Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Exploding Boy's Summary

Reagrding the non-Latin characters, then why aren't they removed from the actual article namespace in articles like Wang Chong, Korea, and Japanese language. Chcknwnm 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Because they are in almost all cases preceded by the English version or transliteration, and because a reader can expect to encounter some foreign characters in articles on certain subjects. Signatures that do not display correctly, however, can be an impediment to identifying or referring to a given user, as well as to editing talk pages and responding to posts. Exploding Boy 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In my signature, I have Korean charcters. Without them, I can still be identified, as 'Chuck' is still there. When foreign characters don't render, they appear as blocks, and don't interfer with editing or responding that I know of. I don't think that it matters whether or not it is a foreign subject article, or a user signature, as users can be of forein heritage and/or have completely foreign names. Chcknwnm 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, in regards to your #1, that it was Tony's talk page and therefore more than reasonable: It is a Wikipedia page, not Tony's. The purpose of User talk:Tony Sidaway is for members of the Wikipedia community to be able to communicate with Tony. Tony is open to archiving the page, deleting comments that have been responded to, but not to alter others people's comments. Chcknwnm 03:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the key is communication. This is better facilitated by improving the signal-to-noise ratio of the page: viz, editing the more ridiculous signatures to something less intrusive. The signatures play only one part in communication: identification of the author and the date and time of the comment. None of the other stuff plays any part in the communication, but is merely vanity on the part of the editor. When that gets in the way, of course it should be freely refactored. --Tony Sidaway 04:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the signature communicates a lot about the person. As someone who wants a more NPOV persona here, I keep my sig simple. There is the risk that we will have eye candy inflation though, and simple sigs will not catch the eye of the casual observer. Stephen B Streater 13:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The signature is not supposed to convey anything except the user name and the time and date. The user page can be used to convey information about the user relevant to this project. This is not a message board, it's not MySpace.com, it's an encyclopaedia. We're not supposed to be here to socialize or to express our creativity or individuality, we're supposed to be engaged in an academic exercise. Exploding Boy 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? We all edit here and improve this encyclopedia free of charge. What do we get for it. Nothing except the good feeling of editing, a userpage, a unique persona, and a friendly (supposedly) environment/community. Tony has taken away two of those things. He has not been accomodating, and he has changed my identity to the generic "Chcknwnm". Who says that the signature is only supposed to convey anything except the user name and the time and date? If that was the case, don't you think there wouldn't be a spot in the preferences to reformat your signature? Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can't agree less. When I clicked on the "Chuck" in your signature, I went to User:Chcknwnm/Esperanza, not User:Chuck, or User:Chcknwnm. How can one communicate with you directly when they have no expectation of where they will be going or who you really are? Steve p 17:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read Wikipedia: Sign your posts on talk pages. This is supposed to be an academic environment. If you want to express yourself creatively via your signature, there are literally millions of other sites online where that is encouraged. Exploding Boy 19:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy delete?

Err, speedy delete? Why? Friday (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. I put the hang on tag while I went to see what G1 was. It says, "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I don't see that here. Maybe Tawker could explain. Thanks, Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Talked to Tawker. Was an honest mistake. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I had multiple tabs open and I had one of those enter it in the wrong tab and hit save moments. (Yes Yes, I know, I can always hit Alt-D but IMHO its sometimes best to have a second set of eyes review a A7 CSD (which ironically was deleted in the timeframe I re-loaded the page) -- Tawker 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Did Tony discuss the matter?

Did Tony try to discuss the matter with the affected people in a civil way? Andjam 04:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

At some length . [1] [2][3]. --Tony Sidaway 04:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict (thought it important to add too)) Yes, he did discuss it civily...I didn't provide diffs, but if you look at his talk at User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Just_curious, you can see it. However, he never did consede to requests, which is the reason for the RfC. And btw: I am grearful that Tony was civil, it's hard to find sometimes with dealing with problems like this. Chcknwnm 05:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, all were civil. I am not prepared to accede to the requests that I refrain from refactoring large, obtrusive and ugly signatures where they significantly degrade the shared discussion environment, however. Indeed I believe that this practice should be adopted wiki-wide. Thus the dispute continues. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad that you have discussed things.
You said on the project page "Both primary disputants above are complaining particularly about my editing of my own discussion page. This is of course utterly absurd.". If you're going to be going beyond your own talk page (eg, this page(!)), isn't that comment a bit of a distraction? (Also, is saying "utterly absurd" helpful?).
Also, if you're going to be doing this beyond your own talk page, wouldn't a more productive approach be to suggest (on their user talk page) that they change their signature, rather than "cleaning up" every one of their signatures? Andjam 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, Nathan and Chuck did ask me to stop editing their signatures on my talk page. This is, as you say, a bit of a distraction. This doesn't in any way lessen its utter, blithering absurdity.
That's a misrepresentation of my words. I was saying you were engaging in distraction, not that Nathan and Chuck were. Let me put it this way: If you were only editing signatures on your talk page, then saying "they were complaining about what I was doing on my own talk page" might be relevant. But if you're also editing signatures outside "your" talk page, then saying that they were complaining about what you were doing on your talk page is true but not relevant. Andjam 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we've gone far beyond the stage where signatures can be cleaned up by politely asking their owners, attractive as this idea is. Nathan, for instance, last month was approached about his then-obscenely large signature, which was about 730 characters in size and contained three embedded images. He said that as the signature guideline was a mere guideline and not policy, it was quite okay if he sat back and did nothing about it. He then took it to WP:ANI and called the people who approached him bullies, and asked for one of them to be warned and the other desysopped.
Your determination fix problems By any means necessary is what gets you so much criticism. Andjam 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It was at this point that I intervened and blocked him. He subsequently trimmed the signature, though at one point he did also launch a misconceived RfC against me.
Blocking someone when they've made a complaint against you doesn't sound like a wise use of admin powers. Andjam 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In such circumstances, it strikes me that there is a more sensible, less intrusive way to deal with this. Talk pages are public spaces and they can always use editing to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. So the solution to the problem of the signature louts is simply to refactor the worst of the signatures. --Tony Sidaway 06:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to refractor someone's signature wherever you come across it, how is it less intrusive? Haven't you effectively "owned" his signature? Andjam 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Tony

Tony, be careful. It is most likely considered bad form to remove sigs from the talk page of an RfC about removing sigs. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that your siganture takes up two lines even at a high resolution? (currently I'm at 1600x1200) If I go down to a more typically used resolution, it ends up being three and even four lines. Would you agree having a signature as long as your comment may be a bit much for those trying to comment on/edit talk pages after you? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
pfft 3-4 lines? that is small compared to what mine used to be. Mine used to be 7-8 lines long. 我爱浮游生物 (ILovePlankton) 05:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. But do you agree that might be a stumbling block for others trying to edit? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(after another edit conflict) Yeah, there is no set length, and if Tony is consistent, he'll change both Jareth's and ILovePlankton's. Here he is greeted with a problem. If he doesn't change those two (and Nathan's below too, now that I notice), that would be suspect of picking on certain people. If he does change it, he's providing another diff for the evidence section. To Tony: to solve the dilemma, you might want to put the sigs back on this page and just hold off while the RfC is being discussed. This reduces further problems. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Avoiding your concern with Tony's behavior, can you understand why several lines of signature might be a disadvantage to other editors? Have you read the siganture guidelines you presented as an applicable policy where it discusses those disadvantages? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Jareth do you wan't my honest opinion? If so I have never had troubles editing when some one has a long sig (I just went around it). 我爱浮游生物 (ILovePlankton) 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't generally either, but I do use a rather high resolution. The question is more about whether or not you can understand that it might be a difficulty to other editors, particularlly those who do not have the advantages of more modern equipment and higher resolutions. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I concede. Some users may have trouble with it. 我爱浮游生物 (ILovePlankton) 05:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So following that, would it also make sense that like user pages, signatures should conform to the guidelines enacted by the community? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 05:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not if it is only a guidline. 我爱浮游生物 (ILovePlankton) 06:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You don't believe community guidelines should be followed? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 06:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I believe guidlines should be followed, I believe they are called guidlines for a reason. ILovePlankton 15:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Using logical reasoning, one should assume that if there is an RfC about an aspect of one's behaviour, that one should immediately stop said behaviour while the RfC is in progress. Well, one should assume, anyway. The problem with this statement is that all people aren't logical. — Nathan (talk) 05:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a wikipedia policy on chutzpah? Andjam 05:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (WP:SIG) says:
"A 300 character signature, for instance, is likely to be much larger than most of the comments to which it will be appended and this is likely to make discussions harder for everybody to participate in. Both images and long signatures carry the danger of giving undue prominence to a user's contribution. Reduce it to the minimum necessary."
Well thankfully neither Nathan nor Chuck has such a long signatures as 300 characters! They're both less than 200 characters, I believe. Nevertheless they are both much longer than necessary and both rival in length, or even exceed, the quite long comments to which they are attached above (on this one occasion I have refrained from trimming the signatures so that other editors can see for themselves the obstacles this creates to easily recognising and reading comment text in the edit box).
I think it's reasonable to tidily trim a signature back to something we can all live with. I certainly don't think it's reasonable to complain about a trimmed signature in a shared editing and discussion space, as long as it doesn't prevent people recognising the username (with a link of course) of the commentator, and the date and time of the comment. All the rest is vanity, and moreover is often repeated many times on a page, mounting up to many kilobytes of noise. There should be no expectation that such noise be allowed to remain where it seriously degrades the discussion medium. --Tony Sidaway 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please tell us what kind of noise it is, I for one only hear my keyboard. 我爱浮游生物 (ILovePlankton) 05:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I use the term noise in its technical sense, as in signal-to-noise ratio. In editing a discussion on a wiki, the words of the discussion here are the signal, as are the useful parts of the signature. Additional text in the signature is noise; it adds nothing to the discussion and the effect of its presence is only to make it more difficult to locate the signal, and also means that less of the discussion (as opposed to unwanted text, or noise) is displayed in the edit box. --Tony Sidaway 05:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If my signature is less than 300 characters then (by your logic), you shouldn't have any reason to change it. It would be appreciated if you could please refrain from doing so, at least while this RfC is in progress. Thanks so much. — Nathan (talk) 05:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
"If my signature is less than 300 characters then (by your logic), you shouldn't have any reason to change it" No, that's a non sequitur. --Tony Sidaway 06:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do explain. — Nathan (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course. I quoted a guideline giving 300 characters signature as an example of a size at which your signature would greatly dwarf nearly all comments made before it. It does not follow that I would not edit a 299 line character signature. You claim that the logic here is mine, but it isn't. It's a non sequitur introduced by you. --Tony Sidaway 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Many editors view your continual behaviour of changing signatures as bordering on irritating. My signature is neither long, unsightly, etc etc. and quite frankly, just because you don't like ILovePlankton's page on his stance on friends doesn't give you the right to remove the link. I have tried to be very polite and respectful with you, but this doesn't seem to be working. I will therefore be less polite and respectful: I don't appreciate the constant changing of my and others' signatures. Other editors also don't appreciate it. Stop it. — Nathan (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(Oh, so many edit conflicts) I appreciate your stopping the trimming (even if it is just to show how 'annoying' our sigs are). The way I see it is this: When I see someone's sig as [[User:---]], I get the first impression that that person isn't unique enough to identify themselves with a specific signature. While signatures are allowed, and for the ones that don't violate the policies/guidlines, they should be allowed to stay, as an "image" of that person's character. Since I assume other people feel the same when they see a signature (that it shows who the person is), I don't want them to think that I don't have enough character to create my own signature, which is the image that is portrayed when Tony (or anybody else) changes my signature. User:Chcknwnm 05:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This reasoning strikes me as somewhat immature. A person's uniqueness is not defined by the characters after his comments. If you want to see evidence of uniqueness, look rather at the words of his comments. --Tony Sidaway 05:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, immature or not, people reason like that (and I'm not sure they'd like to be called immature). As a side-note, why does everyone else get their sig changed to not have user and I get User:Chcknwnm. If you do change it, at least make it Chuck. (that last statement was in no way an endorsement of the changing of signatures). Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh don't feel bad, it's worse when he changes mine. When mine gets changed, it's Nathanrdotcom. No respect for my preference of a small n on my username (if it's to be used), and no respect for my preference that my name be displayed instead of my username. Mr. Sidaway, will you please stop changing other user's sigs (for the same reason that people change their sigs when you ask them) out of respect? Thank you very much. — Nathan (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I should like to point out once again to User:nathanrdotcom that his signature is making reading the areas where he has deployed it very hard for me to read, since it is both larger than the surrounding text and bleeds into it in some areas. I believe this is one of the very problems we're discussing--overly fancy signatures making normal communication a little more difficult. Exploding Boy 22:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I do have a name, thanks. It's Nathan. I encourage everyone to use it. Please use it in future. If you must refer to me by username, I prefer a small-n (as in nathanrdotcom). You are welcome to comment on my talk page and suggest alternative signatures and I'll consider the alternatives posted (and might even change the signature). — Nathan (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm referring to you by your chosen user name. Why pick that user name if you don't want people to use it? And I have left you messages on your talk page regarding your signature, as well as on at least one other page. You should be well aware by now of the problems it is causing. In fact, having just re-read the RFC page, there are several comments by other users that are impossible for me to read because your signature intrudes onto them. I suggest you just use a simple signature rather than messing around with fancy fonts, colours, and superscripts. Exploding Boy 02:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to say that our signatures are intruding, but when asked to upload a screenshot (on Nathan's talk page), or provide some evidence, you continue to say that it's disruptive, with obvious ignorance to the request. Again, if signatures were only to be simple, they wouldn't be able to be changed...that simple. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll continue to answer this question on my talk. — Nathan (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuckwagon, or whatever your name is, you have no idea of the situation, so I suggest you avoid getting involved. I've explained to nathan several times exactly the problem with his signature. Exploding Boy 19:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a very good idea. This is an open Wikipedia where anyone can read any page. And I've read plenty about your request to Nathan to comment myself (which by the way, I can do on an open wiki also). And it's "Chuck", not "Chuckwagon", wherever you get that from (I won't take it as an insult this time, although next time if you want to know my name you can look at my sig, or see my username...not that hard.) Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Grue is likely to be eaten by Tony Sidaway

Out of curiosity, would you regard Grue's black background as signature "vanity" that wikipedia could do without? Andjam 05:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's extremely unsightly. --Tony Sidaway 06:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is Grue's signature, I wanna see? User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
User talk:Grue seems like a good place to start. --Tony Sidaway 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How is a 1 inch black rectangle extremely anything? -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
You need to ask? Actually, while it's very unsightly on the page, it's not a particularly noisy signature in the edit box. So it's not necessarily the kind of thing I'd be inclined to refactor. But it's still ugly. --Tony Sidaway 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
(After 3 edit conflicts) His sig doesn't have images, doesn't go over 300 charters, or even 200, and doesn't expand beyond the line (on my brower at least), so I'd say nothing wrong. Definately a sig that identifies the user. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
This:  Grue  would identify him better, don't you think? I mean, have you ever seen a white grue? ;-) Or maybe this one is special? ;-p Misza13 T C 15:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it's an Albino one. (BTW, how big is 300 charters, Chuck?) Andjam 16:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. And not so revoltingly ugly that it forces people to close their browser windows in horror. Just distracting, and rather ugly. --Tony Sidaway 06:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not everything can be pretty (I learned that at the prom). My username for example, I find that very ugly (I made it when it was cool to write my name with no vowels (and no, my name is not Chicken Woman (that would be chcknwmn))). There is never a clear line on what's ugly and what's not, so changing things to fit your preference is inappropriate. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally I think something like Grue or grue would look fine. It is possible that Grue thinks it looks okay because he is using a particular skin in which it blends nicely into the text. In other skins it does not. Nevertheless Grue's signature is small in the edit box and that is probably what matters most in this particular instance. --Tony Sidaway 06
55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Err, until we have a CSD for "Anything that annoys Tony Sidaway", does it matter? LOTs of things about editing are annoying. Edit conflicts suck, but do we blow away other people's comments, or do we get along harmoniously with others? Tony, despite your good intentions and the ugly sigs, there is a practical issue here. People see what you're doing as a bullying move. Isn't this reason enough to cut it out? Throw your weight around elsewhere if you must, but picking on signatures because you personally find them ugly is a bit over-the-top, don't you think? Friday (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh that's nonsense. Refactoring is a lot nicer than the alternative: making people change their signatures. The subject isn't worth devoting that much energy to, whereas refactoring is a painless and friendly way to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a discussion page. What are discussion pages for? Discussion! Not ever-growing heaps of text junk that serve no purpose. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There is yet another alternative: leave it alone. I find tin wings on cars unsightly, but I don't wander through parking lots ripping them off, either. Seeing an intentionally distasteful car may lower my opinion of the driver's taste, but it needs go no further than that. I agree that people's sigs aren't generally worth spending time on, but you brought this on yourself when you chose to spend time changing them. Friday (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you still haven't gotten the point: signal-to-noise ratio. --Tony Sidaway 13:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, be honest here. How many people (besides you) find signatures like Grue's distruptive or annyoing? How much is the community "slowed down" by them? Very little to none. Now how many people find other editors editing their own comments (this includes signatures) distruptive or at least rude? Many. How much time is lost by those people getting annoyed at this, trying to put an end to this or just getting fed up and do not contribute for that day? Quite alot. Besides, you are ignoring guidelines and policy again - and since you are an admin I expect better of you than "fuck process". CharonX/talk 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Did I say that Grue's signature was "disruptive or annoying?" Someone (Andjam I think) mentioned it and asked my opinion of it. I replied that I found it "extremely unsightly" but "not so revoltingly ugly that it forces people to close their browser windows in horror. Just distracting, and rather ugly".
You falsely claim that I'm ignoring guidelines and policy. I believe that the relevant guidelines have been cited, and I am not ignoring any of them.
Now if there are some editors with extremely large signatures, and those signatures are edited to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of Wikipedia, I'm not that surprised that they're annoyed. The same selfish streak that makes them mess up the shared editing environment also makes them see improvements to the environment, at the cost of some trivial frippery in thier signatures, as "rude" and even "disruptive". Well that's silly but I understand that they might feel that way. -Tony Sidaway 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, for the last time, stop editing my signature. CharonX/talk 14:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beating edit conflicts & Playing Devils Advocate

Hey Tony, While I don't disagree with the principle of what you quoted from WP:SIG, In playing devils advocate I have to point out that you wrote the first sentence of it. [4]. Couldn't people construe this to be a bit of a conflict? Regards User:Charlie_Huggard 06:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I did indeed draft the words of the guideline. If they were displeasing, I'm sure they would have been removed by now, for they followed quite a long discussion and straw poll. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you address a few more of my concerns Tony?
First off, could you point me to the straw poll you're referring to? The comments you left on the talk page make reference to a poll on Images, I found one that addressed a particular signature at User:GeorgeMoney/sigpoll, but I'm yet to find one on Wikitext length of signatures in general. It would help me better understand your arguments.
If you are referring to the discussion surrounding the last RfC/you 3, do you see how others could percieve a conflict of interest in editing WP:SIG as your actions were central to the discussion?
Also do you see how others could percieve another conflict of interest in editing WP:SIG approx a day after performing actions that you seem to ex post facto justify by your own edits to the guideline? (The date on the diff provided for the change to ILovePlankton's signature is 15:12, 27 May 2006 whereas your edits to WP:SIG are dated 18:19, 28 May 2006)
Thanks Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 07:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I refer you to the extensive discussion on the talk page, including numerous straw polls (not just one on images). You may also see the edit history of the guideline. The suggestion that the size of signatures was only mentioned as an issue after I had blocked Nathan is not only false, it's quite absurd. On 13 May the length guideline read:
Please try to keep signatures short, because very long signatures cloud up the page source in edit mode, making it harder for other editors to find where your comment stopped. Both images and long signatures carry the danger of giving undue prominence to that user's contribution. Reduce it to the minimum necessary.
I had never edited the guideline at that point.
Nathan's adamant refusal to budge on his signature did undoubtedly, however, contribute somewhat to the firming of views and the resultant change in the guideline. --Tony Sidaway 09:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes of course. My adamant refusal to budge with regard to two admins, coming to my talk page and ordering me to change my signature, and not bothering to either take the time to explain exactly what was wrong with it or to phrase their 'request' in the form of a request. I don't take orders, not from anyone in real life and not from admins on this site. 'Requests' phrased as orders ('do this now' + 'please' = order) will only be met with resistance from me. If you don't like the resistance, consider phrasing your requests in the form of requests. All it takes is a little respect and common courtesy, which I don't feel you (or other admins who will not be named) have in sufficient quantities. You're an admin and you should know how to be respectful to others. This is what you're not doing. Although your reasoning to remove the previous RfC 3 from your userspace (out of respect for me - "I don't want Nathan to think this") completely baffles me as you seem completely unwilling and unreceptive to do anything for anyone out of respect. Honestly, Mr Sidaway, why should you care what I think? You've proven time and time again that you don't care what anyone thinks, why make me a special case just once? — Nathan (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. I'm sorry if my last comments came off as a bit harsh (I really didn't mean to be, but after an hour last night of trying to figure out how exactly to make my points, it's the best that I came up with). However I'll say that I'm now fully convinced your actions were correct. In the future I feel it would be helpful if you left a message for the user on their talk page when you change their signature, to help them work towards a good compromise between their current signature and the "plain-jane" signature (If they can be convinced to change their signature, it'll mean less work for you and others in the future). In a show of good faith I've even shortened up my signature some too. Many regards, Charlie( t | e ) 12:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Outside view by Ral315

Since you haven't looked at Tony's actions, is it appropriate to comment at this RfC (you comments are welcome of course, but would be taken in better light if you were aware of the whole situation)? As for us having ugly signatures, who is to determine what is ugly? I think that it's not the 'Chuck' part that is ugly. The green 'u' adds flavor. And the korean charcters (which are actually my name in case anyone was wondering), add some artistic value. If it's the edit box that looks ugly...don't they all? I mean, infoboxes are horrendous, as are things written with <div> tags. So I think that signatures being ugly is open to too much varied opinion (which is why there are policies on the matter, so that we know what's clear-cut) User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I offer this possible explanation for Ral315's comment: he opened the RfC, looked at the signatures in the complaint, and decided to make a comment about them. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temptation

It's times like this where I'm tempted to pull out my other signature. {{User:Carnildo/sandbox}}

Chcknwnm (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), please do not remove other people's signatures. This is your first warning. Alphax τεχ 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...not sure if I like being classified as a vandal, as I was reverting blanking, and an obvious attempt to provoke people at this RfC. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, that's just the unfortunate template name actually, not a reference to you being a vandal. I belive Carnildo just got stuck in an edit conflict there. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No provoking intended. I keep that sig around as a humorous example of just how extreme signatures can get. --Carnildo 07:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh heh... Cute, There's one that even under my rules that one qualifies for being cleaned up Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The "warning" was intended to be humorous as well. Alphax τεχ 07:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's all in good fun would you mind removing it? We can refer people to look at [5] if they want to see it in reference to this discussion. Regards, Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC) (and thanks!)

[edit] "Extraordinary contributions"

Can we list these, please? - brenneman {L} 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They speak for themselves. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I've never seen his name in an article's edit history or in an article's talk page. He seems to spend all his time on userboxes. (Joking ... I think) Andjam 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
That's because Tony deletes all the articles ;-) Actually, his work in raising userbox and sig. issues is important too. Letting things flow along the path of least resistance won't always get us where we want to be. Stephen B Streater 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I haven't done much article work in the past few months, but I have over eight thousand article edits (all of them by hand; I never use a bot or automation tool). At the moment I do a lot of clerk work for the Arbitration Committee and I'm also involved in arbitration enforcement. I'm a Mediawiki developer and produced a fix for a blocking bug, then promptly buried it when I thought about the ethical implications (knowing NOT to roll out after weeks of testing is, I think, one of my better points). More recently I've spent my energies as a developer on a tool for measuring vandalism on many Mediawiki sites. In lisp, because I can. --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Solution proposal

I think that people may perceive the sigs differently. Perhaps younger people are more used to glitzy stuff and they can ignore it more easily, for example. So how about this first attempt at a resolution:

  • We allow an option in "my preferences" which converts all sigs to a standard format like the default sig for that user.
    • Then Tony et al can read the debates clearly
    • Others et al can enjoy the eye-candy in peace

What do people think? Stephen B Streater 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

A software change? Gosh. My initial reaction is "surely there must be more important things for the developers to work on." Friday (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There's no need for a "solution". There's no problem except a few editors who think that refactoring should not be permitted on their signatures. Tony Sidaway 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A software change by one programmer may take less effort than dozens of people taking time in this debate. Who knows, this may grow to be as time consuming as the userbox wars if we don't sort it now. Stephen B Streater 14:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was going to joke about putting a userbox in a signature, but that got me thinking - would putting signatures into a template be a possiblity? It wouldn't help with appearance (unless there was an option to ignore fancy signatures), but it would help with the editing problem. Andjam 15:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd envisage the resulting wikicode to look something like

nuke this category from orbit. {{User:Joeblogs/signature}} 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea too. It would help editing but not reading the article. My idea above would help reading but not editing. How about we combine them? So all sigs as templates, with preference option to switch them off. So many good ideas coming out of this debate :-) Stephen B Streater 17:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
PS I see you're from the future - what's the actual answer to all this? Stephen B Streater 17:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Replies all around. On templated sigs: Bad idea. On a page like AN/I I don't even want to harbour a guess at how many unique signatures would have to be transcluded and then we would have to protect all of those sig pages like other high risk templates. People did this, the developers said no, the developers put roadblocks against it.

On user preferences for sigs: It would be great, but I don't see it happening. Making the display show only plain sigs would not be that hard with some CSS, but the edit window is the real concern and there is no easy fix. It might be something to bring up w.r.t. LiquidThreads though (I have yet to look into them). Kotepho 19:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tony misunderstands the problem brilliantly

Tony implies that only a small minority of editors object to his actions here- so far this doesn't seem to be very accurate. His continued insistance that this is about signal-to-noise ratio misses the point. Tony, the problem is that people have asked you to stop, and you've refused- preferring instead to continue your anti-signature crusade with renewed vigor. If certain individuals have truely obnoxious sigs, there are better ways to deal with that problem. Some signatures annoy you personally- we get it. Is this a battle worth fighting? Friday (talk) 14:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You're still pretending that the problem doesn't exist. The point is signal-to-noise ratio. --Tony Sidaway 14:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Many editors make stupid comments or do other things that I personally consider "noise". However it would be extraordinarily rude of me to go around editing people's comments for that reason. We don't all have the same standards, so we should take care when imposing our standards on everyone else. Friday (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It would indeed be silly, except in exceptional circumstances such as personal attacks, to edit comments. That's a straw man you're beating the hell out of.
Noise in this context is fairly tightly defined. Regular repeated text at the end of discussion edits that does anything more than identify the user and give a timestamp, and perhaps a talk link, is noise.
On imposing standards, I think the boot is on the other foot (as can be seen from the strong and growing support for refactoring signatures on this RfC). There are shared areas of the wiki whose primary purpose is discussion. We shouldn't inflict our taste in graphics, color or typography on other editors, and if we do, we shouldn't make enormously large and intrusive signatures that pollute the discussion with unnecessary noise. If we do, we shouldn't be surprised if someone improves things --Tony Sidaway 15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Please provide evidemce of "strong and growing support". User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I rather think that this RfC has achieved just that. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
To be frank then, you are quite blind. There are two Outside Views with more than 15 endorsements. Friday's (19 endorse) which says that you should not impose you personal preferences on us (To make clearer: it disagrees with you), and Jareth's (17 endorse, myself and yourself included) which says that the guildine should be followed appropriately, and he talks about two specific statements. The signature should not have images, and it should not have a lot of wiki/HTML markup. Since at WP:SIG it says 300 characters is probably too long, it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that 200 characters (Nathan's) and 150 characters (Mine) is appropriate. And neither of our sigs contain images.. So the guidlines are reasonable, and Nathan and I are following them, so there is no disagreement with my argument in this view either. The next most endorsed view is that by DS1953 (11 endorse). To take a piece out in context, I am disappointed that Tony continues to take minor actions that create such major discord in the community (or plainly: he disagrees with you Tony). The next view is by Simetrical (10 endorse). He says, ...all of the signatures changed were of sufficiently compact size that the proper course of action would be to take it up with the user on their talk page. and users do not own their talk pages to the extent that they can edit other users' statements in any way (Synopsis: Disagrees with Tony). The next view was by Ral315 (9 endorse). His view is simply this, I haven't looked at Tony's actions specifically, but in general, quit making long, ugly signatures and people won't have to refactor them. I guess that one (view) agrees with you. Although, he didn't even take the time to go through the evidence of your unwillingness to cooperate, but thought his unenlightened comment appropriate anyway, along with 9 other people. This is the first view to disagree with me and agree with you, and the number of people to endorse is less than half of the number of people that endorse the view that disagrees with you and agrees with me. Now you cannot state that there is a consenus behind you, as I have just shown otherwise. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

<---- dis-indent

I'd think the point of Ral315's comment (or at least my endorsement of it) is that refactoring of overly lengthy signatures is acceptable, therefore Tony's actions are acceptable regardless of what exactly you and Nathan are on about or how many times you asked him to stop. It's interesting that people keep bringing up Tony's unwillingness to change his behavior but the monster-sig people obviously have no intention of changing theirs. I had no interest at all in this particular argument until I ran into an egregiously long and cluttery signature, so I guess I'm part of that "growing" support. Opabinia regalis 06:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Ral315's comment except to copy and paste what he said, and say that he made his opinion without reading the whole RfC. Why should I change my signature...not one person has asked me to (not even ordered to do). Why, because there is nothing wrong with it. With all the tremendous support you and company give Tony, it's still 19-9 of people disagreeing with him to agreeing. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two camps

The outside view by Andjam got me thinking. So far everything I've seen here just reinforces my belief that Tony Sidaway is a very polarizing editor - people who deal with him fall into one of two camps. In Camp A, there those who applaud his bold actions in doing what he thinks makes the encyclopedia better, and they don't care how many people he pisses off while doing this. In Camp B, there are those who see many of his actions as needlessly pompous, arrogant, and disruptive. I suspect that never the twain shall meet. The problem is, those in Camp A who stand around clapping are contributing to the problem- you're reinforcing Tony's holy-warrior approach when what he really needs is a large helping of humility and tact. Tony, do you see that even when you're right, there's a disadvantage to being so polarizing? Somtimes we have to piss people off to work on the encyclopedia- no reasonable editor is denying that- I've pissed off plenty of kids who's vanity articles I've deleted. But, we should still avoid pissing people off for no good reason. This is just common sense. Friday (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Being able to work well with others is the hallmark of a good admin, and indeed is pretty much a requirement on RfA. --Fang Aili talk 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, He shouldn't piss people off for no reason. ILovePlankton 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. — Nathan (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
There will always be two camps in any issue, but to call a little bit of refactoring, immensely improving talk pages with each edit, "holy warring" is to gravely misread the issue. There is no problem for Wikipedia here except a few selfish editors who want to prevent share public talk pages from being harmlessly refactored to improve them. Of course they're pissed off, but that need not concern us as Wikipedians. They put their vanity before Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Such delicious irony. Putting your vanity before Wikipedia is exactly what I see you doing here. Your editing of signatures in this manner has proven far more disruptive than the signatures themselves. Friday (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
you may or may not believe it has been diruptive, but no matter what you think, it has been disruptive, if it hadn't then we wouldn't be here would we? ILovePlankton 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
A number of editors don't like their signatures being refactored. That is an editing dispute. Disruption is something else entirely. Disruption is not a bunch of selfish editors moaning about their oversized signatures not remaining forever untouched in the place where they were dropped. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
How is my signature oversized? Taking up 1.25 lines in my 1200 x 1024 (something like that) browser, and being only 164 characters (with spaces). That's about half of what the guidline says is too much. It's not unsightly, IMO. Unsightly would be Cyde's signature. It's not disruptive. Tony, let me ask you this. A month ago, you blocked Nathan for a "stupidly large signature". You stated that he was being disruptive, and was already asked to change his signature twice. Even though he wasn't clearly violating policy/guidlines, he could still be blocked because he was already asked to not be disruptive. Then I ask you why you shouldn't be blocked by another admin. Nathan and I (two people) have asked you to stop changing our signatures. You have been informed that this is disruptive. By your way-of-doing, you should be blocked. If you don't think so, then you should seriously consider rescinding you support for the block of Nathan a month ago. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, at two-and-a-half lines on my browser in edit mode, it's on the big side. I think it's a good candidate for refactoring because it contains all kinds of unnnecessary stuff and some non-European characters that don't tell us anything. It's rather easy to refactor and when I've done so, even adding your name after, as requested, I've retrieved two lines of text in my edit box that would have been occupied by unnecessary gibberish.

You state wrongly that Nathan wasn't violating any guidelines. He was flaunting a hideous and enormous signature. Some people may say I'm disruptive because i edit discussion pages to improve the signal-to-noise ratio, but obviously if they said that they'd be wrong. --Tony Sidaway 19:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, just as it is some people people's opinion that your actions are disruptive, it was your opion and that of two others that Nathan's actions were disruptive. From what I see it's a clear matter of opinion, of which you declare youself to always have the right one. The argument that you are being disruptive is no less, if not better, than the argument that Nathan's sig was disruptive. Also, which guidline says not to flaunt a hideous and enormous signature? And if you do find one, who declares that a signature is just that. Also, you may say that it was because it was over th 300 character limit, and thus he was breaking the "guidline". But then also you are in disregard of the guidline WP:POINT when you change the sigs on this RfC, and are in violation of WP:REFACTOR when you disregard Wherever possible an editor should use the original signatures of all of the parties involved. I suggest to any administrator who sees this, to view the evidence and decide if Tony is in need of a block, based on his own edits that say when they should be given out. Chuck(척뉴넘) 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Blocking to make a point is wrong. Blocking because you don't like something is wrong. Blocking without a warning is wrong. Blocking without a message on the user's talk informing them of the block is wrong. Blocking while bypassing the template warning system (except for cases of serious abuse) is wrong. Blocking to punish a user who didn't actually break policy is wrong. Regardless of how many people complain, you're not even listening - in effect, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la I can't hear you. Please try to understand; from our point of view, you seem to ignoring us and continuing with what you're doing, no matter how many people approach you. I realise that you feel some things need to be done, but remember that there is policy to be followed; this isn't, after all, an anarchy, where you make your own rules. — Nathan (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My signature

Here is my signature, for reference (please don't reformat this one): Chuck(척뉴넘) . I would like to know honestly: 1)How many lines does it take up in the edit window, and to compare, how many does yours take up? 2)Have you ever found it to interfer with your editing. 3)If I were to put my sig at {{User:Chcknwnm/Sig}}, could I still sign with ~~~~?

To use the template, put "{{subst:User:Chcknwm/Sig}}" in the nickname box in your preferences. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I look at my signature like this. Not everyone is going to see my previous comments on a talk page, and thus not see my signature. My signature prevents me from, at the end off every message, writing, "Let me know if there's anything else. If you want to know where I'm coming from on this, check out my userpage. To know if this is normally how I edit, check out what I do. The reason I'm so civil when I talk is because I'm a member of Esperanza." Now jee, that took up three lines. My normal signature only takes up 1.25 lines (IMB). Chuck(척뉴넘) 16:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, the code for your sig takes up about 2.5 lines of screen space on my browser. And yes, signatures and the rest of other people's comments sometimes do mildly interfere with my editing. But, considering I'm not the only editor on this wiki, that's life. A mature editor deals with such annoyances without making a big deal out of them. Friday (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Answers to questions, 1)about two lines, probably less on my computer at home. 2)No, never. 3)I don't know. The only thing that I question (in your sig in particular) is the use of the Korean characters. They don't render correctly on some browsers, and I personally would not want to make people look at gibberish. I had some Chinese characters in my sig for a spell and only found out later that they didn't render correctly for some people. No one mentioned it. --Fang Aili talk 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Could this be more about newer editors though? Its a bit easier to read and find the end of text, even when its linked than to understand a long blurb of code at the end of a post. Wikisyntax can be confusing enough. Consider which namespace you're using as well. Even much smaller sigs on pages like WP:CP can be obnoxious when trying to process the reports. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, most people will be reading the text on the rendered screen, and there, there is certainly no problem with the sig (unless the Koreab characters don't render, but then they're just blocks and not terribly unsightly. There are numerous articles with Asian characters in them, so that shouldn't be a problem), and when they go to edit they will most likely be looking to place their comment above another, not below. That's the easiest way to edit (as the beginning of the edit below with usually have a ':' or '*' or some other thing to signify it.), and is probably in common practice. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Right, but we're talking about editors here. We love the readers, of course, but the editors make the encylopedia; several lines of html code could be disruptive and confusing interspersed in the discussion. Additionally, Korean and other non-latinized characters don't render well in quite a few cases (I.E. 7.0, non-Windows OSes and non-default skins for example). Do you really think sthat most editors would top post? I haven't found that to be common practice on Wikipedia. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's possible that newer editors could have trouble with it, though I think this is a minor point. New editors have to contend with much that is unfamiliar. I personally don't recall being confused by signature code at all, and I'm not a coder. I've always just gone to the next blank line and started typing. On WP:CP there are the astericks, which make it easy (for me) to determine what's what. As a side note, I consider my signature to be fairly basic, compared to many, though I am still open to discussion on this. But what this RfC is about is Tony's unwillingness to stop his behavior, even amidst pleas for him to do so. --Fang Aili talk 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I can say from answering Wikipedia helpdesk tickets for quite some time that many new users find the code in signatures confusing. Also, working at things like WP:CP and other such lists, sigs (sometimes even not quite so large ones) are quite disruptive and require extra time to pick out each entry (there are no spaces between entries ;) ). I guess my concern is, I really don't see any particular reason to get bent over a signature being refactored. Now, if someone came along and did so to my userpage, I'd be miffed, but general cleanup to help the encylopedia work better shouldn't be something to be pleading about, should it? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
The point of contention is "to help make the encyclopedia work better". Tony thinks that by changing people's sigs he is making the encyclopedia better (or at least his experience with it), and other people disagree with this. I don't think we are going to resolve this just by telling the complaintants that their concern is immature or not worth their time. --Fang Aili talk 18:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that's a contention and I'm certainly not suggesting that immaturity is involved. Simplifying code on pages where it improves readability and editing can't really be said to make the encylopedia worse, can it? As another example, have you ever visited a forum where your signature was regulated? Or perhaps come across certain forums where signatures are allowed on certain posts, but not others to improve readability or standardize formatting? How about sites that don't allow html code in posts or comments for similar reasons? Its the same thing here; we want everyone to be able to edit and join in discussions, not just everyone savvy enough to decipher where their comments go in the code. I'm sure there are lots of places where signatures don't need to be bothered with, but there are areas of Wikipedia where its highly helpful and appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

back to the left, continuing discussion

I see your points, and quite honestly I do not wish to debate them at length, at least not here. I don't think that signatures with an extra line or two make the encyclopedia better or worse. They exist to serve the editors. But I'm just going to reiterate the point that this RfC is about Tony's conduct, not the merit of signature flare. If we're going to have a discussion about signature policy/guideline, surely we can do that in a calm and respectful manner, without inflaming the issue as Tony continues to do. (This will be my last comment for a while.) --Fang Aili talk 19:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't get the point at all actually. What on earth is wrong with the standard signature? If I want to know more about a user, I'll click his or her user name. If I want to leave them a message, I'll navigate from there to their talk page. Nobody needs all those fancy links in their signature. The inconveniences of a long, distracting signature far, far outweigh the negligible benefits of having various link in your sig. Exploding Boy 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Then go work on having WP:SIG changed, don't change one person's signature at a time. That would take a while with thousands of users. To draw a comparison, a similar thing is happening with userboxes. They are being picked off one at a time with no regards to other userboxes in the same category being left, or who's userpage they're wrecking. Leave it alone until policy changes. Chuck(척뉴넘) 22:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's all very well, except that (1) I think everyone has the right to edit their own talk page, even when those edits are to the signatures of other users, as long as the resulting signature still identifies the original user and (2), some users refuse to alter their signatures even after repeatedly being informed that they are disruptive and distracting, witness Nathanrdotcom, whose signature is both obtrusively long when editing, and fails to display properly when reading talk pages, and Sam Spade, who used to alter his signature regularly so that it wasn't even possible to tell which user he was. Exploding Boy 22:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your sig is just over 5 lines, but that's the least of the problems editing on a mobile phone. It's actually easier to spot the sig on a phone than on a desktop computer because the non-alphanumeric characters stand out. Stephen B Streater 13:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring talk pages

Perhaps reading the talk page guidelines would help then? Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning. It is a stronger term than copy editing and can include removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information. This is not vandalism, accumulation can make understanding an ongoing discussion difficult and may discourage potential contributors from involvement. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

If a discussion has become lengthy in such a way that it obscures meaning and hinders further discussion, an editor is encouraged to summarize it in such a way as to preserve all significant detail. It is the editor's responsibility to ensure credit is given to those who posted the original commentary. (Wherever possible an editor should use the original signatures of all of the parties involved.) I believe the last part is the most important. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Of course. But when signatures obscure discussion for those attempting to edit, especially new users and some project space areas, that would be a good case in qhich you should not. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
So you're going to cite a guidline, but when it turns against your POV, it's not needed? User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Uhm, no. I was attempting to apply common sense to Wherever possible and give a case where it might not be the best idea. Rules aren't suicide pacts. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not a guideline, but a technical help page (not that this really matters). The sensible thing to do when refactoring is to keep the important bits of signatures, such as username and timestamp. The "original signatures" should actually be construed as meaning that; the heavily customized signatures that are now unfortunately so common on Wikipedia are of quite recent origin, and it was never the intention of the technical help document to encourage people to leave useless material on the talk page. Refactoring is the time to get rid of that if it's causing a problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for moving the talk to here, I was just gonna do that myself. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
In general it isn't good practice to cite a guidline for one argument and then dismiss it to 'reason' wherever possible for the next. As for the first excerpt you took, it says, Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability... Notice is says readablilty and not editability (an argument you used in the section above, which is valid here too). The signatuyre does not interfer with readability, but rather adds a colorful flavor to the end of a long black message. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Ah, so this form of refactoring is acceptable then? Could we get a list of which types everyone is ok with and make a meta-list somewhere so we don't step on anyones toes? Oh my. Apparently we disagree with our interpretation of the refactoring instructions and reasoning; I don't favor rulelawyer as a debate option unfortunately. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too many Tony Sidaway 3's

I don't really want to get into this right now, but isn't this like the 3rd rfc/Tony Sidaway 3? Whatlinkshere at least shows some of the old links have not been redirected. This is obviously bound to cause confusion. Move this to Tony Sidaway 3c, make Tony Sidaway 3 a dab page? Put dablinks/descriptions at the top of this rfc? Kotepho 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people keep writing, or starting to write, Tony Sidaway 3, then it gets deleted for some reason or other. It's just one of those things. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to sound pompous, but this one should be staying. I thought about make it TS4, but that would be confusing also, Maybe 3c would be a good idea. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Call it what you like. It is presently the only Tony Sidaway 3 in existence. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
References to pages which are no longer in existence due to whatever reason and which still have references being directed to this unrelated page may be a problem. This is not simply about the name, its about understanding and meaning. Ansell 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoyance

Tony's continuing to edit people's sigs (even those who have personally asked him to stop it) on pages other than his own talk page is very disappointing. I've been assuming good faith til now, but, damn, at this point, Tony's actions sure look they're calculated to annoy rather than to improve the project. I've left Tony a talk page warning telling him again to please stop that. Friday (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I support the action. --Fang Aili talk 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds to me like you deserve a round of applause! :-) --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand what the problem is, but these barkingly irrational accusations and frankly puerile "warnings" aren't helping. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Understanding a problem is one thing, however continuing with the action because you havn't come to an understanding yet, just shows a lack of wisdom. Ansell 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Friday. If warnings not to change signatures 'aren't helping', then changing them isn't helping either. Try actually not changing them, and you won't get warned. Amazing, isn't it? — Nathan (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't mind being "warned". Changing them substantially improves the editing environment so there's a good incentive to keep it up. Oh well, we're going around in circles so I'll leave it there. I think if I continue to argue with you any more I'll begin to sound like you, which would not be good. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
No, you don't mind being warned but you ignore said warnings anyway. Of course not, I'm a bad editor, why would you want to sound like me? Perish the thought! — Nathan (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, this is not the "Get Tony" Show. Your unwillingness to discuss the problem at hand and continued complaints over following guidelines and improving the overall quality of the encylopedia is draining incredible amounts of time from many people who could be productively working on the project. Several editors have calmly tried to discuss the situation and compromise suggestions have been made; its all been duly ignored. Can I ask what you believe having Tony's head on a stake will accomplish? Sure, it might look good in my garden, but its probably gonna smell after a while.

When working for the good of a project, its inevitable to ruffle feathers. People get pissed when someone won't delete an article they don't like, won't allow them to continue reverting to "their" version of a page, won't allow them to have the images they want on their userpage due to copyright law, won't let them demean others and now apparently for something as trivial as whether or not their preferred siganture remains perfectly intact through talk page refactors. If you can honestly say that no one on this project has gotten upset with something you did to follow policy, then I can honestly say that I doubt you've done anything significant for the project. It is simply not possible, in the sea that is the internet to please everyone and no one should be castrated for having enough common sense to realize that. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 08:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see too much calling for Tony's head here, to me it looks more like people want him to stop being so disruptive. But, this might be another Camp A vs Camp B issue and neither side will ever understand the other. Contrary to the unwillingness you see, Jareth, I see many people willing to discuss the problem at hand- except Tony Sidaway is not one of them. He keeps presenting straw men - the signature guidelines, and his talk page- while ignoring the simple facts that he's editing people's guidelines-compliant signatures on pages other than his talk page. I am extremely disappointed that Tony continues to say he doesn't see what the problem is. His selective failure of English comprehension when faced with reasonable disagreement is unfortunate. I see two possibilities- 1) he does understand but is claiming he does not out of hubris, mischief, or some other reason, or (perhaps more disturbingly) 2) he really does not understand, due to some horrible cognitive malfuntion. Without peering into Tony's brain, we can't know which of the two is true, and honestly I don't care which of is true- both are incompatible with being a useful editor. It seems clear to me that he's unwilling or unable to communicate on this issue- when discussion turns into a debate over what "is" means, all communication has ceased. Anyway, if he wants to play his games on his talk page, I don't care much. When his bizarre obsession leaks onto other pages, this is a problem. If these actions had been done by someone who was not an established editor, we'd have blocked him for disruption. Friday (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't you have something better to do than to snipe and attack at other editors? — Nathan (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, please reacquaint yourself with WP:CIVIL. The above post is a clear violation of this policy, as is at least one more of your posts to this page today, and continued violations of this type will get you blocked. Please note that second and subsequent blocks for violation of this same policy (you had one yesterday or the day before) will increase in length. This is not your first warning. Thank you. Exploding Boy 01:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so guidelines-compliant signatures are fine, but guidelines-compliant refactoring is not. This is becoming more clear. Perhaps you should review the meaning of a straw man argument, since it doesn't appear you understand wwhen someone is using that tactic. Tony isn't the only one who doesn't see what the fuss is and your possiblities are seriously verging on personal attacks. I'm not sure why you're so personally invested in your signature, but perhaps that's worth considering? Shell babelfish 15:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Err, well, I wasn't trying to debate what the guidelines do or do not "allow"- they're just guidelines. I'm concerned about what's helpful to the project. Continuing to do minor things that don't particularly need done, after being asked nicely to stop by many people, is not helpful to the project. This is clear- people who run around changing between American and British English are disruptive also. What makes you think I'm personally invested in my signature? I thought I'd made it clear several times on this RFC that to me, signatures are a small thing, not worth getting bent out of shape over. Tony seems to think they're unimportant, therefore whatever he does with them is OK. Whereas many of us think they're unimportant, therefore a crusade against them is not neccessary. Crusades come with a price- if the benefit does not outweigh the price, why do it? The enjoyment of the crusading is the only rational justification I can think of. Friday (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
It is worth it. You just can't see the forest for the trees because you're deep in the forest. How many tens of thousands of signatures are left daily on talk pages all across the wiki? It certainly is worth a few days and a few users to hammer out an appropriate policy. --Cyde↔Weys 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? We already have signature guidelines- if you see a way to improve them, by all means do so. Yours is one of the ornate ones, but that's no reason to stomp it out of existance. If someone started messing with it, and you asked them to stop, and they continued to mess with it, would you not see their continued actions as being intended to annoy rather than to improve? Friday (talk)

Folks, can I point out a few things? Here's a sample of comments from the people who opened the RfC. Speaks for itself really:

  • I take no prisoners when disambiguating! This means that I will not refrain from disambiguating links on user pages, user talk pages, talk pages, or archives.
  • I created it to make a statement (could be WP:POINT but it depends who you talk to). I hope it's not being used against me in some way.
  • I see that that is not true now, and probably should have ended it after the conversation on Tony's talk page. When I added myself to the stressed users and said, "...and have to sit back now and watch as certain admins get away with abusing their power"
  • Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing.

I had been taking this discussion seriously. I am not any longer. Shell babelfish 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot this:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tony_Sidaway_reported_by_User:Chcknwnm Shell babelfish 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
This happens all too often, unfortunately. There's a controversy, and people see that some of the folks on one side have been unreasonable. So, people then leap to the conclusion that everyone on that side is unreasonable, therefore there's no actual cause for concern or controversy. I think anyone who actually reads this will see a mix of reasonable and unreasonable statements on both sides of the issue. Long-time admins are suspectible to this- they've been criticized by trolls so many times, that now they jump to the conclusion that all criticism equals trolling. Friday (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
The "legitimate criticizers" need to do a better job of differentiating themselves from the trolls then. Because when the "legitimate" people and the trolls are all patting each other on the back and saying pretty much the same things, they all tend to get lumped together. --Cyde↔Weys 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, then. I appreciate any help anyone can give me on how to communicate more effectively. I find that signatures are such a trivial thing that a war on them is just plain silly. That Tony continues to fight this utterly trivial battle despite such opposition sure looks like drama-seeking behavior to me. Drama is not helpful to us. You want drama, find a forum- we're trying to be an encyclopedia here. (Of course, I fully realize that both sides blame the other for the drama- this may be another point where the two camps will never understand each other.) Anyway, I don't know that I can explain anything further. Sorry for being so long-winded, but I often tend to cling to the hope that actual communication is possible. Friday (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I hope I wasn't being referred to as a troll, because that would be a personal attack. As for the quotes that Shell pulled, I don't recognize the first two, but the second two are mine, and taken way out of context. They don't even have to do with this RfC. It had to do with a previous incident where Tony blocked Nathan for his signature having images, without first giving him a warning. The reason I said I should have left it alone after Tony's page is because I was catching lots of slack, for an overall not-thoughtout set of events, by everyone, including Tony's block of Nathan. As for th 3RR notice, you can't tell me that what he is doing is not considered partial reverting, which falls under the 3RR. I am not looking for Tony to get blocked, I am looking for him to stop changing the signatures, and with the 3RR report specifically, looking for hom to stop changing signatures on this RfC. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
(addition) I found the first quote from Shell as I was browsing around. It's on Search4Lancer's userpage. Unfortunately, unlike what you said, Search4Lancer didn't open this RfC (he didn't even endorse the "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section. I opened it, all alone, all by myself. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe you have proved my point in ways better than I could have possibly forseen. In the face of the RfC page where Search4Lancer's bold signature finds itself as #2 for "Other users who endorse this summary", you courageously assert that it was not he? The cirus, it seems, has come to town. Shell babelfish 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, he said "he didn't even endorse the 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'". Which he didn't. Not that he didn't sign the endorsement. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Something I probably should have done, but, didn't. I didn't really try to resolve the dispute, I just told him to shut up and leave me alone, in one way or another. Search4Lancer 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to JohnnyBGood

In response to Johnny B Goode's comments: I disagree that this antagonized a "large" number of users, that the signatures were harmless, or even in need of defending. Certainly a "call to arms" against Tony was not necessary, although I'm seeing just such comments in this RFC. Simplifying signatures to improve the editing of discussion pages was a minor event that doesn't justify this much hub-bub. Common courtesy would dictate that users would see their comments haven't been altered, their signatures still indicate who said what and carrying out crusades across AN/I, talk pages and an RFC are what's truly disrupting the encyclopedia. --InkSplotch 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It should also be noted that you have been asked by several people to remove the image from your signature on your talk page and have refused to do so, even though the guideline explicitly states "Images of any kind should not be used in signatures". So perhaps instead of this futile attempt at getting people to change their signatures by their own volition doesn't work quite as good as being pro-active, as Tony has done. Your case is an excellent example of this. jaco♫plane 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would do well to read the fine print of WP:SIG. It specifically states that it is only a guideline, that is not enforceable. I believe we've recently had a block wrongly made against a user User:Search4Lancer under this guideline even though no such block is allowable. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What you believe was indeed true. See #2 in the Unblock section on my talk page. As such, maybe I should pursue action against the admin that made the block. Search4Lancer 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Try that. I think the result could be both amusing and useful for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, so you think we should all stand by while admins block people for things they aren't supposed to block people for? That's rich. Search4Lancer 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor Man's Animal Farm?

George W. Bush is nominated for a trusted position. In his candidacy, he speaks of harmony within differing groups. His nomination and candidacy is not without vitriol and disagreement, but in the end, he gets the job and is invested with powers befitting the office.

Bush has a view of how to better the country. Many agree with him and support his decisions throughout his presidency. Some are fairly indifferent to the politics scene. But many others hate Bush and disagree vehemently with anything he does, whether it benefits the country or not. They see the name "Bush" and automatically disagree with anything and everything he proposes or enacts, no matter how small. They don't see him as being a "uniter, not a divider". These people will never agree with Bush.


Now Bush is not without legitimate controversy. He does enact and defend some programs that while not explicitly violating laws and policies, may not be constitutionally sound. Yet he does this to better America. He does this to protect the country and ensure it prospers after he's gone. But people disagree that his actions actually accomplish this.

Some have talked about removing him from power. Some have even introduced motions to start the impeachment process. But realistically, the motions are moot and most people know they won't really get anywhere.

So in the end, there are two views. Bush is sure he is improving the country. Those that hate anything he does disagree. They battle and battle a pointless battle. They could work together, compromise, to improve things, yet they don't. There is just so much pointless hatred.


--You Know Who (Dark Mark) 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • This is a pretty.. uh.. well, this is something else all right... o_o... I guess I see your point, but I'd have to say "Yet he does this to better America." is just as debatable as any of Bush's actions (or, more relevantly, whether the actions leading to this RfC are for the encyoclopedia's benefit, or to make a WP:POINT). Either way, um... where is this going.. I guess I'd rather have my sig changed than be assassinated by the gov't? Something. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 00:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bush better's america? He's driving us toward a totalitarian government and ignoring all of the principles on which our country was founded. I don't think it's a "pointless battle" to argue the a mass-murderer and tyrant should be removed from office and held on trial for war-crimes.--God Ω War 04:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please, this section is not the place to argue about Bush. It is a simple crappy analogy about hate, and how people will hate "some people" no matter what they do, no matter how good their intentions. If you want to discuss Bush, you may want to see Talk:George W. Bush or some off-wiki site. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I will agree that the analogy is crappy. Bush is more than issue that ppl can't agree upon like whether or not to leave the seat up. Bush is more like hitler. He's just evil. You can't say that there is two sides to every issue here. A man responsible for thousands of innocent deaths is simply evil.--God Ω War 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The day that an RfC over sig reformatting led to a comparson to Hitler is the day I finally believe in Godwin's Law. That sad day is today. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how apt the analogy is. As one of Tony Sidaway's critics here, I can personally say I probably agree with him about 75% of the time. The issue isn't whether he's right or wrong- he's right most of the time. The issue is that, right or wrong, he goes about things in such a disruptive way that whatever good he's doing is outweighed by the damage he does. Friday (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you're right. It just seems that the same people fighting him over userboxes are the same people fighting him over altering signatures. But then again, perhaps the people with flashy signatures are more liable to need flashy userboxes. Oh well. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 05:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind we aren't "fighting him" (well, maybe some users intend to, but I don't and I have faith that is not most people's intent), this is just a place to share concerns about his editing methods. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask huge sigs be reduced, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that he ask them to be reduced, rather than continuing with a method that is clearly offending people. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the people that was over at the userbox debate recently. That's what got me to this point. I saw Tony doing what he does with them, and asked him question on his talk page. That's when the whole signature debacle started. I am not one of those userbox crazy people. I think they look ugly scattered all over a page, and so I have only the ones that quickly describe me and show which project on WP I'm in. I also subst them, which most people should do, but since a lot of people don't know about that, speedy deleting them creates problems for everyone, unlike going through the reccommended proccess of TfD, which would actually create less problems then going through DRV. However, this RfC is about Tony's changing signatures, not the userboxes. It doesn't matter that the people here are the one's also at the userbox debate. That's true for both sides of the argument, so don't draw inferences from coincidences. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If the sigs are too long in the edit window there is an easy solution. Just create a page like [[User:chcknwnm/sig}}. And type {{User:chcknwnm/sig]] when signing without substituting. BOOM problem solved. Tony really picks the pettiest things to fight over.--God Ω War 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am going to attempt to compromise what my signature looks like in the edit window (not the actual signature itself). However, I feel if I succeed, Tony and the rest of his supporters with declare "victory" per se and use it to say that I was wrong. Don't do that. And I will not withdraw the RfC, until it's intent is satisfied. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Didn't work anyway. I thought if I could put my sig at User:Chcknwnm/Sig (which I did), I could put {{User:Chcknwnm/Sig}} into the signature box thingy and do it like that, however, it changes it to add a SUBST before it (I don't know anything about programming, so I thought I'd give it a try. I'm not going to type in the template everytime I want to sign though. That's why they have the <nowiki>~~~~, so you don't have to type it in. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software changes?

I appreciate the effort, but it sure seems like instruction creep to me. Friday (talk) 05:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JzG's view

I left him this response on his talk page.

I also wanted to comment here- this type of response is all too typical, and I find it rather unhelpful. Let me try an analogy: let's say I run a business selling widgets. One weekend, there's a flood in my store. I get on the phone to the insurance company, contractors, etc. My partner comes in and says "What are you doing on the phone?!? This doesn't help sell widgets!" Of course it doesn't - it's an unfortunate distraction due to circumstances. That's what RFCs are. Friday (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

It's theoretically possible, of course, for a user RFC to indirectly help us build the 'pedia- if it gets a disruptive user to stop the disruption. Friday (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
RfC's have a purpose: to fix problems. Making talk pages more readable and more easily edited is not a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Doing it in a manner that is offending people is a problem. -Goldom T Review 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Some people will rush to be offended over trivia. This doesn't mean that good edits shouldn't be made. Of course the problem here is the disruption of editing caused by overlarge signatures, and in that this RfC may have the indirect effect of reaffirming the practice of refactoring discussions, it might be said to improve the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Annoying signatures

Personally, I don't find long strings of code in signatures a problem (except it makes some project pages like WP:CV a little harder to read where there is often very little invening text). What I do personally find very annoying, however, is the decision by User:Cyde to use his signature to change the shape of my cursor. -- DS1953 talk 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, I noticed that too, and didn't appreciate it either. Exploding Boy 15:10, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Nor I, but it's rather small beer. And not the subject of this RfC either, I don't think. ++Lar: t/c 16:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I, on the other hand, don't mind Cyde's cursor. What I can't stand is the current pink color. But, de gustibus non est disputandum... Misza13 T C 16:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • It's not pink, dammit, it's light red. --Cyde↔Weys 16:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • hehe, that just got you popped up on my vandal log :P -Goldom (t) (Review) 16:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Ok, it's neither pink nor (any hue of) red. It's #FF66FF, fine? But annoying anyway. Misza13 T C 17:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Pink? Um, Cyde, I think there are some issues you need to explore. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 17:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
        • With this repository of signature technology, I expect we'll see an explosion of Art following this discussion. That's just the sig ;-). Stephen B Streater 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Acually his sig is fushia. ILovePlankton 19:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that sigs that change cursor size are attempts at Communist takeovers. Am I wrong? --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I think we're getting way off topic now. Exploding Boy 19:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait, what were we talking about again? I'm horribly confused. --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 19:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This section renews my sense of hope in people being able to maintain good humor under pressure. See, we can all get along just as long as we make fun of each other.. -Goldom (t) (Review) 01:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Without disrespect whatsoever, Cyde, I'd appreciate if you'd consider changing your sig. I find the cursor to be disruptive. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So refactor it, if it's that big a problem for you. I'm sure as long as you don't alter his comments or attribution, he won't mind. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I view that as a respect thing Mark. I don't think it's cool to refactor sigs on pages even for clarity. Just my personal view. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So if you truly find it disruptive, and the user will not change it, what are you left with? Having a disruptive element just sitting around on WP? What purpose would that serve. If you truly find it disruptive, ignore the feeling of disrespect and change things for the better. To help, I've taken the liberty of changing Cyde's cursor above on your behalf... feel free to help the encyclopedia where you see necessary. Don't be afraid. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The only things I'm afraid of are death eaters :) But seriously, I don't view it as a big deal, but I don't feel comfortable changing other user's sigs on pages. Thanks -- Samir धर्म 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So if it's not a big deal, then why bring it up? Methinks you were trying to prove a point, which failed. Okay, back to the encyclopedia. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not trying to prove a point. "Not a big deal" referred to changing other sigs on pages, not to Cyde's sig, which I still find bothersome, and which I asked him to change on his talk page, as opposed to unilaterally changing it on this page. -- Samir धर्म 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
So if changing people's sigs is not a big deal, and you find Cyde's sig disruptive, why don't you refactor it? Again, if he's not going to fix something that's disruptive, you're just going to leave it in place, when you could easily just refactor it to not be disruptive and have it be no big deal? So perhaps though you don't feel comfortable with it, you support someone else unilateraly refactoring sigs? --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Penalties

So, what's the penalty for people who violate the policy guideline on signatures? If I have an extraneous link in my signature (such as a link to my talk page, for example), would I be blocked for disruption? Come to think of it, if I even ask a question like this, would I expect to be blocked for disruption? --Elkman 04:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can have an external link, but some editors will foam at the mouth because of it. Generally, try using links like this; it forces them to do one more click in the case of a talk page, but I don't think carpal tunnel syndrome will be much of a risk there... Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 04:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Putting an external link into your signature is linkspamming, and if you persist it'll get you blocked for that. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and you can't really violate a guideline; however, the more and more you push the boundaries, the more people start looking daggers at you. Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I was blocked for "flaunting a stupidly long and garish signature" by you-know-who - that should tell you all you need to know. — Nathan (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I was wrongly blocked by Shell Kinney for "refusal to remove image from sig, first requested in January." Tawker then unblocked me, stating "block was for sig, not blockable under any policy" (emphasis mine). Search4Lancer 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not at all true; you can "violate a guideline." Guidelines are actionable, which means you can be blocked for failing to follow them. Exploding Boy 04:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I said it is true to an extent; everything in WP:SIG (a guideline) is a variable. Images should not be used, same with blinking text, you are advised to (please) keep your signature short, you are told external links are strongly discouraged; however, note that none of these are "can'ts" or "absolutely not"s. So you can't technically violate the guidelines, but having 500 images and 300 words in a signature will definately get you blocked for disruption. So part of what you said is true; you cannot violate a guideline so to speak, but you can fail to follow them, which will result, as I said previously, in people not liking it. Cheers, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 05:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
But you should have been warned before the block. ILovePlankton 13:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, all that's true. But guidelines, however politely they are written, are also actionable. And blocks for reasons not specifically covered by policy are allowed. Exploding Boy 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Please define 'not specifically covered by policy', as I'm not very clear on whether you're implying blocking "because I said so" is a valid reason. Thanks, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, obviously. But the Blocking Policy allows for blocks for reasons not covered by policy/actions that are not policy violations. Exploding Boy 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

So you can block if you feel it is necessary, but it doesn't say you should in any of the policies? I think I get it, though it does seem a bit rouge-like. Oh well, thanks! And if I still haven't gotten the point, feel free to drum it into my skull (its 1:00AM after 12 hours of cramming for exams, gimme a break :P) Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, essentially, yes. But bear in mind we only have a handful of policies. The rest are guidelines, suggestions, consensus, and common sense. Exploding Boy 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, though I think it may be a bit wrong to block in the case of a guideline (you could always reason with the user), I realise that has faults (they may not want to be reasoned with). However, thanks for taking the time to talk to me, and hopefully I can implement this information somewhere other than my brain in the future. Cheers, Master of Puppets FREE BIRD! 06:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Reasoning is all well and good, but being blocked implies that you've been warned/informed about/given a chance to change the problem behaviour; it's because reasoning with people doesn't always work that blocking becomes a necessary option. Exploding Boy 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could start an RfC, to get some outside opinions on something to make it a bit less rouge-ish. Andjam 13:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to come to some corner to complain about my block, it would be courteous to let me know. I'm not certain where people are getting the idea that guidelines aren't just as important as policies -- the only difference is that policies are set in stone, it takes a LOT to change them. Guidelines can still be tweaked or involve things that are less serious, like signatures but are not optional rules. Search4Lancer was asked repeatedly to remove the image. That image caused quite a bit of work when it was replaced by a smaller version -- suddenly someone had to go around to each talk page he had ever signed and swap out the image. And for those who didn't bother to read WP:SIG, it says Images of any kind should not be used in signatures. Next time, try discussing problems you have with the person, not gamboling over to a receptive audience to bash someone. Shell babelfish 12:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I can honestly say I have no idea what the above post is about. Or why Shell's signature doesn't include a link to his/her user page. Exploding Boy 16:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say it it not that obvious but I do have two observations that go along the same theme.
  • For admin types: "if you ask people nicely", "be patient" and "try to explain the rationale behind the signature changes" then Users with flamboyant signatures are more likely to be receptive to the advice. Threatening blocks or aggressive reverts are the easy way out but does not make people feel part of the team and is more likely to drive off editors.
  • For Users with flamboyant signatures: When admins offer advice listen and don't take it personally. Try and see the situation from both sides.
I believe both sides can learn from this RfC. With respect to the user page, why is a link required? The most important page is the talk page and there is a link to that. David D. (Talk) 16:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In regards to your last comment, it's just a bit confusing. I've never before seen a signature that doesn't link the user name, and the "babelfish" thing -- when I first saw it I assumed it was a link to that online translator. Exploding Boy 17:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it could be confusing. On the other hand, the fact i have a link to my User page, that is a redirect to my talk page, could also be considered confusing. Should I remove the link to the redirect page? I am assuming that most editors can figure it out. David D. (Talk) 17:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disrespect

I find Tony's arrogant "concluding view" to be the most disturbing thing I have seen on Wikipedia. By calling the RfC "frivolous," Tony at once dismisses the opinions of more than two dozen editors who have expressed nuanced views contrary to his own while at the same time showing utter disrespect for the RfC process which allows the community to express its opinion in a (relatively) non-adversarial manner. Worse, if an average editor appended a section like that to his RfC, I believe that someone would immediately voice a strong objection but, at this writing, at least five other editors, including three other administrators, have affirmed Tony's conclusion. It is obviously time for me to take a wikibreak. -- DS1953 talk 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It's just yet another example of the astounding hubris that lead to this entire situation. Sadly, I don't see a way to break the pattern here. Despite Tony's actions drawing criticism from many established editors, he will still come away from this sitaution firmly convinced that this was a ridiculous complaint. He's incapable of seeing the situation as anything other than a case of sensible people (Tony) being hassled for no reason by the non-sensible people (anyone who criticizes Tony for what they see as disruption.) I am utterly disgusted by Tony continuing to treat the 'pedia like his own personal playground, and I'm saddened that there are those who continue to support his disruption. Friday (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony's not the one who's being disruptive. He's just doing the sensible thing. Likewise, with the whole userbox mess, you had people complaining when admins were dealing with userboxes that met speedy deletion criteria. That's like claiming "disruption!" when the police do a raid on a house to arrest a suspect. It's only "disruptive" because improper actions were taken in the first place. I believe InkSplotch said it best on the RFC page, as follows. --Cyde 16:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed to see how often "disruption" is simply assigned to a person who initiates action, and not to the action itself. If an action is made to better the encyclopedia, and succeeds in bettering the encyclopedia, then the disruption isn't the result of the action. It's the result of waiting too long to perform the action. I don't accept the argument, "if we had only acted sooner...now it's here, we'll have to be careful." If it's hurting the encyclopedia, it needs to go. Whether it's the misuse of userboxes, templates, categories, or signatures, if it's impairing our ability to build an encyclopedia, it needs to go. --InkSplotch 01:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
We all have our own personal opinions on what makes the encyclopedia better or worse. I find that signatures are a small thing that (except in ridiculous cases) don't matter much. Personally, I'd rather see people focus on encyclopedic content in article space than elsewhere, but maybe that's just me. I find the creation of unneccessary wikidrama to be harmful to the project, and I find that Tony Sidaway's actions in this case to have contributed greatly to the drama. For what it's worth, several reasonable editors have agreed in this case that Tony caused some trouble here. Of course, I do recognize that some folks don't see it that way at all. Friday (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's why I think it's frivolous: this is a wiki. I know and accept that as soon as I press the "Save page" button it's out of my hands. Heck, there's even a warning to that effect on every edit page. So I'm not distraught when my comments get edited, archived, refactored, or even removed in the normal course of business. So I really don't understand why so many people are upset at formatting changes. It's not like Tony's even removing or altering your comments in any way, he's simply changing how the signature displays. As long as the link back to your user page remains you really have no right to complain. I'm all for refactoring of discussions (as a clerk for ArbCom, Tony does a lot of it). Face it, discussions frequently get fragmented and it makes sense to refactor them by topic so they are more understandable to all. Compared to these changes, fixing a sig or two is nothing. Also, this may not have come up yet, but Tony Sidaway, like about 10% of men, is color-blind .. if he's changing some of these sigs with weird colors on weird colors it may be because he cannot see them otherwise. --Cyde↔Weys 16:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Doubtful. The odds of people picking stuff that has zero grayscale contrast to the background colour of talk pages is minimal.Geni 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I said weird colors on weird colors, not weird colors on background white. --Cyde↔Weys 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Why would this matter? At worst this would mean a colour blind individual would see a box instead of a box with some words. At the end of the day the link is the only thing that matters and the consistent signature (I think a coloured box would be fine). In fact, I would suggest a greater problem is users that have a habit of drastically changing signatures such that the user is not obviously the same person (to clarify i do not mean minor changes). David D. (Talk) 16:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! And why should wheelchair users get those big parking spots right by the entrance! They've got wheels after all! Exploding Boy 16:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this comment aimed at what i said above? If someone who is colour blind can see the signature what is the problem? Is it really important that colour blind people can read all the crap in these gaudy signatures? Of course not. Your analogy with wheels chairs is a strawman and not worth a reply. I don't see why you would fight with people who agree with your basic stance, I'd be happy to see all signature be kept simple. I'd also be happy to see all user pages removed, however, i do not think Tony's actions have actually helped us reach these goals in a productive way. David D. (Talk) 16:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is only that just because something only inconveniences a small number of people doesn't mean it should be ignored. Our aim should always be to make Wikipedia more accessible. Exploding Boy 16:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree but with regard to colour blindness the weird signatures are accessible. Would you object if I used a signature like this (David D.) compared to this (David D.) ? Actually, I think they are both awful, but my point is that the signature is accessible. David D. (Talk) 17:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


As a point of information, I agree that both are awful but the first is completely illegible. I discern no distinction between foreground and background (is this intentional or just an accident?) The second is extremely difficult to read and I'd have no hesitation in pronouncing it completely unacceptable as an identifying mark. --Tony Sidaway 17:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, intentional; red letters on a green background. The distinction of these two colours is the most common form of colour blindness. All you missed is something like this (David D.). I am not defending this use of colours in signatures, just pointing out that they are not inaccessible. Whether you know me as the guy with the rectangle signature or David D. seems neither here nor there. (edit: I just realised I misread Tony's original question. For the first one the foreground and back ground ARE identical. This was intentional as I was trying to recreate the worst case scenario for a someone who is colour blind)
Having said that, I would rather see people stop trying to personalise everything here and spend more time editing. Already this RfC has become bloated from a time perspective and the user box fiasco has been an unbelieveable waste of man hours. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm having trouble understanding why you seem to think that a colored rectangle is an acceptable signature. Yeah, you can mouseover and look at the link, but that takes extra time and is wholly unnecessary. You shouldn't have to mouseover a link to see who is leaving messages ... you should just be able to read the damn thing. Also, what happens when multiple people start using similarly colored rectangles? You'll have to keep mousing over stuff to see who said what. Obviously this is unworkable. The primary purpose of signatures is being able to identify who said what. Allowing the use of colored rectangles is perverting that primary purpose. I think a very basic requirement of signatures would be that it is immediately clear who is leaving the message just from reading it. We must keep it accessible too, so colors on other colors is out the window (about 10% of all men can't read your red on green example, for instance). --Cyde 17:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, I'm not endorsing such a signature. My point is that such a signature is accessible. Should such signatures be used? That is a different issue. David D. (Talk) 18:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Accessible? What weird definition of that word are you using where a colored rectangle with no visible text is "accessible"? --Cyde 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Its just a signature. How is it not accessible if i can see it? Also, see below i addressed some of your concerns with regard to the green rectangle signature. i think this is a weaker argument to criticise the gaudy signature compared to the original argument layed out by Tony, i.e. refactoring pages. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Accessible means a lot more than just being able to see it. By your definition, anything that didn't totally absorb also visible light would be "accessible" (black holes are not accessible, apparently). But accessible means a lot more than being able to see it. The purpose of a signature is to identify who wrote what. If a signature doesn't conform to the fundamental purpose of what a signature is supposed to be, then it isn't accessible. If you can't read who wrote something because it's just a colored rectangle, then it's clearly inaccessible. But you're right, we are getting off-track here. I think it's quite obvious that any signature that is so gaudy or abstract so as to not be readable by any sizable portion of the population is inaccessible. --Cyde 18:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are confusing distinguishable from accessible? David D. (Talk) 19:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Can you please tell me what definition of the word accessible you are using? And if it's a very loose set of criteria, which I'm guessing it must be, can you please explain why that is a better judge of sig acceptability than what you define as "distinguishable"? If a sig can't even be distinguished (oh but it's accessible because I can see it!), what in the hell is the point? --Cyde 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
With respect to accessible i would define it as the user can see the signature and click on it to link to the talk or home page of the user. With respect to distinguishable i would define it as some signatures with coloured text and backgrounds may look very similar and thus different users could be hard to distinguish on a talk page.
With regard to whats the point, I was replying to exploding boys comment "Our aim should always be to make Wikipedia more accessible". For me the major point is a convenient link (i think for you it must also be distinguishavble to bne accessible). Even from the perspective of distinguishable, as far as i am concerned there are very few, if any, signatures that fit into the category of not being distinguishable (from the perspective colour blindness). I could be wrong, ask Tony if he has ever found it hard to distinguish signatures from two different users with coloured signatures. David D. (Talk) 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would object. Although I can see both, the first gives no indication as to your user name. As such it not only violates (that is, would violate) our guidelines but also inconveniences other users. Exploding Boy 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I asked the wrong question. I too would object given the choice, but I assume you agree they are both accessible. The colur blind isssue is important but we need to keep the facts straight. Not to mention that these fancy signature really convey nothing of worth to the user other than being an identifier and link. I am interested why you think the green rectangle signature would be an inconvenience. David D. (Talk) 18:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I see Cyde has brought up some of the potential inconveniences above. i have addressed each of his major concerns. In summary i disagree that such a signature is an inconvenience.
  1. "You shouldn't have to mouseover a link to see who is leaving messages ... you should just be able to read the damn thing".
    I think you can just read it. It's a green box, why does a signature have to be words?
  2. "What happens when multiple people start using similarly colored rectangles?"
    Well that would be a bit silly of the sheep to impersonate since they would immediately be mistaken for the original user. Note my signature is not 'David' but 'David D.', so these issues are similar with respect to words too.
  3. "I think a very basic requirement of signatures would be that it is immediately clear who is leaving the message just from reading it."
    Absolutely, and it would be clear that I, the user with the green rectangle, left the message. As opposed to one of the MANY David's that edit wikipedia.
Let me reiterate again, I do not support gaudy or symbolic signatures but the arguments you are using against flamboyant signature are not water tight. Tony's original argument, too long and a pain to refactor pages is a real problem that i agree with. David D. (Talk) 18:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm at a loss for words here. Please tell me, upon seeing a solid blue rectangle, how it is immediately obvious who wrote that? That is not a valid signature. Yes, over time, after seeing that rectangle repeatedly and figuring out who it is, I will start to associate that with a particular person. But a signature should be obvious to newcomers as well. There is a significant number of users who read any one sig ... maybe in the hundreds for high-visibility locations like ANI ... and you want to inconvenience all of them with having to learn this association between a color and a name? And this wouldn't be a very good system of signatures as it would allow a few (blue, red, green, etc.), and then everyone else has to pick slightly different shades. So rather than just reading a damn name, which is what makes sense, you'd have to analyze a sig carefully and think ... hrrmm, is that taupe or dark beige? At this point you can't even associate a color with a name and you have to mouseover the link every time. Nevermind people who suffer color-blindness, who will have serious issues with this whole scheme. Tony, for instance, might not be able to distinguish between the person going by red and the person going by green. Let's not be ridiculous and try to argue that colored rectangles are acceptable signatures, okay? Because they clearly aren't. The case is "airtight". --Cyde 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought you said your were at a loss for words? ;-) A signature is just a distinguishing mark that you put at the bottom of a letter or after some text. I don't think there is a requirement for it to be readable text. People used to use seals, those that don't write would use a thumb print or an X. Some who write their name do so in such a way as to be unreadable (Medical Dr's are famous for this). Your argument is based on the presumption that everyone would use a coloured rectangle but that misses the point. If a user is the only one with a coloured triangle signature it is as distinguishable as anything else.
If people are silly enough to all choose the same signature or rude enough to continue using the same signature after they have been politely informed that it is confusing it is their problem. Are we really heading down a path saying that users will be blocked for signatures? As a community I think it would be easy to educate in a friendly way those that have problem signatures. We all know from experience that waving a big stick can often lead to users not responding favourably. We have seen this approach does not work repeatedly here in wikipedia. We also know it wastes a huge amount of time. David D. (Talk) 18:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm rarely at a loss for words, it turns out ... Anyway, I don't think you're using the right definition of a signature. The purpose of a signature is to make it immediately obvious who said what. If you don't include the username in your signature, that's gone right out the window, and now you have this extra unnecessary step of associating comments with a symbol that must then be associated with a specific username. It's much better just to associate a comment with a username and be done with it. The seals that you are describing were used for verification, not identification ... this is a big difference. A better analogy to a Wikipedia signature would be a social security number (this is more apt than you might think, because Wikipedia user accounts actually do have numeric account numbers). Would you identify yourself to your HMO using a specific color (which they'd then have to go and look up), or just give them the number? --Cyde 19:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. So under those criteria my own signature is invalid. Is that so? David D. (Talk) 19:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Not nearly to the same degree as trying to match up colors with a signature. Though I must admit it is rather confusing when someone uses one username but signs as something completely different. It can be very hard to make that connection (even harder than trying to make the connection with colored rectangles, because with the rectangles, you know there is a connection there that you have to make). Whereas if I've never previously clicked through to your talk page I'd probably think you were just David D., and would be rather surprised when I click through and thought I had accidentally clicked on the wrong thing. --Cyde 19:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I had not thought too much about the possible confusion. I did write David D. at the top of my talk page for that reason but didn't think it a major issue. In fact, no one has mentioned it and i had not heard of the guideline to use the user name in the signature until now. I think quite a few users have this same disconnect between user name and signature. I don't think this usually cause problems. We need to make sure we are not trying to make wikipedia more accessible than is actually required. Over-engineering is fine, but not much point. David D. (Talk) 19:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I should also be noted that there are ewikipedia polices that inckude the principle of showing some respect for the edits of other such as parts of WP:MoS#National_varieties_of_English.Geni 16:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages, the purpose of a signature is to enable other editors to "recognise the username or IP of the person who made a statement and the time at which it was made." The blue/green box clearly violates this guideline, as does a signature rendered as a blue/green box because a user has vision problems.

Also,

  • "Images of any kind should not be used in signatures." A blue box is an image.
  • "If your preferred signature consists of characters not in the latin alphabet (hànzì, for example), you are encouraged to include latin characters also." A blue box contains no letters, and a blue box containing letters not visible to certain users is also a violation of this guideline.

Exploding Boy 19:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually an image is an image ... specifically, a transcluded .png, .gif, .jpg, .svg, etc. A blue box created through the use of HTML is not technically an image and functions identically to other HTML sigs rather than actual images. --Cyde 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The end result is the same. A blue box, however it's created, is still an image. Exploding Boy 19:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And before you object, there are good reasons for considering a blue box an image even if it's not an image file: some smartass user will inevitably decide that if s/he can create an image that is "not an image" that it will be acceptable to use that in her/his signature, and then we'll have a repeat performance of this debacle. Exploding Boy 19:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Well that "smartass", as you put it, would be able to, because it is not an image. ILovePlankton 19:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I have always interpreted that to mean a picture that has been uploaded to wikipedia. Was its original intent to define image more broadly? David D. (Talk) 19:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
No. There are issues of images not scaleing with text size.Geni 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's covered by other parts of the guideline. Signatures that are substantially eyecatching--such as those with images or, for the sake of this argument, big blue boxes--are to be avoided because they have the undesirable effect of drawing readers' attention to the posts of that particular user (I'm paraphrasing here), which isn't a good thing on a project that (often) strives for consensus. It's rather like TYPING LARGE PARTS OF POSTS IN ALL BOLD CAPS. Exploding Boy 22:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone can point me to any editor on this wiki who is using a signature that cannot reasonably be related to his username (the Ril arbitration is the classic case) I will take particular pleasure in persuading him of the error of his ways. Administrators can, and should, compel such editors to stop pissing around. --Tony Sidaway 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
on the "pising about" front i am, for once, in agreement with tony. this argument, which has been going on in some form or another for ages, just sucks effort away from the goal of wikipedia (an encyclopedia) and creates bad will and division amongst wikipedians. and for what? is a green box (or a blue one, for that matter) in someone's sig such a massive hole in the integrity of this project that we have to grind to a halt to argue about it? to bicker about whether an html box is an "image" or not? let's just assume that our fellow wikipedians are adults and can make good decisions about their sigs without our interference. if they want to have a 200 character monstrosity, fine. they'll grow out of that phase eventually. if we find them too hard to read, maybe we can just try a little harder. or maybe not at all. if we really feel that we cannot decipher a page without adjusting a sig or two, there is always the "show preview" button that allows us to reap the benefits of our edits without enforcing them on everyone else. but, this current spate of unilateral enforcement of non-existant policy on a trivial-to-the-extreme issue is doing nothing more than dividing and inflaming this community.frymaster 22:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Past exampels would be sam spade (not really a problem his sig was so unique) and snowspiner. Haven't run into an issues recenty.Geni 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is incoherent. You can't just assume that people are going to fix everything on their own with no outside nudging. Actually, that way lies anarchy. Why do you think administrators exist? Because users can't be trusted to do everything correctly. It's the same reason police exist. You have an incredibly optimistic view of the world that is only actionable in a Utopia - and this is no utopia, this is the real world. --Cyde 22:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
And administrators should stop pissing people off. I realise you have the power to do whatever you like but just because you have power doesn't give you the right to flaunt it, trampling over others to get what you want, now does it? — — Nathan (talk) (flaunting "a stupidly long and garish" whacking stick) @ 22:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Nathan: What's up? You're constantly complaining about feeling like you're under attack, and now you come out with this latest? You see why a lot of us think you are hypocritical in pointing out even the slightest of civility violations on the part of others but don't do anything to moderate your own incivility? --Cyde 23:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

People often get pissed off with administrators when we are doing our jobs. It just comes with the territory. It doesn't mean we should stop doing what we're supposed to do, and it doesn't mean we're "trampling over others to get what we want." And no, we don't have omnipotent, all-reaching powers. We do what the community has asked us to do. I'm in agreement with Frymaster, above. I've said it many times: people are spending far too much time messing about with their signatures, discussing their signatures, getting angry because people object to their signatures, experimenting with their signatures, changing their signatures, and on and on ad nauseam, and far too little time contributing in any useful way to this encyclopaedia. In my view, signatures should be limited to the basic, blue, user name-only version. Much like kids who are made to wear school uniforms, we'd probably all get a lot more done in a much less distracting environment. Exploding Boy 23:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

And people also get pissed when you aren't doing your job, and when you are abusing the job, so just because someone is complaining at you doesn't mean it is because you are doing something right. ILovePlankton 23:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I second this. Not everyone is complaining for the sake of complaining here. There are legitamate respect issues that should be addressed here. JohnnyBGood 00:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and thus far in this discussion nobody's been able to demonstrate that anyone has failed to do his or her job as an admin, or has abused his or her position as an admin, or has done something that goes against consensus, policy, or guidelines. I suggest that if someone can do so, that they should do so, rather than just flinging around vague, sweeping accusations, like some users have in this section. Like it or not, there appears to be broad support both for Tony's actions (those that formed the original basis for this RFC) and for restricting wild self-expression in the form of "signature art." Exploding Boy 01:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please define "broad support". I don't understand, because it seems that Tony has less that half of the support. This RfC is not about an abuse of administrator privelages, but rather the abuse of the editing by a regular user (who happens to be an admin). Tony does not have broad support here, and even lacks a majority of it, therefore, he is not enacting consensus when he "refactors" signatures. Tony contines to say he is refactoring the talk pages, yet that particlular WP:-- page says that signatures should be left intact. You can not say that people should not have more than just the plain blue link with their username as their signature, unless you get rid of the box in the preferences section that allows you to change it. It seems completely against the way of things to say something shouldn't be changed (signatures), when the code of the Wikipedia is written to allow it. And as for this RfC being frivilous, your arguments imply that you think all RfC's are frivilous because it is not helping to write the encyclopedia. Don't bring that up here, bring it up at the appropriate talk page. As long as there are RfC's, and Wikipedia ushers people towards them to solve disputes, then this paticular RfC is completely valid, and calling it frivilous is inappropriate. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 01:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly does it state that signatures should be left intact? I just re-read the guideline, and the answer is... it doesn't say that anywhere. My comments directly above are in response to a few users who have been complaining about vaguely-identified "admins" and their supposedly wrong actions. And if you read my comments carefully, you'll see that I wrote "in my view" signatures should be limited to user name only; that would require removing the ability to customize them, yes. As for all RFCs being frivolous, I have never said that, and I've never even implied it. Exploding Boy 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just as a point of record, a total of two users certified this RFC, and another four endorsed it; hardly overwhelming support. Exploding Boy 02:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I've seen less.Geni 02:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) If you're going by the endorsements like that, Tony's opinion also only has 4 endorsements. I was referring to the outside views, which is where most of the opinion was gathered. From the outside views, it can be seen that Tony does not have even half of the support, and if you go just by the endorsements of my paragraph and his paragraph, Tony only gets half of the support, not "broad support". Chcknwnm (Chuck) 02:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we can say not only broad support, but overwhelming support. We don't measure that by counting heads. --Tony Sidaway 03:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, whatever. Certainly no-one's demonstrated that Tony violated any policy or went against any guideline. Exploding Boy 04:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, you have a funny definition of consensus. Please explain what you mean by now "overwhelming support". This befuddles me, in that less than half of usrers expressed their agreement with you, yet you say that the number of heads doesn't matter. He seems like you are only considering the opinions of those that did agree with you. Please explain. Chcknwnm|T (Chuck) 19:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Eighteen editors who agree with me that this RfC is "utterly frivolous" will do as "overwhelming support" if you want numbers. But I'm referring to the triviality of my refactoring and the obvious good sense of performing such edits. My refactoring is obviously a non-issue for most people. --Tony Sidaway 19:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You still seem to be only looking at your side and your supporters. If you say that 18 editors is overwhelming support, then you are taking that number out of context, as I see on the RfC over 20 people that disagree with this RfC being frivilous. My refactoring is obviously a non-issue for most people, is not the case. You are not considering anyone's opinions except those who support you, and you refuse to consider that you do not have a majority support here, and your ignorance is starting to border on a lack of civility. Chuck(척뉴넘) 23:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony's refactoring is "obviously a non-issue" for the many, many people who haven't commented here. An RFC is not directly representative of the overall Wikipedia community - it only represents the people who are actually interested in the topic. If this were an important issue for most of the people Tony interacts with daily on Wikipedia, there would be more people participating here. Chuck, on WP:ANI you asked how you (or someone) could tell Tony that he's doing something inappropriate. You do it by saying "Tony, your behavior is inappropriate." You've done it. He doesn't have to agree with you. FreplySpang 00:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pussycat

Yeah, heck of a pussycat. Heck of a rude one. Search4Lancer 02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If he would just respect users, he would indeed be a "pussycat". — Nathan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You two honestly think that "Well they create a huge nuisance for me. Please knock it off." is really rude? Come off it. Continuing to use huge signatures after you've been requested by multiple people to tone them down ... now that's rude. --Cyde↔Weys 13:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, no one has ever asked me to change my signature. Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creativity

You know, even the Esperanza links serve a purpose. Excessive colouring or sub-/superscripting one's sig doesn't do much, on the other hand. Sigs are there to identify you, nothing more. If you want to be creative, don't impose on other people and have some good sense. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

How exactly is someone supposed to be creative without "imposing" their creativity on others. Ansell|T 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Well done in reading my comment literally while losing the meaning and intent of it at the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Partially dissenting, pseudo-concluding view by Elkman

Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be arrived at by consensus of all users, not dictated by admins or a few vocal users. It happens that admins are given extra tools to enforce policies and guidelines, but even ordinary users can remind people to follow policies. (As an example, look at all the test templates.)

Sometimes, policies and their enforcement mechanisms have to be debated, and that's what has happened in this RFC. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but only a few users seem to be suggesting that signatures should be drastically refactored every time they occur. And rather than gently reminding people that long signatures with plenty of <font> and <span> tags and images are difficult to edit and drain server resources, a few admins are working on a heavy-handed enforcement mechanism.

It's been brought to my attention that this opinion is wrong. Totally wrong, and inexcusably, unforgivably WRONG. I'd erase it, but that would be dishonest, since I've already posted it. So, it's struck out. --Elkman (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you shared the information that led you to strike out this comment. Thanks David D. (Talk) 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from main page

This exchange was moved from the main page after successful mediation by User:Prodego. See User_talk:Exploding_Boy/archive4#Your_conflict_with_Nathan. "They" refers to "gaudy signatures ... confined to talk pages". Dr Zak 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. No, they're not just confined to talk pages, as demonstrated right here. Thanks to User:nathanrdotcom's disruptive signature, there are large parts of this page that I can't read. Exploding Boy 19:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    You seem to be having a problem on your end. Maybe you should get a new computer or browser. IE6 works fine for me and everyone else I've asked. If you upload a screenshot like everyone asks, your comlaints/requests will be taken in better light. Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, well there's a good idea. Because nathanrdotcom selfishly wants to have bitchin' sig, I have to get a new computer?? I think your usefulness in this discussion is over. Exploding Boy 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, I'm labelled as selfish (isn't namecalling immature and against WP:CIVIL? oh you're an admin? Then you should know not to make such statements) just because I have a signature that I like and I've repeatedly asked you for proof of what you find wrong with my signature and you just can't do it. Let us break down what's in my signature: a font colour change, a link, a font colour change, a link, a font colour change, superscript, a link, superscript off, font off. Don't blame me for your inability to find proof. Do be much more civil when making a comment about me. Thank you ever so much. — Nathan (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
    So you're assuming bad faith and insinuating he's lying that his computer has a problem displaying your sig? And then you deny that it is selfish to ask someone to get a new computer and/or a non-standards compliant browser just to view Wikipedia? Whatever floats your boat, buddy... Johnleemk | Talk 15:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not your buddy and I'm not your friend. If you read the comments above, I was called selfish (which is namecalling which is incivil) for using the signature I choose to use. — Nathan (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
    Apparently the WikiLove and free speech brigade support both ideals, as long as they don't need to actually be friends with anyone or engender a collegiate atmosphere, and the freedom of expression is limited to only one side. Calling someone selfish is not innately an attack, especially when there is significant factual basis for such a statement. (Those who would argue that there is nothing selfish about suggesting someone invest in a new computer to be able to edit pages, when the other alternative is some basic modifications which cause little detriment to the project, need to get the screws in their head tightened a little.) Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
    The problem wasn't with the browser he was using, it was with that particulatr skin he used in addition to the "colour" tags instead of "color" tags. It's not selfish to ask him to get a new computer when he selfishly asks for people to change their signature, when he is the only one having a problem with it. We've determined that he did indeed have a problem seeing Nathan's signature, but no by Nathan's fault, or Exploding Boy's either. But we weren't able to determine the real problem until EB uploaded a screenshot, something he wouldn't do until asked like 10 times, although still complaining multiple time before that about the signature. If handing out "selfish" is ok, then EB was being selfish by making a public complaint, and not showing us what was needed to fix it, but rather harrassed Nathan to fix it, simply stating that "(paraphrased) It's affecting ME, so change it". Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nathan, above: a font colour change, a link, a font colour change, a link, a font colour change, superscript, a link, superscript off, font off. This... is you defending your sig. Good lord. (And for the record it formats just fine for me.) I just don't get all this foot-stomping about how your desire to have a spiffy sig trumps other people's desire to read the page. If someone has formatting or editing problems caused by your sig, then you should fix it. I can't imagine how that could be a contentious issue. Opabinia regalis 19:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chuck, why do you persist in getting involved when you so obviously known so little about the problem? The problem with how the signature was displaying was clearly that Nathan was using the wrong tag. It is not selfish to ask someone to change a disruptive signature; see Opabinia's remarks directly above. The reason it took so long to upload a screenshot was that I didn't know how to do it and was waiting for instructions. I informed Nathan of the problem with his signature easily half a dozen times, and explained exactly what the problem with it was (and this was before the debacle on his talk page). Anyway, this issue is over. Please, leave it alone (and that goes for Johnleemk as well---both of your edits are beginning to veer uncomfortably close to violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA). Exploding Boy 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Exloding Boy, please stop saying I know so little. I have been following the situation carefully. When did you tell Nathan that it was supposed to be "color" instead of "colour"? If you did know, why didn't you bring it up again when the discussion came up here. You're right, it's not selfish to ask someone to change their signature. It's selfish to ask someone to change their signature when you're the only one having a problem with it, and you won't show the problem. If you had known it was the color tags, then why didn't you say something on this RfC or talk page during this whole dabaccle when people asked you to upload a screenshot? I think it is obvious that no one else saw the problem, and you did nothing to help the situation by continuously telling Nathan to change his sig, while ignoring everyone else's comments. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The more you keep trying to get involved, the more you demonstrate your lack of awareness of the situation. This is the last thing I'm going to say to you on the subject: obviously I didn't know that the problem was the tag. The very suggestion that I would have continued complaining about the disruption the signature was causing if I knew what the problem was is deeply insulting and offensive, and I've had enough of your clumsy attempts to get involved in and keep going this long since dealt with issue. This discussion is over. Exploding Boy 05:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment "I informed Nathan of the problem with his signature easily half a dozen times, and explained exactly what the problem with it was (and this was before the debacle on his talk page)". This sais outright that you knew the problem. In your above post, you say "The very suggestion that I would have continued complaining about the disruption the signature was causing if I knew what the problem was is deeply insulting and offensive". No offense was intended...I was merely going off what you already said. What do you mean by lack of awareness. The situation is over, but it keeps coming up, and will come up later against Nathan as his mistake if you don't own up to yours. Chuck(척뉴넘) 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] When an RfC is ignored

I've brought this back to the RfC. It makes sense to keep it here. --Tony Sidaway 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC, where I feel that the the person that it was opened about is ignoring all constructive comments that go against his position. He continues to say that he has the overwhelming support, when IMO, I think that he has less than half. When questioned about how he has overwhelming support, he goes back to saying the RfC is frivilous. Also, he continues to do the thing the RfC was opened about, on the RfC and the RfC Talk page. I'm just looking for some input about how I can (or someone else can) tell Tony that what he is doing is inappropriate. I would also like to ask that during this dicussion here, the complaint not be called frivilous, or a waste of time that should be spent towards writing an encyclopedia. Certain editors at the RfC have said that over and over again, and I feel that since there was an arbitration case about a very similar thing, and the RfC process exists, complaints should not be treated as frivilous. As Jimbo's statements of principles says, Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity. Thank you you for any imput about what to do. Chuck(척뉴넘) 00:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

See this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tony_Sidaway_3#Final_response_by_Tony_Sidaway
Pay special attention to the bit where it says "this was an utterly frivolous complaint". --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Your point? He already pointed that out. "When questioned about how he has overwhelming support, he goes back to saying the RfC is frivilous.". ILovePlankton 00:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And many support his position. Frivolous RfCs get ignored. Mackensen (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Many also oppose his position. ILovePlankton 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
An RFC is a request for comments. The community seems to have commented. In fact, this particular one got a lot more community feedback than many do. Jkelly 00:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
But what is the point of getting there comment if no matter what they say the user that is being disruptive doesn't have to stop being disruptive? ILovePlankton 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
My point is that it's probably a bad idea to make frivolous RfCs. The statement I cited is endorsed by 21 24 25 31 other editors, most of whom are administrators. I think it's fair to say that their opinion counts when it comes to frivolity. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
So the opinions of editors that aren't admins, don't count? And there are atleast 10 users that disagreed with what you were, and are, doing. ILovePlankton 00:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
He did count them. Make that 23.Timothy Usher 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused as to your meaning. ILovePlankton 00:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
He counted all endorsers of his statement, not just admins, of which, besides himself, there were 23, last time I checked.Timothy Usher 01:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Without commenting on the matter at hand itself, if there's a reason to believe that an RFC won't solve the issue, the next step would be RFAr. Whether it would be accepted is a different matter altogether. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Also, the RFC already has a page and a talk page. Let's keep it contained there, instead of carrying it out here. FreplySpang 00:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't this running the process in reverse? There was already an ANI thread, then it escalated to RFC ... now you're on AN since you didn't like the RFC's result? C'mon. It's a Wiki. If you don't want your stuff edited, get a personal site. --Cyde↔Weys 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What result? I don't see how RFC's ever get anything accomplished when the person they are against doesn't give a crap what everyone else thinks, and since there is no way to enforce an RFC he can do whatever he pleases when it ends. ILovePlankton 01:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

To Cyde: I don't think there was an AN/I thread before (but I might be wrong). In any case, my comment here is not about the the original refactoring by Tony, but about his not taking into account the opinions of 21 editors who disagree with him at the RfC. I especially don't like that people here continue to say that it is frivilous, especially since Jimbo says everyone with a complaint should be treated with respect. To Tony: It makes no difference that most of the 21 who support you are admins, and I actually take offense to you saying that. Admins are not better than non-admins, and their opinions do not count any more than mine. Chuck(척뉴넘) 01:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The answer is, basically, no, no administrators are going to intervene. I suggest anyone interested discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 instead of here, since that's what the RFC is for. If further action beyond the RFC is needed, you can request mediation or take it to the Arbitration Committee. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

If there was a way to enforce a RFC than I would but nothing will come of any RFC brought against tony. even if it is something much bigger. ILovePlankton 01:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I see we're all actively engaged in writing an encyclopedia, I'd like to point out that there's over 7000 articles that need to be wikified over at WP:WIKIFY. Metros232 01:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest anyone interested discuss this further at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3 instead of here, since that's what the RFC is for. If further action beyond the RFC is needed, you can request mediation or take it to the Arbitration Committee. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
People who waste their own time lecturing others on how not to waste theirs should stop wasting their time. -Splash - tk 01:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we get back to writing an encyclopedia now? Naconkantari 01:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like that, and I wish Tony would do that instead of continuing to bother people. ILovePlankton 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
ILovePlankton, on your user page you quote Albert Einstein as saying: "Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."
In this spirit, I thought I’d let you know how impressed I am by your new signature. Good work.Timothy Usher 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. ILovePlankton 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to say that I'm pretty insulted by the way this discussion went. I asked what other avenues I have, and/or what I could say to Tony. Instead, most of the feedback received was exactly what I asked it not to be: Comments that this complaint was frivilous, and comments that we should go back to writing an encyclopedia. If you want to write the encyclopedia, stay away from this page. Thank you to A Man In Black, who answered my question and suggested WP:RFM or WP:RFAr if I feel appropriate. He also suggested going to the talk page of the RfC to discuss the signature issue, not here. This discussion was intended to get feedback about where to go if I feel someone isn't following the majority of comments on their RfC. Chuck(척뉴넘) 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel my advice is unhelpful, but Wikipedia is first, an international Web-based cooperative free-content encyclopedia. If you don't like the outcome of an RFC, then elevate it to the Arbcom level and quit bickering on ANI. Naconkantari 01:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This is AN, a message board, not AN/I. I'm not bickering, just looking for imput on my next options. Stop being so uncivil. Chuck(척뉴넘) 01:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
AN and ANI are both message boards. What you're not getting is that it's pointless to debate it here, as it's apparant there will not be a resolution. If you want something to actually get done, then go to the Arbitration Committee. Naconkantari 01:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Once again, Wikipedia is a Wiki, and everything on it can (and is) edited. Can you explain why you are having such a strong reaction to a few formatting edits?! --Cyde↔Weys 02:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding ILovePlankton's removal of this comment, please note that there's a difference between formatting edits and wholesale deletion of comments. Signatures can never be equated to comments. A more appropriate action to prove one's point would be to deformat-ise Cyde's sig. :p Johnleemk | Talk 12:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Which I wouldn't mind at all, seeing as this is a wiki. But I am kind of surprised at ILovePlankton's overblown reaction. Totally removing someone's comment and reformatting a signature are completely different. --Cyde↔Weys 15:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I created the {{refactored}} template. Feel free to improve it. It currently produces this result: NoSeptember (talk) —The preceding signature was simplified .

[edit] Plankton-lad blocked

Can we reduce this to its bare bones?

  1. Long sigs are silly but no big deal.
  2. Tony acted rude and disruptive.
  3. Any complaints about it get ignored or mocked.
  4. The people complaining get irritated.
  5. When they arc up in the slightest they get blocked.

Really, is it any wonder that there is some frustration here? On the one hand we've got an admin who appears, to any impartial observer, to be trying as hard as possible to make a fuss and nothing happens to him. But a 31 hour block for what, deleting one comment? C'mon. 144.53.251.2 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of your points are dealt with on the RfC. How many good faith, non-abusive comments do you think it would be acceptable for a person to delete without running the risk of being blocked? --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I unblocked him anyway. We'll keep a close eye on him for the time being. I think he's basically good, and he has made some assurances on his talk page not to be disruptive again. If you disagree with my actions, please don't hesitate to let me know, and we'll see what we can work out. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
To answer your question Tony... an infinite number. There is no restriction or even proposal against removing general comments from a talk page. None. Never has been. There are statements that it may be 'considered hostile' if you do so without responding... but even there he did respond in his edit summary. Cyde was saying that anyone can edit/change anything on Wikipedia and ILovePlankton responded 'oh, so that means I can remove this'. Comment and response. I don't see a problem. And blocking someone for that? Completely unjustified. Even if we follow the absurd lengths you (and/or NSLE) go to in saying that removing a talk page comment is the equivalent of removing a large section of content in an article (which is ridiculous) and therefor 'vandalism'... we don't block on a first offense when it really IS vandalism. Calling it a WP:POINT violation is equally absurd... yes, he was absolutely making a point about the implications of 'anyone can change anything' - but he did not "disrupt Wikipedia" to do it. We 'make points' every time we write a sentence. It's the >disruption< part which gets people blocked, and again... not on a first offense. Want a good example of something that is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Editing a bunch of peoples' signatures without first discussing the issues with them and trying to get them to change them voluntarily. Makes a point about the need to reduce long signatures... but does so in an unnecessarily disruptive way. That's a WP:POINT violation. Your harassment of these people does vastly more to get in the way of 'writing an encyclopedia' than long signatures ever could. That is a simple and plainly obvious fact. Weigh ILovePlankton's contributions against whatever hypothetical damage you want to suppose his long sig was doing... and tell me it wasn't a net positive for the encyclopedia by a huge margin. If over-sized sigs really bug you that much the first step should be politely requesting that the user change it. Not deliberately going out of your way to stir up trouble. You know that editing those individual signed comments does nothing to change the root signature. All future comments would continue to use the long version. Your stated aim is to get people to shorten their signatures, but your method does nothing to accomplish that... except in calling attention to the issue through the disruption you cause by this unnecessary incivility. Yay, there is a brouhaha and other admins agree with you that long signatures should go. >I< agree with you that long signatures should go. But your method of 'raising the awareness level' on this issue was disruptive, incivil, and dead wrong. You have antagonized and harrassed good contributors over a matter of minimal importance rather than first trying to discuss the issue with them constructively. Apologies for the harsh tone, but enough already. Why must we go out of our way to upset good contributors over every little inconsequential thing? Surely I am not the only one who can withstand the 'horrors' of a user having a three line sig and a religious userbox on their page if they also create a few dozen solid new articles? In what way is this ongoing 'war against users' a 'good' thing? --CBDunkerson 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Addendum: I originally thought that the removed comment was on ILovePlankton's talk page since it was discussed there. It was not, and that does change the technical 'vandalism' status... but we still don't block for a first offense of such. Apologies for the mistake. --CBDunkerson 12:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would have made a difference if it was on ILovePlankton's talk page. I believe NSLE took other factors in ILovePlankton's behavior into account in blocking. I wouldn't have blocked myself (if uninvolved, that is) but it doesn't seem unreasonable, and seems to have been resolved in a friendly way. --Tony Sidaway 12:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My 2 cents...

Now that ILovePlankton and Chuck are about to leave Wikipedia or are stressed out completely, I feel something has to be said. I have been watching this for the past couple of hours now and what Tony said about the RFC and the voters has stuck me the hard way. He said that this was a frivolous complaint. Which it is not, because if it was frivolous, then the RFC page wouldn't exist and there wouldn't be 20+ users that certify that some of Tony's actions were questionable.

Ok, granted, that the some of the signatures are a little extended or have bad characters in them and need to be changed. Signatures that contain 300 some characters should be encouraged to be changed. And like Tony and NSLE did, block for a small amount of time to get a message across that the signature is innapropriate.

Tony, dispite how "frivolous" you think you're RFC is, that doesn't mean you should go back to things you were doing before that started the whole thing. (i.e changing sigs). Its ok to an extended amount of time to try and put a point across, but to deliberately go back and do things the RFC brought up, is not a part of dispute resolution. So my suggestion is to not refactor is signature anymore. Instead, try a differant method of dispute resolution rather than making more of a fuss. (I just was NoSeptembers new template, maybe that could help?)

The thing that struck me the wrong way was when Tony said I got x amount of users that back me up and thier mostly admins. Did you count the oppostion? It's about even, IMO. Although most of the users who were against you're actions were non-admins, thier input on situations is or should be taken. Because someone is non-admin doesn't mean they don't have an opinion on the matter or that what they says is of lesser importance than the admins. Tony, nothing against you, but please try more in the area of taking in condsieration to what the community feels, they will be much happier if you do. ;-)

Likewise to back up the other side, Chuck and ILovePlankton and others with long or confusing signatures, please try to be understanding. Tony and other admins blocking users in these situations are not trying to make an example out of you. Tony making refractoring to your signature is one thing, but to continue to flaut a signature that is long or confusing is wrong. Japanese and Chinese characters are one in particular. Personally, I can see the characters on my main computer, but when I go on another computer of mine, it reads as an html code or something and it looks just plain bad. Hell, on my other computer it can't even read a -->•<-- dot.

Please, if someone asks you to change your signature because of it being long or confusing, just change it and be creative in a way that everyone can enjoy, without the stress and the blocks.

And please, can we go back to creating an encyclopedia already? -- from The King of Kings 07:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

My problem with the RfC (and currently around 30 34 editors back me on this) is that it's frivolous. A waste of time, and a pointless exercise in trying to stop an editor doing something small, but useful and constructive. I'm convinced, from reading the comments of those who object to my actions, that they're completely, utterly and absolutely wrong to object to this reasonable refactoring. It would therefore be very unreasonable to respond to this utterly frivolous RfC by ceasing activities which improve Wikipedia. It would be impossible to exaggerate my complete contempt for these attempts, by force of bullying, to retain useless clutter in the discussion areas of Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
My problem with your comment is that you think your actions are justified. They're disruptive, to say the least. Moe's right on this one. It would be impossible to exaggerate my complete contempt for your activities. If you want someone to change their signature, ask nicely. That's all it takes. Changing the same signature over and over doesn't eliminate the signature, now does it? Ask and explain the problem and they'll warm up to you and change it. Don't refactor it, don't bully, don't demand, just ask. You'll throw them completely off-guard with how nice you are and they'll do as you ask. — Nathan (talk) 14:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't feel you're reading a word I'm saying. I said don't refactor it. Not "ignore Nathan and refactor it anyway". Why do you ignore other editors' constant requests to stop refactoring their signature? In particular, let's discuss mine: It does not in any way violate WP:SIG yet you keep "refactoring" it. I invite any user and/or admin to discuss my signature on my talk page. If there's a genuine problem with it, please do kindly mention it on my talk page (and prove how it's affecting you) and I'll address it. If sufficient proof can be provided that my signature in any way violates WP:SIG, I will be happy to change it. Otherwise, stop refactoring. And I really do mean stop. You're causing a world of harm here. The goal here is to build an encyclopedia, not irritate other users/admins. Please stick to the reason why we're here and stop disrupting the editing process. But it's frivolous! Just as many admins and users say it isn't so that doesn't wash with me. Honestly, Tony, I would really like to know: What makes your opinion worth more than everyone else's? I'm not just trolling here, I would really like an answer to this. — Nathan (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of adding a notice to the top of my talk page saying "All comments followed by a signature longer than 2 lines of markup (on my 1024x768 screen) will be deleted on sight." Thoughts? --Sam Blanning(talk) 12:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

That the wholesale deletion of comments would make it basically impossible to hold a conversation with you, and would not be a particularly useful way to fix anything. -Splash - tk 12:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, ditto. Best to just say you'll deformat-ise the sigs. Johnleemk | Talk 12:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It wasn't a serious suggestion, but they could still post, they'd just have to sign manually ([[User:Whoever|]] ~~~~~). And if they found that inconvenient, maybe that would make them more appreciative of the inconvenience of trying to find the right place to insert a threaded comment in the midst of a forest of markup. --Sam Blanning(talk) 13:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that Samuel's suggestion, if taken seriously, would be counter-productive. I do think that we could all improve the environment greatly if we simply adopted a pro-active refactoring regime in particular on unimportant but bulky formatting such as signatures. --Tony Sidaway 14:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Several days ago I placed a note on the top of my talk page asking users to refrain from using extravagant signatures there. I think it's a more than reasonable request. At least one user has voluntarily used a more simple version of their signature when leaving comments there so far, which I appreciated. Exploding Boy 14:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In principle, perhaps. But I think that such minor refactoring edits may clutter up the edit history more than they clean up the page itself... Haukur 14:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Making refactoring-only edits would do that, but if you refactor a signature or two while you're posting anyway, it would be less disruptive. That still wouldn't make it considerate or respectful, and it wouldn't make it smart, and it wouldn't make the RfC frivolous. That all could happen only if it's true that editors aren't human beings with dignity.
Tony, CBDunkerson put it brilliantly above; I hope you read his post carefully, and see the wisdom in it. Polite dialogue moves mountains; just grabbing a shovel and attacking the mountain makes you look like a hot-head. Why invite conflict, when you could invite cooperation? Read MeatballWiki:ColdBlanket, please. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Which is why, as always, context is key. Would cluttering up the page history be more detrimental than removing an annoying signature? The situation must be weighed. Generally, however, the cost of cluttering the page history is minimal; furthermore, we use talk pages (not history pages) for discussion, and discussion ought to take priority. Johnleemk | Talk 15:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
In reply to GTBacchus, refactoring during commenting is a minimal and simple option that permits the antisocial some editors to parade their huge signatures in an antisocial manner while ensuring that they do not significantly degrade the discussion environment. Suggestions that this is inconsiderate, rude, disrespectful and the like are completely misplaced. Laughably so. --Tony Sidaway 16:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Tony, someday you'll learn the value of paitent dialogue, giving people more dignity, and being more of a barn-raiser than a hell-raiser. I look forward very much to that day. People who are really good at the Wiki, who are smart about the Wiki way, don't get "frivolous" RfCs filed against them, because they're too busy collaborating, and bringing others on board, and helping others win, as opposed to making them lose. Calling editors with bulky signatures "antisocial" is unhelpful, and you should know better. I don't question your good faith; I question your good sense. You're exhibiting very poor dispute resolution skills, which is a shame, because you're a very visible example, and when I see newbies acting like they've seen you act, it's very disappointing. Work well with others. Start now. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If I acted like Tony and refactored every signature I came across, I'd be blocked for disruption. How exactly is Tony special and immune to this? Oh, I get it now. He has way too many admin friends who approve with his activities. Maybe I should acquire some admin friends who approve of me and cause some disruption myself? Also, having a dig at me via an edit summary is incivil, Tony. I'm "antisocial"? Well, I am in real life but honestly, not to be rude, but who are you to tell me what I am and what I'm not? Are you a trained psychiatrist? (I want a copy of your credentials) You just violated WP:NPA. Good job. I wait for someone to warn you. — Nathan (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I think most people wouldn't be in anything near the level of shit Tony is now if they had done that. People tend to exercise a lot of discretion over their talk pages, but when Tony just reformatted some sigs on his talk, there was a huge uproar. (An uproar which probably caused him to escalate his activities instead, because that's just who Tony is.) Johnleemk | Talk 20:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Isn't that the problem. Someone presents a problem to him, whether they're right or wrong, and he escalates his activities. Chuck(contrib) 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It is correlationally proven that the correctness of Tony's actions is directly related to the uproar surrounding them. The issue often is Tony's abrasiveness in handling people, not whether he was right or wrong. The general point he's been making here is receiving broad support at his RfC: sigs which disrupt discussion should go. How he made this point is therefore what we are arguing about, and it's rather silly to see the large number of people who jumped on the anti-Tony bandwagon simply because it was Tony. (Standard disclaimer for people who will try to put words in my mouth, as typically occurs in any Wikipedia-related discussion involving Tony: I am not saying that everyone who disagreed with Tony was wrong, nor am I unequivocally endorsing all of Tony's actions, although I believe overall the larger point he has been making stands.) Johnleemk | Talk 20:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
As someone who has just had a sig forcibly refactored by Tony, I can now add from a personal perspective that this is without question disrespectful. At 235 characters, my sig is well below the recommended limit (300) at WP:SIG; further, it does not nearly qualify as "distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable"—in short, it survives scrutiny of existing policy. More importantly, since policy includes tips for customization, policy can be taken as an invitation to individualize within parameters; therefore, a user's sig, as much as the comments themselves, is intended to be viewed as presented by the user. It is my view, therefore, that the refactoring of complying sigs without prior discussion is identical in purpose as changing a user's comments without prior discussion and is therefore vandalism, subject to the same warning/blocking procedures as all other vandalism. RadioKirk talk to me 18:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's somewhat fanciful to say the least. Even if you have misread policies and guidelines in the most creative manner, this does not mean that you are permitted to make novel interpretations that turn the vandalism policy on their head and label improvements to a discussion page as vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 18:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's somewhat fanciful to say the least. Even if you have misread policies and guidelines in the most creative manner, this does not mean that you are permitted to make novel interpretations that turn the vandalism policy on its head and label vandalism to a discussion page as "improvements". RadioKirk talk to me 18:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Nathan: I'm revoking your Esperanza membership. I don't think you've learned anything there. --Cyde↔Weys 17:15, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, but you forget the most important piece of information relevant to your sentence: I haven't been a member of ESP for quite some time. Cyde, my dear dear fellow editor, perhaps your own membership should be revoked, you're not learning anything there either. Why are you even a member? Honestly, why? To join some cool club? There's a lot more to ESP than being a member of a cool club. It's agreeing to its principles of building a better community. Please do let me know how you are adhering to its principles. I recall an e-mail sent to you (by me) asking you to cease hostilities in the name of peace. I feel you haven't read what I had to say. Can we adopt this plan? — Nathan (talk) 17:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Cyde, can you just take away someone's membership from Esperanza like that (even if he wasn't still a member)? If so, what gives you the right? And if you do have the right, what makes you think it is appropriate to revoke a membership from someone you had a personal quarrel with? If you believe that that was all still in the right, I'm seriously going to have to reconsider my membership to Esperanza. That was the one place where anyone can get away from admins abusing their power, from users pushing POV, and a place where you could get support as a person/editor, without your problems getting in the way. Please think about your statement above, "Dear Nathan: I'm revoking your Esperanza membership"...do you think that was the right thing to do? Chuck(contrib) 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Chuckwm, what we're seeing here is Cyde letting his inner 13-year-old shine. The idea that someone should have their Esperanza membership "revoked" for "not having learned" from the organization is silly - it should be clear to anyone who isn't busy acting out that a person in that situation should perhaps spend more time at Esperanza, not be "thrown out". Please be patient with Cyde; he's gradually growing up. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Chuck:
Some of us expect civility and WikiLove from those associated with Esperanza. Supposedly the community wasn't working without a hierarchical organisation to foster a sense of bonding amongst editors, so Esperanza was formed to provide an escape from the incivil tendencies one tends to run across, and escape from abusive editors (for some reason a lot of people assume only admins can be/are abusive). Do forgive Cyde for expecting, you know, a minimal level of civility from one who was until recently a prominent member of Esperanza. (Note: I think Cyde was joking.) Johnleemk | Talk 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If he was joking, he should clarify that quickly! Chuck(contrib) 20:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Please do explain to me how I'm more "prominent" than any other member of Esperanza. Everyone is equally as "prominent" unless they're a member of the Advisory Committee. Thanks for the..compliment? insult? whatever it is, thanks though. — Nathan (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
It's more fun to see people figure it out on their own than give it away immediately. --Cyde↔Weys 20:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
If that was a joke, I'm real ok with having been wrong. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
(deindent) Considering that only the ESP community of somesuchorother crap which I know nothing about because I'm not an Esperanzean has the authority to revoke membership in Esperanza, I don't think Cyde expected anyone to take him seriously. It was probably meant more as a rhetorical comment on the hypocrisy of some Esperanzeans than anything else; Nathan hasn't been the only person associated with Esperanza who has been anything but civil in dealing with others. (They're a minority, true, but they're a minority that makes the majority look bad; some of us know decent ESPeans, but those who don't may be totally turned off by the hypocrisy they see. The green e is supposed to mean something, not be just another badge of "individuality" you can stick in your signature.) Johnleemk | Talk 20:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Cyde: I'm revoking your Esperanza membership. You haven't learned anything there either. Chuck(contrib) 20:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Dear Everyone: please take your personal conversations to some other venue. FreplySpang 20:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

This has become an absurd waste of time. Apparently the complainants are going to continue venue shopping until they're satisfied with the outcome. Can anyone who has a problem with Tony's refactoring at least tell us what you hope to achieve? I think everyone understands that you didn't like having your signature refactored as you've made that abundantly clear. Either escalate the dispute resolution or go back to editing. Shell babelfish 20:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Shell, you're being rude...if you don't want to participate in this discussion, don't. Don't try to end it because you don't like it by saying it's a waste of time. Stop wasting your time on it. And as for what I hope to accomplish, it was to have Tony stop changing my signature. Chuck(contrib) 20:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not trying to be rude. Many people have weighed in on the subject and have politely requested that you take this to the proper place -- you ignoring these requests, however could be considered quite rude. The noticeboard cannot help you with this dispute, no administrator action is required here. There are many avenues of dispute resolution still available to you should you feel that the RfC didn't resolve the issue. I would be happy to explain what options you have if you'd like. Shell babelfish 21:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Nathanrdotcom to Tony Sidaway's final response

Removed from the comment because it's clearly not a good faith endorsement. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree It's frivolous (wait for it..) because Tony will never change. --nathanrdotcom 23:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
    We all change. Wouldn't it be nice if (among all the really important things that you and I have in our lives) we could all look back and reflect that we had changed in such a way as to make Wikipedia a better place? --Tony Sidaway 00:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Note: The user defaced two compliant sigs with this edit. RadioKirk talk to me 00:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    This is a wiki. Refactoring discussions to remove unnecessary and intrusive formatting improves the environment, and is certainly not defacing. Please rethink your seriously wrong tack. --Tony Sidaway 22:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Indeed it is, and it's a Wiki with a policy that makes the forcible interpretation of your opinion that refactoring sigs "remove(s) unnecessary and intrusive formatting (and) improves the environment" the one and only "seriously wrong tack." It is time for you to rethink yours—oh, and any defacement of my sig will be reverted on sight. RadioKirk talk to me 22:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    We all do change, yes, but the question is: change for the better, or change for the worst (I personally have changed in both ways over the years)? This could easily be ended by not doing things that end up in petty bickering among Wikipedians, thereby taking up valuable time that could be spent elsewhere, such as building an encyclopedia. I'm sure that somehow there's good faith behind all this signature refactoring but wouldn't it be better to spend that time (you would normally spend molding other users' signatures to your liking) on other more Wikipedia-related things instead? More work would get done, resulting in less arguing. However, I might be a nut for even suggesting such a radical idea. --nathanrdotcom 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Nathan, your edit summary states that "Enough people have indicated that they don't like" Tony's actions, and that he should "STOP". Well, nearly twice as many users have weighed in to say "that they don't like" garish and obtrusive signatures, that the RfC was frivolous, and that this should "STOP". Whoseover wishes to respect fellow editors, he or she can begin by signing comments in the normal way. Remember, it's about content, and it's damn well not about usTimothy Usher 05:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    The basis of the wiki is that anyone can edit any part. It's a social contract in which each of us plays a part in maintaining a high quality. In the past few days we have seen a baseless and pointless attempt to establish the principle that parts of discussion edits that are repeated and thus are not part of the discussion but solely intended for identification may not be edited. Obviously that suggestion is utterly absurd. Editors should refrain from injecting unnecessary padding into a debate. We will tolerate it, but when we edit we *do* reserve the right to remove such low-value, repeated content from the debate in the interests of keeping the signal-to-noise ratio at a reasonable level. ---Tony Sidaway
    With all due respect, it's Nathan or nathanrdotcom, not "NathanR" (why are you spelling it that way? I've edited it back). My name is spelled in such a way to encourage others to use it that way. Cheers. --nathanrdotcom 06:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    Jeez, Nathan, how am I supposed to know? Nathanrdotcom, what's the r, then? Bringing me to my next point: why should sig displays differ from usernames? But that would provoke yet another set of users...sigh...Tony is completely right about signal vs. noise. For users to complain is as if dogs were to complain that their uniquely-identifiable urine has been washed from fire hydrants.Timothy Usher 06:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
    This strikes me as a particularly apt comparison. There seems to be more than a hint of territoriality in these absurd complaints. --Tony Sidaway 22:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I see no reason this should be here when everyone can look at the RfC for the comments. Why the needless duplicating? I'll tell you why. Our dear Tony wants to make an example of anyone who would oppose them (that or call them a "silly sausage" for having an opinion he doesn't like). Again, proof that he doesn't care about anyone else but himself. If he doesn't like something that someone says, he won't take it as a constructive comment to change, he'll try to throw it in their faces. Too bad I'm immune to that sort of thing. --nathanrdotcom 06:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In addition, "it's frivolous because Tony will never change" is not bad-faith. Why isn't it bad-faith? Because I was the one making the comment and I say it's not. Calling it bad faith is - in and of itself - assuming bad faith. I would remind Mr. Sidaway to assume good faith - this is one of the founding principles of Wikipedia. If he cannot do that, he should consider finding another Wiki to administrate. I move that this whole discussion be moved back to the RfC where it belongs. Enough picking faults at everything I say (then pointing and giggling when you see something you don't like), it is not constructive and does not help to build an encyclopedia.

As for Tony, I'm done with him because it's so dreadfully obvious that he'll never change. If I post on this RfC again (or anything else involving Sidaway), please block me for disruption. No point trying to help someone (and when we do make comments that point out his obvious errors, we're all dismissed with "don't be a silly sausage", as if our comments mean nothing - well obviously they mean something or we wouldn't be making them) see the error of his ways if he has no intent to change his ways - no point talking to a wall, is there? --nathanrdotcom 17:09, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some tripe

I removed this tripe from my talk page. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"Tripe" from a "silly sausage" playing "silly buggers". How long does one editor get to play "I'll do whatever I want, now piss off!" before the community decides its patience is exhausted? RadioKirk talk to me 05:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Do you really want to find out? Just keep on the track you've set out for yourself. Above you have acknowledged that I recognised and recorded your complaint at 03:10. --Tony Sidaway 07:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
If transposing my question re your activities onto mine instead is supposed to be humorous, you have failed utterly. Do not change my signature on any page other than your talk page again. RadioKirk talk to me 17:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you please explain your comment about transposition and humor? --Tony Sidaway 22:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Mine is not the wrong track. Period. RadioKirk talk to me 22:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
You hope. I suggest that it's a rather forlorn hope. --Tony Sidaway 12:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but mine stands. RadioKirk talk to me 21:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible solution

Here is a possible solution to the problem. See User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Proposal_for_resolving_the_sig_problem. It will change long signatures in the edit mode to be just a link to the userpage, but will save it with the proper signature intact. This will allow those who don't like editing with longer signatures to not see them, without imposing their prefernces on everyone else. Please let this solve the problem. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

What a great idea. I could almost have thought of it myself ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now I'm not so certain it will work. If I'm looking at it right (which is in question because I know nothing about code and what not), to not appear full-length in the edit window to a person running this script, the person's signature has to have before it something like <!--[[User:Where/sig]]:Username--> (or something like that) I don't think that will impact enough signatures to provide the solution here. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone who is making a fancy sig can add this text in too. A polite talk page request should suffice. And we could add it to the sig guideline. Stephen B Streater 07:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I just don't see this as a solution. Rather it's a way of exacerbating the problem by trying to ensure that even more completely unnecessary text will be added to signatures. Editors who don't use the secret magic decoder disk (the majority) will simply see yet more clutter in their edit windows. Some editors will falsely believe that having this bit of extra clutter excuses their wanton abuse of Wikipedia by filling discussion pages up with unnecessarily long bits of html and wikicode at the end of their messages. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you be happy if the "edit" link stripped out all the junk, and the "Save page" button restored it? This would allow an even more concise format for signatures during editing such as [[Stephen B Streater]]. This would cut your signature from 41 to 16 characters, for example. Stephen B Streater 12:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't want an option to restore junk to a discussion page. That would be a very, very silly thing to have. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is an example of why I might want it: it would allow me to shorten my sig on the page while allowing a simpler view during editing and also a link to my talk page eg St2. Stephen B Streater 13:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
PS In this scenario I could use my existing account name too: St2. Stephen B Streater 13:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You have actually made your signature much longer. Why do you regard that as a "solution"? What's wrong with other editors simply editing out unnecessary clutter when they encounter it? This is, after all, a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
The new one would be only three characters, reducing clutter on talk pages. And when you came to edit it, you would also see a shorter sig than my current one. This way talk pages have less clutter, edit pages have less clutter, and no one has to spend time refactoring. Stephen B Streater 13:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Your alternative signature, "[[User:Stephen B Streater|<font color="#2040a0">S</font>]][[User Talk:Stephen B Streater|<font color="#208010">t<sup>2</sup></font>]]", is obviously much longer than "three characters" and indeed, at 133 characters, is nearly three times as long as your current 47-character signature. You falsely claim that when I come to edit it I see a very short signature. I assure you that this is not the case. And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's even before we take into account the extra clutter that you'd have to add to tell the script (which most people wouldn't be running) what to do. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's a question of what you see. In my scenario, the edit page served would contain only the text "[[Stephen B Streater]]", and the normal non-edit view would be only three characters long, re-expanded by the submit button, so you would never see the long signature (except in the user preferences signature window, of course). Stephen B Streater 14:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
PS I'm proposing an improvement to the current system, not an improvement within the current system. I hope this is clearer. Stephen B Streater 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
That depends on everyone running a bit of javascript, and everyone with a custom signature adding even more clutter to it. While it's very inventive, I don't see what the encyclopedia gets out of the page bloat that would result from this. It's simply not how we do things on a wiki. Discussion pages are for discussion, not a place for spamming information that belongs on the user page. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


I think this "proposal" is totally unnecessary. Why are people so desperate to have custom sigs!? I don't get it. Sure, mine is a custom signature, but I'd be happy to change it back to just a link if it bothered too many people. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your view is common, but not universal. You would be helped by having all signatures short and consistent in edit windows. People could have short but complex sigs without causing clutter. And the more expressive people would also be happy. In short, everyone benefts to some extent. Stephen B Streater 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You keep saying that this would not cause clutter, but I don't see this. Can't you see that this suggestion necessarily involves more clutter? --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If my proposal is carried out, I will see fewer characters on the screen in all cases, and a consistent set of signatures in edit mode. This is less clutter. I don't care if my computer has to do more work. It does thousands millions 5 billion calculations per second. It can tidy up the clutter and give me a concise and consistent view. Stephen B Streater 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
This obviously isn't what would actually happen. The vast majority of signatures would still be without the appropriate delimiter to enable the script to work, the vast majority of users would not have the code, and the effect would be more clutter for two reasons: firstly because you have to add more clutter to get it to work, and secondly because editors would insist that in adding this extra clutter they were therefore immune from all requests to act reasonably. --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
My solution doesn't require any delimeters or user code. The extra substitutions would be made on the server, which would look for sigs and substitute them automatically for editing, in a similar way it does for ~~~~ currently. Stephen B Streater 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh then I've completely misunderstood you. I thought you were supporting this proposal involving javascript and whatnot. Of course messing with the back end is doable. Whether it actually needs to be done is another matter, but I'll leave that to the more active developers. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I was just hijacking the section to re-propose my earlier and (my experience selling software indicates) more viable suggestion which doesn't require any configuration or cooperation from apathetic users. The RfC conclusion suggests we don't need it urgently, but I understand there's more coming ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I've just seen the Arbitration has receded. I'll keep my fix in reserve for a rainy day. Stephen B Streater 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think arbitration would have had a bearing on your technical ideas. I suggest you raise the matter with someone like Rob Church. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disappointment

Tony Sidaway actually blocked me, any now im left with no account for a weak, and I didn't relise that Tony Sidaway was a bad user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.162.78 (talk • contribs) .

For extreme incivilty, he is far from a "bad user". Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
This user? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun David D. (Talk) 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I blocked his sock account indefinitely because he was using it to evade a one-week block imposed by another administrator. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Tony Sidaway/No refactor

For anybody who doesn't like refactoring of discussions to include trimming their signatures, I've created the above page that they can sign. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Close this RfC.

I would like to suggest to Chuck that this RfC be closed and the matter resolved to satisfaction with Tony Sidaway's Signature refactor opt-out list.

Close the RfC, de-list it, archive it and forget it exists. =) Like the Cabal, it doesn't exist :P

I would further like to compliment Tony on his choice of a solution that is so-far well-received by many. Excellent work.

I would also move to put this whole matter behind us and move on to the main objective of editing a great encyclopedia. — Nathan (talk) 08:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't normally close RfCs. This one will, I suspect, be cited in the near future to demonstrate the extremely strong support for basic refactoring as a means of resolving the problem of talk page clutter. A bit of an obvious one, that, but evidently there are a few who don't think so. --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think this RfC is done being edited (aside from t he here and there endorse), but will still be referenced. I am not certain of formatting procedures, but whatever is appropriate, I will agree with, as I requested comments, got comments, and am finished with asking for comments. Also, good job on a reasonable compromise. P.S.) I object to your use of "extremely strong support" when discussing your opinion (majority could suffice, but by no means was consensus drawn (hope you understand (in a nice way))). Chuck(contrib) 20:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I guess we can differ in what constitutes consensus. I'm happy with the outcome. --Tony Sidaway 04:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
There seems to me to be a consensus that the matter is too small to spend effort on - which means there really can't be a consensus on the RfC's issue itself, since nobody's putting effort into one. I think citing the RfC as "extremely strong support for [editing signatures as part of] basic refactoring" is not accurate at all - I don't think there's a extremely strong reaction to *anything* here. —AySz88\^-^ 06:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I would be happy with the solution, if Tony only refactors on the bare minimum of most important pages, ie, Admin Noticeboard and his talk page. Refactoring on many more, if any, pages, particularly when I (and possibly others) have tried my hardest to refactor the code behind my signature without changing its visible effect, will inflame the same tensions which brought this RfC into existence. Ansell 11:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd be astonished if he did it. Tony's always right. Just ask him. As it happens, he's vandalized others' signatures on pages other than AN/I and his talk page even after they've signed his "no refactor" page...so his "compromise", like every other "concession" he's made to those who don't subscribe to his extreme anti-user views, rings hollow. Jay Maynard 13:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Jay, your prejudicial use of language almost completely drowns out your message here, just letting you know. I think it's a bad reaction, but I understand why Tony doesn't take you seriously. How could he, if you choose that tone, and say things like "Tony's always right. Just ask him." That's not helpful, and if you're not being helpful, what are you doing? -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How else is one to get the attention of someone who repeatedly demonstrates that he doesn't give a damn what others think? If he's not going to listen to me anyway, under any circumstances, how could it matter what tone I use with him? Jay Maynard 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How could it matter? I don't know, do you consider yourself a man or a child? I shouldn't have to tell you why juvenile behavior is inappropriate. Tony knows how to listen, and he knows how to tune people out. You're essentially begging to be tuned out. Have you ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophesy? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not believe my behavior is juvenile; I consider it vigorous debate, along with a significant dose of calling it as I see it. I have no reason to believe Tony would ever listen to me. He never has. Jay Maynard
I'm comforatble with us disagreeing about what constitutes adult behavior. If you're satisfied that you're advancing the debate in a mature and constructive way by saying "Tony's always right. Just ask him," then there you go. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know of another way to say it that gets the point across as well. I guess I just don't see it as other than a pithy comment on Tony's approach. Jay Maynard 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Use of terms like "he's vandalized others' signatures" makes it difficult to take the complaints seriously. I admit that the whole idea that signatures must uniquely be free from editing strikes me as utterly absurd. --Tony Sidaway 03:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly an improper use of the word "vandalism", seeing as it's pretty clear that it's not intended to make the encyclopedia worse, which is the only way something can be vandalism. The idea that signatures are somehow immune from editing is based on people really misunderstanding what a Wiki is about, but it turns out that treating their views as "utterly absurd" or failing to "take the complaints seriously" doesn't really make the noise die down, but rather serves to prolong and amplify it. Bad strategy. I'd like to see diffs showing that Tony's been refactoring signatures of users who signed his opt-out page after agreeing not to. That wouldn't be very cool. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out this edit, then. Tony vandalized Aaron's signature after he signed Tony's opt-out page. Yes, "vandalized" is the proper term: it's exactly equivalent to changing someone's name without his permission. How would you like it if someone said your name was now Lord Smoked Meats and Fishes? Jay Maynard 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Check out the definition of vandalism. It means "a deliberate effort to make Wikipedia worse, as an encyclopedia." I cannot see that Tony's goal is to make Wikipedia worse. He is refusing to humor the idea that any of us owns our signatures on any page here, and he's correct about that. Vandalism is where you go and screw up articles, or mess with talk pages in a way that makes communication more difficult, like blanking the whole page, or inserting random words into other people's comments. The diff you provided shows Tony changing a long, complicated signature to a simple one, using the user's actual username. As for changing people's names "without their permission", who told you that you were entitled to have your signature left alone, that it was somehow sacred or belongs to you? Who told you that? Could it be that you're importing ideas about ownership to the Wiki from other domains, and that those ideas might not apply here? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not ideas about ownership that I'm importing; it's ideas about identity. A signature is an editor's visible identity on Wikipedia. Is the deliberate destruction of another's identity good for the encyclopedia? I don't think so. Neither do other folks, which is how this RfC got started in the first place.
I contend that that does hinder discussion and communication, for it introduces rancor and dissension into the equation for no good reason beyond a total lack of respect for others. How, exactly, does that improve the encyclopedia? Jay Maynard 18:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that having your signature edited to a more basic format robs anyone of their identity. I would agree that, in an environment where people stake a lot on their identity, anything that they would view (however erroneously) as a "deliberate destruction" of that identity would end up being disruptive, yes. I would disagree that formatting signatures compromises anybody's identity, and I would disagree with the strategy of approaching a Wiki with a lot staked on your individual identity; I think the most fundamental point of a Wiki is to get past that as quickly as possible. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you draw the line between that and asking people to subsume their identity beneath that of the encyclopedia. I'm not willing to do that, and I don't think it's fair to ask others to do so either - yet I believe it's exactly what Tony and those who think like him want. There's more to my life than Wikipedia, and I'm not willing to give it up - for it helps make me who I am. Jay Maynard 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. If I read what you just wrote, I get the impression that you're saying that I might not have more to my life than Wikipedia, since I'm willing to subsume my identity here. Is that what you mean to say? Do you really think that one cannot assert one's identity less on a Wiki without going all the way over to giving up one's life outside the Wiki? It seems to me that you might be turning a rich and interesting grey area into an artificial dichotomy of black and white. Or am I misunderstanding you? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and what about the editing of another's signature after signing Tony's page? Is that, as you said above, not very cool? Jay Maynard 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's as I said above: Given that people have hang-ups about their signatures, it's disruptive, and yes, "uncool". I will still feel free to point out the irrationality of those hang-ups. I'll play both sides of the fence. You guys should get over it, and Tony should learn how to work more effectively in a project where social interactions matter. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's more than just disruptive: editing someone's signature after signing Tony's page is a monumental act of bad faith on Tony's part. jgp (T|C) 20:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See my talk page. I've never, ever suggested that I should refrain from improving the encyclopedia. Not once. --Tony Sidaway 03:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Where we differ is that your definition of "improve the encyclopedia" totally ignores both that others might have differing opinions, and that there are ways that Wikipedia goes about resolving such differences. If you have a differing opinion from others, you make no attempt to resolve those differences. You simply bull ahead, others be damned, and revert or wheel war or whatever else you think needs to be done. Jay Maynard 11:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Here, I agree with Jay completely. Tony, dispute resolution skills are soooooo good. Check 'em out. You could be a model of how to act on the Wiki, instead of a terrible example that we have to warn newbies away from - "whatever you do, don't act like Tony S; he gets away with it for some reason, but do as we say, not as he does." That's actually stupid. "Do as I say not as I do" is actually a moronic way to try to influence people, having the opposite effect of what you intended. Just start being unfailingly courteous to everyone, Tony, and we will get off your back. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll echo that last sentiment. Right now, Tony, I can't help but ascribe your methods and views to the admin community at large, because you appear to have its support. That does not reflect well on that community. There are indeed folks like GTBacchus who give me hope that the community at large can act reasonably, taking the views of all into account, but right now they appear to me to be in the distinct minority. Jay Maynard 19:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know - Tony's not an uncontroversial admin. He generates a hell of a lot of heat, but still a lot of light, too. It's not like his actions are universally approved at AN and AN/I. I have no idea how many repetitions it will take to convince him that working on his personal interactions would benefit the encyclopedia immeasurably more than continuing to play the "enforcer with an attitude" role. That he decided to make a hobby-horse of signature editing is interesting. At first, I'm convinced that he really didn't think people would take it badly. The fact that, when people do take it badly, he reacts by dismissing their concerns in a way that basically says "you mean nothing to me; you don't count", almost indicates to me that he's actively pursuing the generation of Drama!, but then I remember Hanlon's Razor, and figure that he really doesn't know how to defuse a confrontation. I suspect the best way for him to learn that would be by example, observing cases where people defuse confrontations effectively, without antagonizing any disputant, but I admit those cases aren't as readily available as we might like them to be. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I can certainly agree with the last statement, at least in my admittedly limited experience here. Still, there's a desired dispute resolution process, and lots of the right words - but who lives by them? (Saying "We did the right thing. Fuck process." is not living by them.) Can you point me to knotty problems with serious disagreements that were not resolved by unilateral action on the part of a small number of admins, but rather by consensus and compromise? Jay Maynard 00:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm trying to help make that happen right now in the Political categories CfD. Of course, that process can be derailed by people being intransigent on either side, or just by enough people highlighting the existence of "sides" rather than the existence of common ground. People really like to identify and pick sides in disputes, but that's not the best way to move forward, unless you're willing to bulldoze someone's opinion into the ground. It takes real vision and a lot of work to refrain from arguing from a "side". What have you done to help highlight common ground and achieve compromise in this particular dispute? What have you said on this RfC in acknowledgement of Tony's good faith desire to improve the encyclopedia by refactoring complicated signatures in a way that's entirely consistent with traditional Wiki-culture? Is that what you were trying to do with your snide words about Tony above? -GTBacchus(talk) 02:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Signature issue

I have to post this somewhere - if I posted this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, I'd probably get laughed at (so I might as well get laughed at here instead). I seriously doubt this will even be respected, but I post it anyway.

A public note to Tony Sidaway:

I've noticed that you are constantly bringing up the signature issue (the fact I had a disruptive signature) whenever and whereever you please. I feel that you pay no mind to the fact that there is a human being on the other end with thoughts and feelings. It looks to me that unlike other admins, you don't care whose feelings you hurt and whose toes you step on as long as you make your point. By constantly dredging up the past, I feel that you're constantly having a dig at me and this is not at all constructive to building an encyclopedia.

So what, I had a disruptive signature and this was resolved. What constructive purpose does constantly throwing this in my face serve?

I would like this stopped immediately. I'm through asking, I'm through being polite. I've already requested this on your talk page and I've been ignored.

Tony, stop having a dig at me. It's not appreciated and I find it offensive. Bottom line, it's disruptive even more than any "disruption" you've ever accused me of. Please get back to building an encyclopedia.

Thank you. --nathanrdotcom 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Add your name here, then. :) RadioKirk 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that any substantive complaint be made on this RfC, or on my talk psge. But it would seem to me that the principle has been resolved. --Tony Sidaway 03:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing has been resolved, Tony, you're being an ass. I have kept myself toned down for the duration of this discussion, yet you continually push your agenda and dismiss my and other's views as trivial and utterly absurd. Stop being such a Dick and get of your almighty pedastool just long enough to know that your pissing off quite a few people down here. Believe it or not, I am just as important to Wikipedia as you are, despite the fact that your opinion is the only one that matters when you edit. Just stop editing the signatures, stop proprosing compromises that you later ignore, and start working on your personable skills. I wish I knew what it would take to get you to stop pissing us off. Consider my words, block me if you'd like, but know that my sentiments here are shared by other's and I am taking the liberty to express what a lot of people have built up inside. Please read this comment several times so as to be sure to understand everything, including the words "ass", "dick", and "pissing off". Thank you, Chuck(contrib) 14:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that I'll never satisfy you unless I completely cease tidying up messy discussions. You have the option not to splurge obnoxious formatting all over the discussions, and you have the option not to object to other people cleaning up after you. You ignore both of those options. I think that's pretty unreasonable. Now I've given you a third option, which is an opt-out list, which I observe when it would be reasonable not to do something--that is, when the clutter isn't too bad. And you are still complaining. It's as if you believed that splurging this unwanted formatting all over a discussion meant that you actually owned some real estate. I'm afraid that I find this utterly beyond comprehension. With three options, you still don't seem to be satisfied. You want other editors to have no option but to put up with your antisocial graffiti. Not content with being allowed to add it (which I've never disputed, by the way), you still want an absolute right to forbid others to edit it. For all time. This isn't how a wiki works. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Winnah!

This is the stupidest certified RFC I have ever, ever seen and serves as singlehanded justification for openly laughing in the faces of wikimyspacers who get upset at people not going through the dispute resolution process to their personal satisfaction. Though doing so would of course be uncivil. Probably - David Gerard 13:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_comment_Tony_Sidaway_3_7094.html"