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

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

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 ^EBD•W! 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 ^EBD•W! 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 ^EBD•W! 04:18, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it won't hurt to get this instance clarified in the form of a community-backed policy. It's always better to stand on two legs (A/VB system and policy), and this is a trivial addition that should receive a rubberstamp. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:43, 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 ^EBD•W! 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)

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

i agree with fuckface --User:Sexualharrison01:42, 6 October 2015

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

#supportobnoxiouslylongsigs --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Long sigs are one thing (though the most recent edit-conflicted sig you just added is pushing it). Same with animated ones. Signatures that measure in with over 11 Kb of text and make pages virtually unusable to a large portion of the site's users are something else. Not that anyone here has done anything like that recently. *hides his one hand behind the other while pointing at Rev* —Aichon— 16:58, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't that why we're here in Policy Discussions? To discuss potential changes to policy? I mean, as it stands, I could just keep adding a few hundred more numbers to the end of this documentation of pi. --3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399 375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282 306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644 6229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 4856692346034861045432 6648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174 881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951 94151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996 2749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946 3952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320 0056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014 6549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960864034418159813629774 771309960518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318595024459455 346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010003137838752886587533208 381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957781 8577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632 78865936153381827968230301952035301852968995773622599413891249721775283 47913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493 93192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429 5559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 1293313677028989152104752162056966024058038150193511253382430035587640 2474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150 302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653 4498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841 7574672890977772793800081647060016145249192173217214772350141441973568 548161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143334547762416862518983 569485562099219222184272550254256887671790494601653466804988627232791 7860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929 8489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504 7123713786960956364371917287467764657573962413890865832645995813390478 02759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826 84826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091 9065925093722169646151570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813 82686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958 486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359 9770012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864815845602850601 684273945226746767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488623057 745649803559363456817432411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314 5669136867228748940560101503308617928680920874760917824938589009714 909675985261365549781893129784821682998948722658804857564014270477555 1323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661 021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390 621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706 146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159 195618146751426912397489409071864942319... 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing whether or not sigs that obstruct the use of the site are contrary to policy. That's already a settled matter in the existing policy. All we're doing here is discussing how we address those situations and whether it might be worth it to clarify existing policy so that we don't run into so many questions in the future.

And sure, you can keep adding text to your sig, Axe, but at some point we won't be able to assume good faith any longer, in which case it would fall under the textbook definition of vandalism that we have here on this wiki. And that's kinda the point. Hard limits and legal wording rarely work well here, since people will always push the boundaries. We need less wikilawyering and more common sense. —Aichon— 17:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, may I recommend something to add to the policy? I, after all, am just setting an example here with my current templated sig. You see, the current length of my signature is impossible outside of templated signatures or manually typing it all in. This does not fit in the Nickname field. The previous non-templated version you saw earlier does fit, however, and was cutting into the maximum capacity of that field. Are you catching my drift, old man? ;) --3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399 375105820974944592307816406286208998628034825342117067982148086513282 306647093844609550582231725359408128481117450284102701938521105559644 6229489549303819644288109756659334461284756482337867831652712019091456 4856692346034861045432 6648213393607260249141273724587006606315588174 881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951 94151160943305727036575959195309218611738193261179310511854807446237996 2749567351885752724891227938183011949129833673362440656643086021394946 3952247371907021798609437027705392171762931767523846748184676694051320 0056812714526356082778577134275778960917363717872146844090122495343014 6549585371050792279689258923542019956112129021960864034418159813629774 771309960518707211349999998372978049951059731732816096318595024459455 346908302642522308253344685035261931188171010003137838752886587533208 381420617177669147303598253490428755468731159562863882353787593751957781 8577805321712268066130019278766111959092164201989380952572010654858632 78865936153381827968230301952035301852968995773622599413891249721775283 47913151557485724245415069595082953311686172785588907509838175463746493 93192550604009277016711390098488240128583616035637076601047101819429 5559619894676783744944825537977472684710404753464620804668425906949 1293313677028989152104752162056966024058038150193511253382430035587640 2474964732639141992726042699227967823547816360093417216412199245863150 302861829745557067498385054945885869269956909272107975093029553211653 4498720275596023648066549911988183479775356636980742654252786255181841 7574672890977772793800081647060016145249192173217214772350141441973568 548161361157352552133475741849468438523323907394143334547762416862518983 569485562099219222184272550254256887671790494601653466804988627232791 7860857843838279679766814541009538837863609506800642251252051173929 8489608412848862694560424196528502221066118630674427862203919494504 7123713786960956364371917287467764657573962413890865832645995813390478 02759009946576407895126946839835259570982582262052248940772671947826 84826014769909026401363944374553050682034962524517493996514314298091 9065925093722169646151570985838741059788595977297549893016175392846813 82686838689427741559918559252459539594310499725246808459872736446958 486538367362226260991246080512438843904512441365497627807977156914359 9770012961608944169486855584840635342207222582848864815845602850601 684273945226746767889525213852254995466672782398645659611635488623057 745649803559363456817432411251507606947945109659609402522887971089314 5669136867228748940560101503308617928680920874760917824938589009714 909675985261365549781893129784821682998948722658804857564014270477555 1323796414515237462343645428584447952658678210511413547357395231134271661 021359695362314429524849371871101457654035902799344037420073105785390 621983874478084784896833214457138687519435064302184531910484810053706 146806749192781911979399520614196634287544406437451237181921799983910159 195618146751426912397489409071864942319... 17:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Don’t forget the version before that where I accidentally +236,461 bytes of text because of a multiplication error and broke the template inclusion limit on every page it appeared on, making them appear blank.
I guess what I’m saying is, “nerf templated sigs.”*
ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:54, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
     _{∗ yeah right, never happen}

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)

We already did exactly that stuff, minus the A/VB case (at least so far...we'll see where things go). There was some confusion over whether or not the letter of the law supported common sense (which is exactly why I think we should scrap most of the existing policies and start over fresh with a handful of simple, clear guidelines to follow, akin to what the existing admin guidelines are, which, if memory serves, you played a large role in authoring...). —Aichon— 17:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

“Common sense” has nothing on uncommon nonsense! ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey rev, has anyone ever said your sig qualifies as impersonation ? cuz you are linking to other user pages. --hagnat 20:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Clearly you slept through that particular dramafest. ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Replace all policies with "1. Do not be a cunt. If you are being a cunt, you will be banned."--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

You heard it here first folks, Yon is racist against vaginæ! Assemble the Angry Vaginas! ({|}) ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 01:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Moving to voting

Ok, the objections I see are

1. the standard "we don't need to change policies using the policy-voting system/the wiki doesn't matter/we are all just hurtling infinitely into the void/etc"
2. that another thing that really needs changing is the timing rules related to sig changes and vandal banning.

As to #1, . For #2, that can be dealt with in an additional policy change that I'm not invested enough to spearhead. Because there are no direct objections to this policy as currently worded, and I want it over with, I'm moving to voting. Have fun y'all. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Discussion from Voting section

PS, to save you from figuring out what the limit is, it's 255 characters. --GAMBLER _of LEGEND ^ΧIII 22:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

That’ll never fly. I've suggested that in the past, too, and it always gets shot down because these fancy sigs use tons of chars in formatting. (For example, your current sig, fairly restrained as these things go, clocks in at 722 characters.) ЯЭV⁠€⁠NΛИ† ||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Not counting the coding, why not have the final length (that everyone regularly sees) clock out at the Nickname field's length? That was what I was trying to get at when this was in discussion. --GAMBLER _of LEGEND ^ΧIII 01:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That would take a bit of discussion (clauses that include image workarounds, eg. revenant's goonsig uses an image), but I'd be for it. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, 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.)

Mind you, I'm merely tossing these out as an example, and am not suggesting that these should be the policy (i.e. I haven't given them serious enough thought to consider them a full-fledged suggestion). I'm just pointing out that things could be greatly simplified and focused on the parts that are actually important. Because if we spend time enumerating all of the ways that people can misbehave, then, like you said, we'd be writing clauses and closing loopholes for years. If, instead, we focus on how they're supposed to be used and then aim the policy at the things that aren't necessarily bad faith but also aren't ways that we want sigs being used, the policy would be a lot more beneficial and would have less room for wikilawyering. —Aichon— 15:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Just saw that boxy posted up a new policy for discussion. Ignore this block of text, since I'll be reposting it there and following up there with any discussion. —Aichon— 16:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)