UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signatures

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

No signatures with curses? Since when is colorful language not allowed on the wiki? Since never, you might say- but then wouldn't it look absurd to say "I FUCKING HATE YOUR FUCKING STUPID FUCKING SUGGESTION YOU FUCKING LOSER --TheF***ingFlamerGuy 03:29, 21 September 2006 (BST)"?! --Ron Burgundy 03:29, 21 September 2006 (BST)

• I Fucking Agree --Master(de)Bater 04:37, 21 September 2006 (BST) Bubba 04:50, 21 September 2006 (BST)

What's the point? Editing sigs is prominent and unambiguous vandalism, the perp will be punished immediately, and order will be restored. There's no real point to protecting sigs. You might as well protect all pages and have all edits run past a mod. Also you don't have a single example of such vandalism occuring yet. Do we need a new policy just to preempt it? Rheingold 06:03, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Rheingold. Were you using the wiki a few hours ago ? Someone just edited Xoid and Hammero's sigs to display the Amazingking template over and over. It was nearly impossible to use the wiki during a few minutes. (That's why i protected all mod signatures). The first part of the policy already proves to be valid with what happened in the exact moment i was typing it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:07, 21 September 2006 (BST)

(diff) (hist) . . User:BobHammero/Sig‎; 02:31 . . Goobasmar (Talk | contribs | block)

(diff) (hist) . . User:Xoid/sig‎; 01:42 . . Zanatil (Talk | contribs | block)

A good example of the template signatures feature being vandalized. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 06:12, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Not Cool

Me having to ask a mod to change my signature for me = bad. This is getting a big fat against vote from me.--Gage 07:12, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah I'm having to agree with Gage on this and also Ron's comment about 'colourful language' is true too. I can't really see this working. Pillsy ^{Hunt! FC!} 10:44, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah, this is not cool. But, as much as i hate to have more "paper work" to do in the wiki, this is needed to prevent vandalism and the death of this wiki. If you read my comments above you will notice that my bad case scenario already went real... and that we could face the destruction of the wiki if we dont take this policy. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:45, 21 September 2006 (BST)

ZOMFG THE WIKI IS GONNA FALL APRART!--Gage 18:30, 21 September 2006 (BST)

yes it will... actually, almost did... and mostly because of the use of template as signatures :P --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:17, 21 September 2006 (BST)

The only person who can destroy the wiki is Kevan. Unless I take a baseball bat to the actual server ... anything that is done to the wiki can be undone. This policy is dumb.--Gage 22:44, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Hagnet brings up a good point and with all the absurdity out of this (the thing that was removed below), I think it's something that needs to go through. Huzzah for updates! --Ron Burgundy 23:05, 21 September 2006 (BST)

If we're going to pass this, I think it should be broadened out to cover all templates. I mean, what's stoping someone from changing {{Suburb}} or {{TOC}} or {{LocationBlock}}? - Bango Skank ^{T W! M!} 15:45, 22 September 2006 (BST)

Revision

The following part was removed from this policy. Perhaps some other time...

And the following guidelines must be followed, when creating the signature. ''thanks jedaz for the following rulings''

===What wouldn't be allowed===
#Signatures which have malicious or inappropriate links, for example a signiture which contains a link to the logout page.
#Signatures which have images higher then 14 pixels high.
#Signatures which have animated images
#Signatures which generaly break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.
#Signatures which impersonate another user.
#Signatures which have inappropriate or offensive images.
#Signatures which contain curse words.
#Signatures which link to PHP scripts and other such technologies. 

===What would be allowed===
#Anything that doesn't come under what isn't allowed.

Ask a mod?

I see the problem you are concerned about. After realizing how templates work, I see how easy it would be to pervert them at the source and have that trickle into the wiki. This is a good observation and I agree it should be addressed. I do take issue with the "ask a mod for permission" concept. What if the mod denies permission? What criteria would the mod be allowed to deny permission? Can permission be revoked after it is granted? What if one moderator denies permission and then the user asks another moderator?

Also, I understand the impulse to grandfather ones self into a policy so it applies to everyone else, but wouldn't it be more fair for everyone to have to go through the process of asking permission? After all, the ones who already use templates as signatures are the sources of this vulnerability. Your use of templates is an avenue through which vandals can cause some far reaching damage. If anything, those who already use it should be the first to have to ask permission. Isn't that only fair? --Kiki Lottaboobs 19:57, 21 September 2006 (BST)

There is no denial of a change request in this revised version of the policy. If someone wants to change their signature from TheBringerOfDeath to CutePony, no mod can deny the request, just like i can change my own signature to anything i want right now.

I think i have already protected the signatures of all mods in this wiki, after what happened a few hours ago. The thing about mods not having to request changes for their own signatures is nothing ordinary. The community already trusted them the power of moderators based on their work on the wiki, and as token of trust in their judgement. Mods are assumed to act for the good of the wiki. While it is seems unfair that mods have the luxury of not having to request the change, they simply dont have to reques because they CAN change their own signatures. By protecting a page, regular users wont be able to change their signatures, only mods, and thats why they need to request the change while mods dont have to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 20:10, 21 September 2006 (BST)

Talk (moved from page)

Hey, I've got a question. Since you say this is so important, why haven't you just brought it before Kevan? --Ron Burgundy 07:02, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Because Kevan will probably just say "Go through the proper procedures". It needs community acceptance to be successful. - Jedaz - 05:44/22/12/2024 07:04, 25 September 2006 (BST)