, ie:

• "If the signature is changed with 6 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 is considered vandalism. Once the 6 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."

what if everyone else is fine with it?

• Any user that has a signature voted down via this method shall not be allowed to change their sig again for 2 months after the end of voting, and not to use any sig other than the approved one, even if manually entered onto a page -- boxy • talk • 02:33 10 November 2007 (BST)

Sorry but that is overbearing bullshit! repeatedly changing to annoying Sigs might warrant this but believing your sig is not annoying and being proved wrong should not incur any punishment! Changing it for an equally annoying one might but this is going too far!--Honestmistake 00:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It's meant as a deterrent, to try to ensure that users are more thoughtful in choosing their sigs so that they avoid ever getting taken to deletions. It should be a rare occurrence that anyone's sig is voted off the wiki, IMO -- boxy • talk • 03:16 17 November 2007 (BST)

If this were to be changed to "any one whose sig is voted down in this manner should be aware that any similar case of their sig being voted down in the next 30 days will result in them not being allowed to change their sig from the default for a period of 3 months" That makes the penalty only apply to repeat sig abusers not just someone whose sig was borderline and may have only lost by a single vote! --Honestmistake 08:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Gah, the necessity for such a policy bothers me, I'd prefer if it was just the bare essentials instead of a policy created witch hunt protocol for sigs.--Karek^maps?! 00:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer if all modified sigs were banned... mostly all they do is scream "look at me, I know wiki code" Well good for you, now go out and talk to real people and try to get laid... or something ;) --Honestmistake 00:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

But I do know wiki code, and it's so hard too convince people too something.--Karek^maps?! 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My notes added to this list in italics:

1. being unduly large, Define "unduly large"
2. using colours that stand out in a casual scan of a normal page (ie, a page without background colouring), As mentioned, default links do this, so everyone's sig would be outlawed if this was followed to the letter.
3. blinking or scrolling, Fine.
4. using offensive language or images. Define "offensive".

--Funt Solo ^QT 00:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the color thing definitely needs to be fleshed out some. I like my purple link, and I won't stand for it to be blocked. To arms my brethren!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Funt and SA, the policy proposal does say that these points should be taken "as a guideline" and not a rule of what is allowed or not, in order to promote common sense about what is being reported. Obviously a sig like SA, for example, wouldn't be nominated unless it's by some kind of sig xenophobe or some kind of purist, and these kind of users would be ruled out after their third or fourth unsuccesful attempt under the placing a signature up for deletion in and attempt to force policy change rule.

That said, if Boxy decides to make a more complete and/or clearer guideline of what could be considered an "obnoxious signature", he's free to do so, but it wouldn't change my current For vote, because the current version promotes common sense when reporting, and that's a good thing. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope you all don't mind if I answer you all at once down the bottom here, because it seems to be all the one objection. I am deliberately not looking to define which colours or length or offensiveness because everyone has a different view on where the limit should be set. They are, by their nature, subjective judgment calls. A purple sig can be quite tasteful with a beige background, but eye splittingly obnoxious with a green background... a black background could be fine when it is small 14x60px, but draw the eye to it with a length of 160px, or with a large pink border. Thats why I prefaced all those things that could be considered obnoxious (depending on voting) with "as a guideline, an obnoxious sig is one that draws undue attention to itself by". The undue attention part is decided by voters, if more feel that a sig is tasteful and doesn't cause problems, they vote against it's deletion. If anyone feels that it is drawing their attention away from the page, unduly, they vote for it's deletion. People shouldn't be voting for deletion just because a sig meets one of those guidelines, only on whether they think it "draws undue attention" to itself.-- boxy • talk • 03:12 17 November 2007 (BST)

Okay, I wanted to hear your answer first. I shall cast my vote tomorrow. Till then, I bid you a fine adieu.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 03:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Did I mention that I have no idea what day this discussion started, nor do I care to find out? Man, my days are way off.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

November 10, there's still plenty of time.--Karek^maps?! 04:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure it's evident that I have no ability to utilise a calender. Quit laughing Karek. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Or a spelchekr lawl --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I'm an American that had a silly Brit for a English teacher. So sue me. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 04:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Latest Changes

I've made a few changes -- boxy • talk • 06:33 18 November 2007 (BST)

You've ruined it. But anyway, 3 months is a long time and how would it work in regards too users who want too use a different display name, or have in the past for a short spurt but want too again after such a case?--Karek^maps?! 08:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be considered by the ruling sysops, if there wasn't a good reason to allow it they'd just say no. The only good reason I can think of is if someone had been using the alternate name for quite some time, and was well known by it, rather than their username -- boxy • talk • 14:34 18 November 2007 (BST)

Will now get a solid keep from me. Not a fan of people using different names as it can confuse people (it confused me until I realized what was going on!) but it shouldn't be a problem anyway! --Honestmistake 14:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A few late changes. Will probably put this up tomorrow if nothing more comes up -- boxy • talk • 12:47 20 November 2007 (BST)

All the things that I wanted fixed appear to have been fixed. Got my vote.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Voting Discussion

Wooty's vote

>_> --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that really necessary Wooty? A simple no would have done.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This got moved to the talkpage? And yes, there was no need for that. My votes tend to reflect the stupidity of the policy/suggestion. The suckier it is, the more I spam. But really, the amount of drama votes based on individual asthetic taste would be horrendous...You cant "argue" it. On a suggestion, you can at least say "its balanced and adds new strategy" or "flavor is always good". On an election you can say "he makes lots of edits and has rarely caused drama". But on sigs, it goes "THE SIG IS STOOPID I HATE IT" "NO I LEIK IT UR SIG IS STOOPID". The only justification for your argument is "I don't like it" unless the sig is page breakingly big/flashy/long. It's like having a debate on which color is the best. If you don't like the user in question, you will vote against them, if you like them you will vote for them. All the system would achieve is a wiki where well liked users having flashy sigs and hated users have plain sigs. The vote is a bad idea. That is all. Oh yes, and fuck fuck fuck fuck.--Wooty 23:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)