UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy Revamp

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

This is basically my view of what signatures should be. Basically they are there for identification. Personalisation is a good thing to encourage, but shouldn't impact on the primary purpose of the sig (identification) or the wiki itself -- boxy 02:50, 11 October 2015 (BST)

General Comments & Overall Structure

Is it OK if I make a couple of punctuation fixes? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 03:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, although I expect to add/change it over the next few days -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)

I agree with this in principle, but the text as it stands feels incredibly patronizing. Things like "due to overly 'creative' personalisation". Is anyone else getting this feeling? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 14:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need signatures

Shouldn't the signature be required to link to the user's page (or character page) "and/or" their talk page? (or maybe "and"?) Bob Moncrief EBDW! 03:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Yep, "and/or" -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)

Personalized signatures

Disruptive signatures

Better, but I still say limit the visible length to the 255 character limit of the Nickname field in Preferences. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 05:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I really think we should worry about defining hard limits in separate amendments later (for ones that arn't already in place) -- boxy 05:59, 11 October 2015 (BST)
As Boxy. The closer we get to general "don't be a dick" rules, the better. This isn't a massive community any more, we don't need very precise or particular rules, just lots of mod discretion.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Question — do previous A/VB rulings still stand as precedent, or is this "wiping the slate clean"? Bob Moncrief EBDW! 14:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good question, the good thing in this policy is it is pretty much encapsulating the previous precedents in a loose guide. Which I think is the way to go. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


There's a reason no policies are written like this. This is basically just the current signature policy except instead of 'do this and don't do this' it's 'please maybe do this and you shouldn't do this'. Policies should only be here to specify in no uncertain terms what to do and what no to do, not suggest it. It just leaves more loopholes than it fixes. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Policies should set out the basic framework of what the intent is. Sigs are here for a specific purpose, and that is clear identification of who posted what, when. Not one person, who has ever designed a signature with this basic principle as the main goal, has ever been brought to A/VB. It's time that policy reminded posters of what the underlying purpose of the wiki is, rather than setting up specific rules as a challenge for them to game the system. The current sig policy is the worst example of this, with it's "everything else is allowed" and "you have one week to comply" after being told your sig is fucking ridiculous. It simply invites wikilawyers and the too cool for school crowd in for a troll fest. What is written here is, more or less, what the current sig policy is, because sysops have been forced to ignore the letter of the current policy, because it is totally unworkable -- boxy 13:53, 11 October 2015 (BST)
Yeah, the content isn't awful, but the way it's represented is. "The signature should be this and shouldn't be this", "maybe if you see a disruptive signature, maybe do this" is absolutely the opposite way to go about something that the 2C4S crowd will try and take advantage of.
Currently this policy does nothing. All it is doing is codifying what happens on the wiki already, either through the original sig policy or through community precedent, and we've already established what happens already isn't good enough, so do it properly, make it more stern, so there's less room for people to fuck about and claim good faith, or whatever they could say to get around it.
Don't leave ifs or maybes. Tell everyone what's allowed, what's not allowed, and tell them what will happen if they fuck about. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Good ideas

I just posted something before seeing that boxy beat me to it here by quite a bit. To repost parts of that comment here for discussion:

[...] given that most of the stuff currently covered in the sig policy is blatant bad faith, and thus is kinda redundant to mention here since it can already be dealt with as vandalism, I'm inclined to cut/reduce those elements and then focus on the parts that aren't bad faith. For instance:
  • On the pages you sign, your signature must:
    1. Clearly identify who you are
    2. Provide a link to your userspace where people can contact you
    3. Be under 255 characters in the code
    4. Stay within the line without stretching it
  • Keep your images to less than 50 Kb in total and don't use blinking text or images
  • And obviously don't use your sig in bad faith (e.g. impersonate others, trick people to click links, push around or overlap other page elements, etc.)

I agree with boxy's sentiment that we should express what the intent of the signature is, but I also think that enumerating lists of ways to misbehave is just inviting loopholes and wikilawyering. Basically, I'd suggest cutting down on the stuff regarding outright vandalism and would focus on the stuff that a well-behaved user would need to know. Aichon 16:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I say under 255 on the visible page, not the code itself. As it stands, most templated signatures are over the 255 limit. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It wasn't intended to limit templated sigs, just the amount of code allowed "on the pages you sign".
Plus, if we're talking about the visible page, rather than the code, then 255 characters is a fuzzy limit since we're not using a fixed-width font on the visible pages (e.g. if 255 "W"s take up, say, 300px and 255 "I"s take up 150px, and you use an image in your sig that takes up 225px, are you in trouble or not?) It's better to limit the display stuff by using display terms, such as px, which would be an absolute, or the measure of a line, which can scale automatically as pixel densities change in the next few years. But both of those are fixed for any given block of text, whereas characters are not, hence the difficulty in using them. Aichon 17:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I agree with basically everything you've said, Aichon. Keep it sharp and short, don't leave too much open for interpretation, and you're leaving the sysops with bold guidelines on which to rule. A ZOMBIE ANT 02:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

"Annoying links"

It's vague language and the clause doesn't need it, since it goes on to specify the kind of thing that would fall afoul of it anyway. Ditch it and just start that sentence as "No special page links...". Be clear whenever possible. The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new 17:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are your tools, sire

Here, i have a set of tools this wiki still appears to be needing. Chisel.jpg --hagnat 19:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

now now, just so people don't complain about me being disruptive...
this policy makes the sig policy more complicated. What it needs is some kind of streamlining
  • don't be an ass with your signature (avoid too many links, use small images, no blinking, no offensive stuff, etc)
  • signature should be placed at the end of your comment, and not span more than one line
  • if you find someone's sig annoying, politely ask its owner to change. If he refuses, contacts a Sysop.
and thats all --hagnat 19:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


So, after some of the feedback, what do you think, Boxy? Hopefully we can keep the momentum going enough to get a good policy through at some point in the future. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Would I have to alter the goonSig template that I use in my signature if this becomes wiki law? --Emot-siren.gif LABIA on the INTERNET Emot-siren.gif Dunell Hills Corpseman The Malton Globetrotters#24 - You rated this wiki '1'! Great job, go hog wild!|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| TMG 07:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt you'd have to make any changes. This policy revamp seems to not change anything substantive about what is/isn't allowed (especially because, as far as I can tell, previous precedent stands), only the structure/formatting of the signature policy. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Just because something has been allowed to happen doesn't mean that there's a precedent in favour of allowing it- if a case was brought (either now or under the policy) then in theory the sig could be banned (especially since VB cases aren't subject to strict precedent). But I doubt anyone's going to do that and there'd be a reasonable case to be made that the sig doesn't breach policy.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Right, I was just saying that the sig is equally allowed under both the old and proposed versions of the policy. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 18:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
The goonsig is one of the most obnoxious stuff that roam this wiki. But... meh, we managed to coexist with it so far, might as well let you guys keep it --hagnat 15:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
There's no absolute answer to that question. This policy as it stands is so open ended that it could easily be abused by overly proactive sysops, or conversely, others, if the sysops are too passive. The latter would probably be more likely, so I wouldn't be worried. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


This policy proposal has been inactive (and Boxy hasn't appeared) in over two months. Unless there is further discussion or someone opts to move this to voting, I'm going to declare it withdrawn in a few days. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 02:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

They automatically classify for withdrawal if no discussion has been made for two weeks. A ZOMBIE ANT 23:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Ehh, it's 2016. Things move slower around here. Bob Moncrief EBDW! 23:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
It's [current year]. Go with the times. -- Spiderzed 00:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
That's fair enough. A ZOMBIE ANT 22:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)