UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signatures Require Links

Looks good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:40, 1 May 2011 (BST)

^^^^^--   bitch  17:51, 1 May 2011 (utc)

Fixes loophole nicely. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:53, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Gonna love watching this one get through! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 13:00, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Dictionary definitions for "signature"

Merriam-Webster Dictionary

The name of a person written with his or her own hand

New Oxford American Dictionary

A person's name written in a distinctive way as a form of identification in authorizing a check or document or concluding a letter

Answers.com

One's name as written by oneself.

Notice a common theme? I'm guessing something prompted this idea, but by definition a signature is when someone signs their name. If someone is "signing" their comments without a handle, they're not signing their comments at all. Simple as that. You can't make comments without signing them, and you can't sign them without providing a handle. Take whatever idiot prompted this thing to A/VB. —Aichon— 21:05, 1 May 2011 (BST)

You're proposing we get rid of image signatures, then? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:11, 1 May 2011 (BST)

No, just that they need to include a handle (which can be an identifying mark or image), which has always been the case. But I just re-read things, checked A/VB, saw what prompted this, and realized how I misunderstood what the policy said (I was thinking someone wasn't putting in a handle, whereas it's a case of someone making one that's virtually invisible). Now that I understand better, I fail to see why this is an issue. There's already precedent for escalating people that are intentionally making their signature handle difficult to read or see (e.g. Iscariot got escalated for posting his handle in light-colored text that blended into the background). It's clearly bad faith that runs contrary to the purpose of the original sig policy, which was to help people find out more about the person behind the comments. —Aichon— 21:19, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It shouldn't be an issue, but it's easier to update the policy on it than it is to have a huge argument every time it comes up.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:35, 1 May 2011 (BST)

He was taken to VB, and it was found to be vandalism, but loads of people bitched about the decision. Frankly this is just a nice ribbon on top.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:17, 1 May 2011 (BST)

You guys made the right call, and you all really need to start exercising #3 in the punishment section of the sig policy if people are doing stuff like this. The week-long wait is for folks who aren't posting and generally just made a mistake, but if someone is intentionally avoiding changing a sig that is in violation and is still posting, you can and should take them to A/VB immediately. —Aichon— 21:26, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah, we really need to start enforcing the section about repeat offenders who are actually violating the policy, which of course means immediately punishing people who haven't done anything against the rules rather than giving them the time the policy is supposed to allow them. WIKI LAW at its finest. --甘いノーム愛感覚的の私の型板!!! 06:56, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Couldn't agree more. I'd also support punishing people who think about breaking the rules, even if we only have suspicions that they are doing so. ;) —Aichon— 18:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Actually we should probably work to remove that section. Jumping the tree for something so small is kinda retarded. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:05, 2 May 2011 (BST)

People shouldn't be able to act with impunity for a week, knowing that on day 6 at the 11th hour they can change things to something that's not in violation and get away with it. I agree that not giving a newbie their fair shake isn't a good thing, and it's better to err on the side of caution in such matters, but if someone is being deliberate in doing this sort of thing, has been told to stop, and continues to do so, then they were given the opportunity to stop and should have taken it. —Aichon— 18:22, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Signatures really aren't a big deal. Using the policy as a source of escalations has always been a bad faith abuse of it's purpose. Same as strict interpretation of Arbitration policy for escalations. Nothing good comes of trying to do that and erring on the side of caution in both cases is faith in the user who would be escalated. Actually, it's always faith in the user who would be escalated regardless of what the case is. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:51, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Let me know if we are going to start following the "definition" of things on the wiki. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 21:20, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Shared Signatures

Not that I think this policy really needs to be put in place but as long as we're spelling out such obvious "loopholes" in the policy, why not stating that Signatures should be unique and not shared by any person. Also acceptable would be Don't be a fucking moron, moron. ~ _{21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)}

You know what else would be nice? The anti-meatpuppetry clause I've been asking for for over a year.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:23, 1 May 2011 (BST)

As if we couldnt deal with copied signatures under both clarity and impersonation arguments. Tsk. --Rosslessness 21:28, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Oh no, people aren't voting for you. Time to call shenanigans because boo-fucking-hoo. Or you could man the fuck up and realize that maybe, just maybe, people believe Revenant will do a better job than you. Impossible to imagine, I know, but you could try. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 21:51, 1 May 2011 (BST)

Sorry, mysterygoon, I don't really care what you think.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:19, 1 May 2011 (BST)

How about we handle everything through A/VB? As long as we enforce some common sense this isn't necessary. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:16, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I would have thought so, but the page-long argument we just had somewhat disproves that theory.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:21, 1 May 2011 (BST)

That would require you to have common sense which you've proven time and again you just don't have. As for this silly bit of potential WIKI LAW why not cut out all the bullshit and force linkable sigs onto people? Maybe include a photo because who knows if it's actually the person they say they are! And don't forget, this would force people to actually use their username not some stupid image or a name different than your username because that could be impersonating that picture and/or name and we certainly don't want that. --|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 22:34, 1 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not adverse to putting it in, but isn't this already pretty comprehensibly covered by the current policies?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:42, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It is. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:42, 1 May 2011 (BST)

It is not. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:19, 2 May 2011 (BST)

1+1=2 03:21, 2 May 2011 (BST)

1+1=3 (for sufficiently large values of 1) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:00, 2 May 2011 (BST)

Further comments?

OK, I've included the requirement for signatures to be unique. Could I get concensus on what other changes are needed?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:09, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Meaning what, exactly, though? Lots of groups use similarly-themed signatures which look the same at a glance, and people frequently copy wikicode from others with minimal customisation. What, exactly, is being said, here? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:30, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Groups should be allowed to have similar signatures. I don't think I can get behind, or rather should get behind a requirement of individuality. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:39, 3 May 2011 (BST)

On second thoughts: Agreed. The wording doesn't carry across what was actually intended. I've changed it slightly, thought I'm still not perfectly happy with the wording.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:56, 3 May 2011 (BST)

"Discernible" is good, "may not be a full copy of an existing sig" might be better. (Note: Unique user link that can be detected as such on mouse-hover should be enough to make it not a full copy.) -- Spiderzed█ 14:26, 3 May 2011 (BST)

"Must not appear to be identical to signatures in use by others"?. And no, mouse-over code should not be enough to make a signature unique. If the only way of discerning who signed something on the wiki is by clicking on or hovering over their signature and the reason behind that is because it is an exact copy of a sig in use by someone else, then that person is being misleading. It really doesn't matter guys. This policy isn't necessary. Just like it won't be necessary to create the next policy to alter minor policy phrasing to please those wanting to bend the policy to prove a point. Ops should just make the judgment call while the A/VB cases for these types of signatures are still open and warn per current sig policy if it is deemed vandalism. ~ _{15:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

Yes but what about variable'd in user link templated sigs. I mean, since it is the whole reason for this section we might as well stop skirting around the bush. What's actually wrong with that templated signature? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:26, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Honestly, the idea of sharing a signature is a terrible idea. Should they be banned from the wiki? Probably so, IMHO. In regards to {{Goonsig}}, the fact that the variable only adds a link to the user's namespace does not make it appear any different when in use by different users. Hovering over gives a standard text and it is only when you click the link, check the target link if your browser happens to display the target links, or check page history/diffs and compare timestamps that you truly knows who has signed with it. Hell, when using a touchscreen tablet like I often do my only option is to click the image or look in diffs. If you need any evidence that the sigs are misleading, see Boxy's A/VB case. ~ _{15:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

That case was before the completed form actually. So in this case the problem is the image over text yes? I understand more users are using templates but to be fair we've never accounted for that kind of thing before, should we, is it worth the effort even with the lack of ability to mouseover on them? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:33, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Nope. The issue as I see it is that they look identical with the exception of the few that have personalized it (like rise above down there). Am I the only one that thinks this is common sense? ~ _{17:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

I'm not a fan of the goon sig, but in it's current state, I think it is tolerable and (barely) fulfills the requirements of current policy. Of course, I neither would cry if there were a new policy that would require more quickly recognizable distinction. -- Spiderzed█ 17:13, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Then make a judgment call. Unless you think this policy has even a sliver of a chance of passing. ~ _{17:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC)}

I think we might be able to get the basic requirement for a signature to actually include a handle passed.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:27, 3 May 2011 (BST)

As long as we're not breaking the consensus established on A/VB, I belikeve you're right. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:16, 3 May 2011 (BST)

let's ban a bunch of people from this wiki cause i don't know how to use a wiki or a browser --Rise|||||||||||||||||above 16:37, 3 May 2011 (BST)

I don't like it time to toss it in the oven! --|||||||||||||||||||| 22:24, 3 May 2011 (BST)

Deal with it --Arthur Dent BIN LADEN IS DEAD!!!!! 16:16, 4 May 2011