UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signatures Require Links

The Signature Policy will be updated to make it clear that you are required to include a handle with a link. The text of the signature policy would be amended to include something along the lines of (changes in bold):

Required Link

There must be a visible handle portion of your signature which must link to your user page or one of its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature. Superscript adornments, images and other parts of your signature may link to other locations provided that such links do not violate the rules below.

Voting Section

Voting Rules

Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms: # comments ~~~~ or # ~~~~ Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.

The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

For

1. I'd suggest, "The handle portion of your signature must clearly link to your user page..." as a simpler change to the wording of the original policy.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:40, 5 May 2011 (BST)
2. Because some people apparently need to get it hammered into their face. -- Spiderzed█ 14:55, 5 May 2011 (BST)
3. yesh. fucking a --    bitch  15:07, 5 May 2011 (utc)
4. IV ~ _{15:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)}
5. Cinco de Mayo - ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 15:58, 5 May 2011 (BST)
6. G F J 16:37, 5 May 2011 (BST)
7. Common sense innit. ~ Kempy “YaketyYak” | ◆◆◆ | CAPD |
    
   17:21, 5 May 2011 (BST)
8. Voter #2, I know who you are by now, but I highly doubt anybody new would know who you are, and frankly, since you changed your sig recently, I didn't even know who you are at first. I'm sorry, that has to change.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 17:29, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   Did you mean voter #3? Yeah, with this policy SH would have to include a visible handle is his sig. Several people would. ~ _{17:53, 5 May 2011 (UTC)}

   Think he meant Kat in the against votes below. -- Spiderzed█ 17:56, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   SH has a visible handle? So does Katthew...--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:17, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   Eh? Guess I've misinterpreted the policy addition. So this is strickly to prevent people making their handle invisible by either making it too small or by some means of masking it (like white text on white background? Ok, that's fine. ~ _{18:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)}

   Literally the five or so bold words are the only thing this policy changes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 19:16, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   Do you know how pointless this policy is then? I assumed a "visible handle" meant an visible username, so I can scroll over that and click on it, rather than scrolling all over that sig in an attempt to find a link to User:whoever, which is annoying for me, but I'm guessing infuriating for newbies. Nobody is violating this "policy" as written (not even goonsig), so I don't really see the point of having it. I might as well keep my vote for it; other votes pointed out current loopholes in the rules that hasn't been exploited yet, but will likely be if this fails.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 02:15, 6 May 2011 (BST)

   Yeah, it is pointless. It only comes up because of recent drama over the wording of it. Might as well deal with it now. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:35, 6 May 2011 (BST)

   Made even more pointless because this was handled by the precedent of the case about it, but still, primary legislation and all that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 15:56, 6 May 2011 (BST)

9. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:17, 5 May 2011 (BST)
10. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:30, 5 May 2011 (BST)
11. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 21:44, 5 May 2011 (BST)
12. I like what Deadman says but this is a really minor thing that is already implied, and not at all unreasonable. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:55, 6 May 2011 (BST)
13. The whole purpose of a signature is to identify the author. Without a visible handle this purpose is not fulfilled. This is common sense. Gordon 01:53, 6 May 2011 (BST)
14. No sense in hiding or making it hard to find out who posted what...       01:59, 6 May 2011 (BST)
15. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:59, 6 May 2011 (BST)
16. Doesn't hurt anything. Can only help. —Aichon— 04:40, 6 May 2011 (BST)
17. Hello, I'm Johnny Cash--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 06:30, 6 May 2011 (BST)
18. I approve of this incredibly underpowered, relatively meaningless change to the signature policy. --Visible One 10:41, 6 May 2011 (BST)
19. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:32, 6 May 2011 (BST)
20. --Mallrat ^{TSI TKS CTD} 19:14, 6 May 2011 (BST)
21. -- Adward  11:52, 7 May 2011 (BST)

Against

1. What do you mean "some people"? This would not be an issue if any group but GOONSOMGDIE were doing it. --#19 - DrPain ^TMG 15:43, 5 May 2011 (BST)
2. I shouldn't need to link to anything. People should know who I am by now. --カシュー, ザ ゾンビ クィーン (ビープ ビープ) @ 16:09, 5 May 2011 (BST)
3. Yeah fuck those Goons right guys let me just change the policy because they aren't breaking any rules at the moment woopwoop. Yeah, no. --|||||||||||||||||||||| 16:28, 5 May 2011 (BST)
4. No Louis Vernon 17:06 5 May 2011 (BST)
5. Oh no, not the goons! --ShaqFu 17:42, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   LEAVE MAH BOOBIES ALONE!--    bitch  18:01, 5 May 2011 (utc)

   It doesn't affect your signature (as long as the boobs are visible, you're fine).--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 19:29, 5 May 2011 (BST)

   i've already been told by several users and a few syops that i'm not allowed to remove the boobs from my sig according to some policy somewhere--    bitch  01:55, 6 May 2011 (utc)

6. yeah let's flood av/b with more officious bullshit. WIKI LAW is sufficient y'all. --Rise|||||||||||||||||||||above 18:11, 5 May 2011 (BST)
7. Im also voting for Ralph Nader in 2012 Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 19:27, 5 May 2011
8. I'm not at all a fan of writing additional rules in the way this came up. I'm a firm believer that excessive "legislature" makes a wiki too restrictive to editing by newbies and bogs down the system via processing through admin pages. This kind of rule sets a precedent that allows sysops to "make rules as we go" instead of addressing more fundamental problems down the line. Given how my first post was received, I feel like the sysops should consider exactly what kind of environment they're creating and what kind of example they're setting when one non-sysop has to comment on a ban before it gets assessed properly.--Deadman Walken 20:17, 5 May 2011 (BST)
9. This is clearly nothing more than a "look at me!" cry by someone who needs to see their name in sparkling lights and be proclaimed Hero of the Wiki™. Or that might be me. Either way, it's a stupid idea by a stupid person. WIKI LAW ill needs a saviour such as you. --|||||||||||||||||||||| 22:36, 5 May 2011 (BST)
10. Against for the simple reason that people should have the right to choose. Attempting to enforce conformity... well... where have I seen that before... oh yes... -The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:36, 6 May 2011 (BST)
11. No Spank you. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 11:22, 6 May 2011 (BST)
12. This policy change addresses a problem that does not exist. It is common sense to assume impersonation if a link-less sig does not contain the username of the poster, therefor this seems to me to be another attempt to "punish" a group that has a long standing reputation of pushing boundaries --Fjorn 11:52, 6 May 2011 (BST)
13. This is dumb --|||||||||||||||||||||| 14:12, 6 May 2011 (BST)
14. THIS IS UNNACEPTABLE. --|||||||||||||||||||||| 14:07, 6 May 2011 (BST)
15. No --|||||||||||||||||||||| 14:34, 6 May 2011 (BST)
16. As a neutral party, I whole-heartedly disagree with this proposal, citing Deadman Walken's point that it obfuscates the ease and use of the Wiki at whole.--ExtraNoise 15:56, 6 May 2011 (BST)
17. Not necessary in my opinion --عبد الريحم بن حسين بن عبد الرحمن العراقي المصري‎ 19:24, 6 May 2011 (BST)
18. User pages are pretty meantingless anyway --Sair 22:16, 6 May 2011 (BST)
19. No. -- |||||||||||||||||||||| 00:59, 7 May 2011 (BST)
20. Pointless. --Susan Bakersfield 01:46, 7 May 2011 (BST)
21. Seems rather pointless and stupid. "Papers please", anyone? Serious Post Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:17, 7 May 2011 (BST)
22. The box of adorable puppies wouldn't be wasting our time with useless policies like this. -- #4 - Haberdash ^TMG 02:39, 7 May 2011 (BST)
23. What a frivolous policy. --||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:47, 7 May 2011 (BST)
24. Against, cause too much law makes life f*cked!--Jim Bim 11:38, 7 May 2011 (BST)