UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signatures Require Links
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
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! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 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)
- 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)
- Actually we should probably work to remove that section. Jumping the tree for something so small is kinda retarded. --Karekmaps 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. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:51, 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)
- 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!!!
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
