UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

The original policy had a lot of good points. I think this version removes the bad points Bubba 19:25, 27 October 2006 (BST)

I agree. My only objection to the old version was the reference to "offensive" material. This is a much-needed policy. Paul Brunner 19:46, 27 October 2006 (BST)

What's the problem with linking to Special:Random? --Sirens^{T RR} 21:24, 27 October 2006 (BST)

I don't feel that strongly about special:random but someone mentioned it in the earlier vote so I added it. Perhaps the person who mentioned it can state their rationale. I suppose you could say its a form of impersonation or, at least, deception since the point of clicking on the signature is to learn more about who the signer is. special:random doesn't do that. But as I said, I could go either way on this point. Bubba 22:30, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Mainly because it's juvenile, annoying and serves no purpose. It's also rather cruel to the newbs. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 22:34, 27 October 2006 (BST)

Eh, I disagree with having that specific page banned from sig linkage in this policy, but I guess it really doesn't bother me personally. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:39, 28 October 2006 (BST)

Despite all we've (i.e., me) has stolen from them, despite the inane fake "you have new messages" boxes that some people have and despite the inclusion-style signatures, this isn't Uncyclopedia. Linking to Special:Userlogout as your user name, or Special:Random is not constructive and gets old fast. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 09:31, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, it isn't funny, and quite unconstructive. However, the wording needs to be tightened up, as linke like mine and Xoid's to Special:Listusers/sysop would currently be against the rules. I'm also in favor of doing something about images that aren't safe for work being linked from sigs, but that may be a thing for the wiki as a whole... --Darth Sensitive ^W! 14:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I changed the wording of the clause to mention those two special pages explicitly rather than all special pages. Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or special:Random. Are there any other unconstructive special pages?

I think that an images policy doesn't belong here. That should be proposed as an image policy for the whole wiki as you suggested. And then we can argue about what work safe means. I work at home, so pretty much anything is safe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bubbadick (talk • contribs) .

Hm. Putting Special:Blockip in wouldn't win you any awards, though it's downright hard to "accidentally" ban someone since there's a confirmation page (though mistyping a name isn't impossible, and someone signing as someone else may trick an unattentive sysop). As an added "other-user friendly" measure, perhaps add "your handle must link to your user page or one of it's sub pages" to the policy. Still open to abuse, but far less so than anything else. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 03:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Added Special:BlockIP and added a clause requiring the handle portion of the signature to link as you suggested. Does this capture your points? Bubba 05:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that there is a mandate that your "name" points to your user space, the moratorium on Special:Random can be removed. Other than that, it looks good. –Xoid ^M•T•FU! 01:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Special:Random removed. Putting it up for vote. -- Bubba^T 08:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That was the exact reason I brought it up on the last vote. The policy looks good to me. --Bonefiver 19:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

ANY OTHER CHANGES?

Or does this look finished enough to vote on? Bubba 02:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm late, and it's protected

I've noticed the phrase "Signatures which contain images larger then 50kb." It should be "Signatures which contain images larger than 50kb." --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}14:09, 23 July 2009 (BST)

I snuck in and fixed it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:11 23 July 2009 (BST)

External links wording could be improved

As it is currently written the phrase "Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions" implies that only a signature which contains a link to a URL redirecting service (like goo.gl) that forwards the user to a malicious link is forbidden. It should probably read "Signatures which contain external links that perform malicious actions" or even "Signatures which contain links that perform malicious actions". -- |||||||||||||||||||||||||| 12:43, 29 May 2011 (BST)