UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy Revamp

This policy discussion aims to totally replace the existing UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Signature Policy, with a view to spelling out the reasons for having signatures, and ensuring they arn't used in a way that disrupts other wiki users.

Why do we need signatures

Signatures and timestamps are an important part of UDwiki discussion. The primary reason we have sigs are so that users can easily identify who posted what, and when it was posted. Any other consideration must be secondary to this main purpose, of providing an easily identifiable handle and timestamp.

What should a signature be

• The prominent part of a signature should be the "handle" portion, and be a link to the poster's user, or user talk page.

  In the case where someone is posting (in character) as one of their UD characters, linking to that character's page (in the user's namespace) is also acceptable.

• A date and time stamp.

Personalised signatures

Making your signature pretty

Many users like to personalise their signatures with different colours, fonts, images and other coding. This can make for a more interesting wiki experience for all, however should be kept within reason, to ensure it doesn't become annoying to other users, or make it hard to identify who made a post.

Templated signatures

Some users put their signature on a template page (in their namespace), and link to that. Such signatures have advantages and disadvantages, so unless you need to use such a sig, it is better to use the wiki software to automatically sign for you. Your automatic signature can be personalised from your preferences page.

Disruptive signatures

Signatures can become disruptive to others in some circumstances, due to overly "creative" personalisation. When they break the page, or become distracting parts of the conversation, or make it hard for others to edit, it is time to think about reducing your personalised sig. After all, the personalisation is a secondary consideration, so please try to ensure it doesn't interfere with the primary purpose of the signature, which is to make conversations easier to follow and join.

What should not be done in signatures

• Don't break the formatting on pages.
• Don't overlap other text on the page.
• Any images used should be limited to 14px in height, and not be overly long, or above 50kb.
• Any additional links (apart from the handle portion) should not be prominent, and be limited in number to reduce sig sizes (both data and visible length).
• No flashing text (or images to mimic the effect).
• No annoying links, such as special page links like Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP, or external links that perform malicious actions.
• Don't have a signature that makes it appear that someone else made your post.
• Sig's should not be overly long, either the coding (visible in edit windows) or in length visible on the talk page.

This is not necessarily a definitive list of things that shouldn't be done in a signature. The sysop team are called upon, from time to time, to rule on signatures that are disruptive or confusing.

What can you do if someone's signature is disruptive?

• Talk to the user in question (on their talk page), and see if they're willing to modify/fix their sig.
• If you own the page the sig is disrupting (eg. if it's on your talk page, or your groups talk page), you do have the right to change people's sig to a plain link to their user page yourself.

  Don't take this as an invitation to make the sig insulting or otherwise annoying to the poster, you will be A/VBed for bad faith misuse of this privilege.

• If the sig is obviously invalid, you can change it yourself.

  You need to be sure of that, if you have doubts, don't.

• Contact a sysop, or other experienced wiki user.
• If all else fails, or you believe that the sig is being deliberately used for vandalism, report it on the vandalism page.