Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 22:22, 25 November 2024

In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 16:11, 26 December 2024 (UTC).

• Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

Tony Sidaway has been unilaterally removing users' signatures from talk pages, as well as Misplaced Pages namespace pages, and replacing them with a generic link to their userpage, despite the requests of those users to stop, and despite interfering with content.

Description

Tony is not open to compromise on this subject, and is creating a disruption to the editing process. According to Tony himself, disruption, after being asked to change your actions, is a blockable offense. Tony should stop altering users' signatures on both talk pages and on discussions at the Misplaced Pages namespace. The signatures he changes are not in violation of and/or conform to the guidlines at WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature. Tony is in violation of Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages, which says under Summarize, "Wherever possible an editor should use the original signatures of all of the parties involved". Tony is also in violation of etiquette by altering comments.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. Removed a signature from Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review.
2. Changing my signature, after previous dif, to a generic link to my username, with an edit summary suggesting he has the right to edit anyone's comments on a talk page. (Takes place after diff #1 in 'Evidence to resolve' section)
3. His removal of Nathan's signature from his (Tony's) talk page. (Takes place after diff #2 below)
4. Getting rid of my signature when it was indeed, important to the heart of the content. (Takes place after diff #3 below)
5. Tony's removal of another user's signature on a 3rd party's talk page.
6. changed ILovePlankton's sig.
7. Removal of signatures from the talk page of this discussion.
8. More from this RfC's talk page.
9. and again
10. Changed Fang Aili's and ILovePlankton's signature on this RfC
11. Changed StuffOfInterest's and others' signatures on this RfC
12. Changed another user's signature on the talk page of this RfC
13. Changed Chuck's signature on the talk page of this RfC
14. Changed Nathan's signature of the talk page of this RfC
15. Changing another user's signature on the talk page of this RfC
16. Changed CharonX's signature on the talk page of this RfC
17. More removing of Chuck's signature on the talk page of this RfC
18. Remove signatures from endorsements on this RfC. Takes place after diff #4 below
19. Remove signatures from endorsements on this RfC. Takes place after diff #5 below.
20. Removes my (Master of Puppets's) signature from his talk page.
21. Removal of signatures from an MfD
22. Refactors my (RadioKirk) signature on WP:AN
23. Does it again.
24. Does it again in talk page of this RfC.
25. More altering of signatures in this RfC.
26. again the same in this RfC's talk page.
27. another diff
28. and another
29. Changes Aaron Brenneman's signature

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Misplaced Pages:Refactoring talk pages Not certain if it's a policy/guidline, but "refactoring" is what Tony said he was doing.
2. WP:SIG#Customizing_your_signature

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. My informing him that changing my signature is rude.
2. Nathan's request to not change his signature.
3. Another request of mine, citing reason for my signature.
4. Left a message on his talk page.
5. Changed back Tony's 'refactoring' and made wishes not to do it again clear in the edit summary.
6. My request within the edit summary led to this "discussion" (BTW sig refactored again, 2nd link).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Chuck 00:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. — Nathan 03:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

1. --GeorgeMoney  00:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Search4Lancer 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   See that sig? ]]]]] 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC). Christ on a bike! Just zis Guy you know? 20:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Yeah what is you point? it's a good sig. ILovePlankton 22:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   It is not. It is a textbook definition of an obtrusive signature. Exploding Boy 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Need help building a bridge over that river? Search4Lancer 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   442 characters. My own sig, which is excessive, is 201. Just zis Guy you know? 23:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

   Firstly, I don't see how your sig is excessive. Secondly, mine is now 332 characters. Search4Lancer 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   The beautiful pentangle sig is 15 lines on the edit window of my phone. I think it would help he people were more aware of this. It also costs 0.03p to download each copy. I would prefer a technical solution where the sig was contracted for editing to eg ]. It could then be expanded for reading. Stephen B Streater 07:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Do people actually care how many lines anything is on a phone? If you're editing from a phone, you are either accepting that you're going to have very bad resolution and bits of code that are normally acceptable are going to be huge, or you're denying reality. As an outside observer, I recommend you pick a more applicable example. 75.182.89.73 (talk) 13:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

   This seems like the best idea to me - to compare to templates, sigs just shouldn't subst: themselves, cause of the mess they make. I know it prevents having to load them from other places each time, but sometimes that's less of a cost than sorting through the mess. -Goldom (t) (Review) 08:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed. People have their user and talk pages to play around with. Exploding Boy 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

3. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Canaen 18:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
5. jgp (T|C) 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Johntex\ 17:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

In the course of editing, I have edited some signatures that were overlong in order to make editing easier, while taking care to include enough information to identify the person making the comment. I recommend this practice to all editors as a means of improving the editing environment of discussion pages. The effect is to substantially improve the signal-to-noise ratio of a discussion page.

Both primary disputants above are complaining particularly about my editing of my own discussion page. This is of course utterly absurd.

Clearly the problem here can be solved by the disputants just getting on with their lives and not fussing over the details of their signatures. Signatures are there solely to enable us, as readers, to identify who said what. They're subject to refactoring just as anything else, by removal of unnecessary and intrusive material in the interests of improving the editing environment. Signatures are nothing to get obsessed with.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. What the fuck. I'll endorse Tony's response. Tony, the only reason your constant aggravating behaviour is tolerated is because you are so often right. Stop it! Just zis Guy you know? 23:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Exploding Boy 15:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Signatures are not your property. Unlike comment editing, there is no significant detrimental affect arising from wanton editing of signatures, provided their basic format is maintained. Now somebody go mess with my sig. :p Johnleemk | Talk 15:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
4. I've diagreed with Tony Sidaway from time to time; but it's clear to me that this is yet another bad-faith RfC against a constructive contributor. 172 | Talk 00:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
5. My sig was never that long and even I shortened it per Tony's polite request. This is Misplaced Pages, the free, GFDL bound public namespace (article or not), and it should be easy to read and sift throug. That i far more important than a user's non-existant right to a ridiculous signature. Its one thing if they were just a tad long, but this is a readability issue, of a page that no one user owns. If you accept a degree of respect and control of a user of their own pages (as I do), then Tony's actions were even more justified.Voice-of-All 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
6. I don't support restrictions on sigs but I heartily endorse driving over them with a bulldozer whenever convenient. Thank you, Tony, for setting a precedent. John Reid 17:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Tempest in a teapot. --Ashenai 18:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
8. To bring an RFC on such an issue is unduly quarrelsome. De minimis non curat lex. I'm glad to see that at least the yet more disproportionate request for arbitration has been withdrawn. It's a start. Bishonen | talk 19:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC).

   To paraphrase, "The law doesn't care about your signature". I like it! :) --Tony Sidaway 19:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

9. Trödel 13:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC) thes long signatures make it difficult to find the right location to continue discussion
10. Really, I was hoping for some juicy DRV drama, maybe a few blocks not backed by policy... Instead, I get this! What the heck! No one gives a damn about this! --Avillia 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
11. This is pretty ridiculous. Cleaning up talk pages and making them easier to read and sift through, this is what gets you an RFC these days? Themindset 20:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
12. Long sigs are distracting and annoying, not to mention selfish. Tony was cleaning his own talk page. There is no issue here. Natgoo 13:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
13. As somebody who's been known to edit from a text editor, long signatures are the bane of my existence, and I'm glad to see somebody taking action. Lord Bob 18:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Friday

I too have noticed Tony Sidaway editing other people's signatures on various pages lately. People have asked him to stop, and as far as I've seen he has not stopped. We can debate all day long about whether complex signatures are ugly and annoying to editors as Tony says, but I don't think it matters. As a matter of mutual respect, let's not mess with other people's comments unless there's a clearly compelling reason to do so. What annoys us is a matter of personal taste, and as editors, we should not attempt to impose our tastes upon everyone else.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Friday (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. He has done it to me multiple times. 我爱浮游生物 01:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Chuck 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. --GeorgeMoney  02:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. — Nathan 03:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. I agree with this, and have expanded the general idea behind it a bit below to address specific arguments raised. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Sounds about right to me. Charlie 04:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Andjam 04:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. CharonX/talk 11:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Tony Sidaway cannot single-handedly create policy or guidelines. --Fang Aili 13:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Nandesuka 15:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
14. StuffOfInterest 15:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
15. JohnnyBGood t c 17:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
16. frymaster 19:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Amen. I've grown tired of Tony's bullying. --D-Day 19:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Ansell 01:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Everyking 05:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Canaen 18:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
21.  Grue  17:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Fastfission 02:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC). Editing other people's posted signatures is rude and needlessly provocative. None of the examples cited showed any great requirement to edit them other than Tony's own aesthetic whims.
23. Paul Cyr 03:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Conti|✉ 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Noisy | Talk 17:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
26. This hits the spot pretty well. Agree with D-Day too. Stifle (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Cynical 19:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
28. Johntex\ 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
29. rootology (T) 23:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
30. Its not much of a big deal, but I suppose, people should mind their own business. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
31. · j e r s y k o talk · 19:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Exploding Boy

1. Most of the changes were made on Tony's own talk page, which is more than reasonable. 2. In at least one case, the signature seems to have been altered because it contained non-Latin characters, which is also perfectly reasonable (foreign characters do not display correctly on some users' browsers).

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree that users will generally be allowed more latitude in editing of their own talk pages than in other places. Friday (talk) 03:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. This is just common sense! --Cyde↔Weys 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. robchurch | talk 13:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Just zis Guy you know? 23:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Mackensen (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Johnleemk | Talk 15:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Voice-of-All 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
8. getcrunkjuice 01:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Themindset 20:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
10. Well yeah, this makes some sense too. The user's own talk page and removing non-latin characters should not be much of a problem. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Simetrical

Nothing is wrong with changing exceptionally large or annoying signatures to be somewhat less large or annoying. (I'm thinking of signatures like this.) However, 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. Most were fairly typical, with only the last being long enough that I would have asked the user to remove it.

There's nothing wrong with foreign-language characters in signatures (if they display incorrectly, that's the problem of the signer). Even small (and free) images have no consensus against them, and removing them unilaterally is unnecessarily rude and entirely uncalled-for. And finally, users do not own their talk pages to the extent that they can edit other users' statements in any way; they can reorganize, blank, or archive, but changing someone's signature amounts to a small-scale form of putting words in their mouth. Tony should stop editing others' signatures immediately.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Chuck 03:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. --GeorgeMoney  04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Search4Lancer 04:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. — Nathan 05:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Charlie 07:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. ☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 07:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. With the exception that I think he can do what he wants with his talk page (within reason, of course). Fang Aili 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. StuffOfInterest 15:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. What he does with signatures on his page is his own business, but dont put your preferences on the world just to make a point. Ansell 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. --Ghirla 09:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Canaen 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
13.  Grue  17:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Kevin Breitstein 21:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Massively obtrusive signatures that make it difficult to edit or even find their user & talk pages should be considered bad and removed, but editing simple signatures, even on the page requesting comments about said acts is wrong.
15. Paul Cyr 03:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
16. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
17. Noisy | Talk 18:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
18. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
19. Also, I've only encountered one signature that was large enough to deserve to be edited down (). jgp (T|C) 16:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
20. Johntex\ 17:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
21. With the exception of his talk page — Nearly Headless Nick 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
22. JIP | Talk 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Jareth

I'd like to pull a few sections from the applicable guidelines:

A distracting, confusing or otherwise unsuitable signature affects other users. It can be disruptive to civil discourse on talk pages, or when working in the edit window. In one case, a user who insisted on keeping an unsuitable signature was required to change it by the Arbitration Committee (See -Ril-'s arbitration case). When customizing your signature, please keep the following in mind.

<snip>

Images of any kind should not be used in signatures.

<snip>

Please try to keep signatures short. Long signatures with lots of HTML/wiki markup can make page editing more difficult...

Refactoring talk and project space pages to conform to signature guidelines makes editing less difficult for others. Refactoring one's own talk page is clearly within accepted norms. I believe this may be a misunderstanding of the guidelines being quoted.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. .:.Jareth.:. 03:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Zeq 04:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. -- Tawker 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Jkelly 06:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Alphax  07:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Timothy Usher 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Tony Sidaway 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Utterly. We should probably have a guideline on this. Unnecessary clutter in shared discussion spaces has become more of a problem over the past year, and our policies have yet to catch up with the growth of some signatures into "mini-userpages".
8. Definitely --Cyde↔Weys 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. —Phil | Talk 13:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. ×Meegs 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Tom Harrison 13:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
12. FreplySpang 14:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Exploding Boy 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Chuck 16:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC) As my signature clearly isn't violating guidlines, and this discussion is also beyong Tony's talk page now (ie: this RfC)
15. Yep. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
16. Sure, the signature guidelines are reasonable. Friday (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
17. The guidelines are reasonable, however, in reference to non-user talk space, they are vague as to how long is too long and it is not up to single users to disrupt based on their personal interpretations. Ansell 01:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
18. David D. (Talk) 17:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC) why do so many users spend more time on their infoboxes, userpages and signatures rather than just editing? Is this a social club or an encylopedia?
19. jaco♫plane 18:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
20. -- Drini 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
21. Naconkantari 00:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
22. Johnleemk | Talk 15:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
23. KISS --feydey 22:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
24. Yep. This is "instruction creep" to the extreme. 172 | Talk 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
25. Agree 100% Páll 02:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
26. Completely agree - Tony has changed nothing substantive and in a place that is not related to our primary goal - Peripitus (Talk) 08:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
27. Yes --Terence Ong 12:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
28. AnnH ♫ 08:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC) (Hope the ♫ link to my talk page isn't disturbing anyone!)
29. Pecher 14:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
30. No brainer. Voice-of-All 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
31. -Hit bull, win steak 17:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
32. Trödel 13:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
33. CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
34. Themindset 20:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
35. Absolutely — Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
36. I agree. Tony is a little too strict in his interpretation, but there's a real objection there. Gabrielthursday 20:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
37. Yes. Natgoo 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Charlie Huggard

I stumbled across this RfC while looking through ILovePlankton's contributions so I could vote on his RfA. I would like to first state I hold the utmost respect Tony Sidaway as an administrator. There was a reason he was awarded the mop with by the consent of the people. While I do sometimes disagree with his particular choices of adjectives in explaining his actions, I do agree with his actions more often than not.

Like Exploding Boy, I do feel that proof of changing signatures on his own talk page should not be counted against Tony as I feel a user's talk page, being the primary means of wiki-communication with that user, should be kept in an order that within reason, the "Owner"_{for lack of a better word} of that talk page feels will facilitate communication from others to him/herself.

To distinguish my view from that of Exploding Boy's, I feel that just because non-latin characters do not render in your browser is not just cause to remove them (IE is not a standards compliant browser!). Unicode and UTF-8 were invented to fill a need of facilitating global communication and a global mindset should be maintained (the characters I saw removed from the provided diffs appeared to be Asian, but I couldn't tell you more than that). However based on some of Tony's statements from the previous TS3 RfC, I do not believe this was the direct reasoning behind Tony's decisions to edit the signatures.

On to the Signature issue at hand: It has been, and continues to be, my opinion that signatures are in-fact "owned" by the person presenting them. WP:OWN even states that on "Talk" pages it is good to own your text, furthermore a customized signature, like a username is a personal choice of how one desires to represent himself to the rest of the wikipedia community and the digital world in general, as a result it is a very personal choice. If we find someone's signature to be awesome or if we find it to be annoying it affects our view of that particular editor. Therefore barring a few exceptions (below) I would kindly ask Tony (and everyone) to refrain from editing others signatures on pages that are not in your userspace, without first describing to the user in question your reasoning for wanting to change his/her signature, presenting a few better alternatives, and politely asking the user to change his/her signature. If the user agrees to let you change their posted signature, or agrees to change their permanent signature then I feel you can change it, but otherwise, like other people's talk comments, it should be left alone.

Exceptions to this rule that I can see are:

1. When the signature deliberately attempts to impersonate another user
2. If it violates WP:CIVIL,WP:NPA or other official policies
3. If it has a Large (>8K) bytesize text+images (as it then starts to push bandwidth limits for dialup users)
4. If it is rendered (not wikitext) on more than one line for a standard (1024x768) browser window (as Signatures are ment to be inline and having a multi-line signature defeats this purpose).
5. If it includes deleted images or templates (just a good housekeeping standpoint).

That's my 120 cents (2 cents + inflation due to chocolate :) ) Discuss!

Users who endorse this summary:

1. (Obviously) Charlie 03:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Friday (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. My mobile phone can't display a lot of these funny signatures, but they work fine on my Mac and say a lot about the contributor. Stephen B Streater 08:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. StuffOfInterest 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Chuck 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. --GeorgeMoney  23:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. — Nathan 00:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Ansell 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Merovingian - Talk 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
11. --A. B. 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Second outside view by Charlie Huggard

I've started formalizing this proposal over at WP:SIGTYPE for anyone who's interested and for discussion to continue there. (See diffs of Tony's talk page after the one I posted here). In the midst of discussing the issue with Tony, I have come to better understand where he's coming from. The links he left on my talk page of two different RfAs helped me visualize and understand the need for limiting of signatures. However as I have mentioned many times before, I still recognize the desire of wikipedians to have a particular appearance while engaging in conversations with their coworkers (much like one will do their hair a certain way, wear certain brands/styles of clothing while one is at work. It has been my past experience that uniforms with very exacting specifications are usually detrimental to morale). My curiosity got the better of me and I dove into the MediaWiki software and found that it would be trivial to add 2 more "signatures" (6 and 7 tildes), one that would translate to a username linking to the user's page with the date, and another that is only the simple link. This could be accomplished as follows: (file: includes/Parser.php function: Parser::pstPass2 from version:1.6.5 proof of concept)

In light of how easy it would be to add these additional substitution tokens. I would like to propose this software change, plus an official policy where the simple signature, or what we could also refer to as the Business formal signature, must be used on administrative pages central to the operation of wikipedia (such as AfD, RfC, other Votes etc.), and people would be allowed to use their custom signature (or what we could refer to the Business casual signature, as it still needs to conform to certain, but much looser criteria) on all other appropriate pages (User space, User Talk, Template Talk, Article Talk, etc). Furthermore this policy would include the provision that a user may simplify the signatures attached to messages appearing on his/her talk page down to the business formal signature if he/she so desires (as well as request that only formal signatures be used on messages appearing on his/her talk page).

Users who endorse this compromise:

1. Charlie 04:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who would make modifications to this compromise:

• This isn't really the place to make software change proposals, but regardless I have a comment: There is a good reason for using the "casual" sig on AfD pages and the like: Most people include a link to their talk/contribs in their sig, which can be quite useful for continuing discussion, or checking the validity of possible sockpuppet "votes". If there were a "formal" and "casual" sig to choose from, I think the formal should still have these 2 links. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that it's not the proper place, but I felt here was fitting place as I felt that it was a good compromise for everyone. (Could you point me to a better place? Could we point the appropriate people here?). As far as a talk and/or contribs link goes it would be rather trivial to build such a signature link instead of the one I proposed (all it would involve would be changing the variable I created called $unText a bit). We should bear in mind that the more things we add to the formal signature, the closer to returning to this argument of having too long signatures we become. But as you have already mentioned they are useful things. Regards --Charlie 05:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• See my comments on the WP:SIGTYPE talk page. Exploding Boy 15:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Ral315

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. Ral315 (talk) 06:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

please be civil. 我爱浮游生物 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I am. Please quit spouting WP:CIVIL at everything people do. It's certainly long, and in my view (this is my view, after all), it's ugly. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

1. I am, of course, endorsing Ral315's outside view and not the commentary to it by ILovePlankton. Jkelly 06:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   So you don't think everyone should try to be civil? ILovePlankton 15:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I didn't have an opinion on all this nonsense until I found one that was five lines long in the edit window. "Refactoring" seems like a reasonable thing to do in response to someone else making things unreadable. Opabinia regalis 10:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Per Jkelly and Opabinia, this is only common sense! --Cyde↔Weys 13:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. —Phil | Talk 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC) per Jkelly
5. I agree, per Opabinia regalis. Tom Harrison 13:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. FreplySpang 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
7. per Ral315. Exploding Boy 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
8. AnnH ♫ 17:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
9. This about sums it up. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10. -- Drini 19:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Naconkantari 00:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Johnleemk | Talk 15:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
13. a y u p SchmuckyTheCat 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
14. -Hit bull, win steak 17:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Themindset 20:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by BigDT

WP:AN/I had six pages of argument over Tony's early ending of a WP:DRV discussion. But instead of an RFC on something moderately important like that issue, we get one about cleaning up signatures? Good grief.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. BigDT 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   You want one about that discussion then make one about that discussion. 我爱浮游生物 06:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Tony Sidaway 13:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I'd welcome an RfC about that one, too. This is utterly trivial, that one was somewhat more important.

   Agree - this one is completely trivial. I saw the link and clicked on it. I rolled my eyes when I saw the reason for the RFC. BigDT 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

2. An RfC over the handling of userbox deletions would be more significant than the issue of signatures. But a single, adequately resolved shot in the userbox war isn't worth wasting as much time as an RfC would take. That early ending of a DRV discussion isn't even big enough to call a skirmish, in my eyes. GRBerry 23:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree that this subject matter may be trivially important to some, but this has to be addressed just as much as other actions. (ie, opening an RfC about the users other actions wouldn't be out of a reasonable scope to me) Ansell 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Canaen 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Ashibaka tock 01:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
6. I like this summary. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
7. This one is trivial to the point of insanity. Themindset 20:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Goldom

A signature being "ugly" is 100% opinionated. If there is nothing about it against the rules, and no one else is finding them disruptive, there is no good reason to remove them. The fact that Tony is removing people's signatures on this very RfC indicates to me that he has little regard for others' opinions on the matter.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 06:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Chuck 06:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. while I'll agree with "Ugly", there are signatures that should be refactored due to the load on the end user and impracticality when rendered. However I'm not yet conviced on the argument that long signatures adversely effect the editing process. (aside from the fact that this is probably the 2nd massive discussion on such) User:Charlie_Huggard 07:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
   • See response here. --Tony Sidaway 12:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

     See response to the response here. --Charlie 02:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

     • I'll partially endorse. Revising signatures on the RfC or its talk page creates an appearance of total disregard for the opinion of others. It creates the appearance of an being unwilling even to listen to the opinion of others - if there was one place it shouldn't have been done, it was here. However, Tony frequents pages where multiple short comments and signing are expected, such as DRV, and is thus probably more sensitive to signature length than those who spend nearly all their time on articles. Sometimes the right answer is to listen to the canary in the coal mine. GRBerry 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. StuffOfInterest 15:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. --GeorgeMoney  00:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. — Nathan 01:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7. Ansell 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Search4Lancer 02:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   • The above is a textbook example of a disruptive signature, if you ask me. Not one, but two images (disallowed, per the guideline), plus a colour scheme that would render the signature unreadable to users with certain conditions, not to mention that it takes up SIX lines in the edit window. Exploding Boy 02:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

     • I personally think it looks neat - hence why I feel no one person's opinion should be the deciding factor. But I agree with you that the images are against rules - and in my opinion a proper response, if someone felt bothered by it, would be to ask the user on their talk page to please change it. That seems far more effective and non-offensive than just removing it everywhere it is signed. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Canaen 18:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   • Clearly that's ineffective, witness the ongoing debacle with user:nathanrdotcom. Frankly, it's inconsiderate from the get go, based only on how many lines it takes up in the edit window and how much more it stands out than other people's signature. Exploding Boy 19:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

10. Paul Cyr 04:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
12. jgp (T|C) 16:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Cynical 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
14. Johntex\ 17:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by MONGO

I can understand a link to the talk page and or a different color, but when a username signature is full of symbols and clutter, it is disruptive. I fully support the actions of Tony and see that he has neither been hostile or overly agressive in his effort to provide a remedy to this increasing problem.--MONGO 09:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tony Sidaway 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC) I'm a pussy cat.
2. He is a pussycat. --Cyde↔Weys 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. I'm not sure I would have done the same thing, but I don't disagree with these particular changes. Exploding Boy 15:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. -- Drini 20:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Naconkantari 00:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Johnleemk | Talk 15:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
7. —Phil | Talk 15:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
8. Totally agree. The editing environment on Misplaced Pages is supposed to be relatively serious; this site is not a teenie social networking community. 172 | Talk 00:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Timothy Usher 03:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Could be more consultative, but I do support his actions. Themindset 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

View by brenneman

Misplaced Pages works only when we work together. This means civility, mutual respect, and willingness to compromise. Editors who continue to act to cause disruption, who either cannot or will not change the manner in which they conduct themselves are damaging to the encyclopedia. Administrators even more so.

We have several hundred active sysops, and to my knowledge none has had the extraordinary number of actual RfCs, faux RfCs, and aborted RfCs that Tony Sidaway has. To my knowledge, none has been the subject and source of such continued and bitter controversy. To my knowledge none has ever continued the very disputed behavior that raised an RfC into that very RfC.

At some stage it becomes appropriate to ask what does the encyclopedia receive in return for the time that is invested in any one editor, and if that time could best be spent elsewhere.

brenneman 11:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tony Sidaway 12:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Absolutely. It has always been appropriate to ask what the encyclopedia receives from any sysop. I'm confident that my contribution speaks for itself.

   Perhaps it does - but does it say what you think it says? Jay Maynard 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

2. I assume that he has made extraordinary contributions to balance his extraordinary disruptiveness. When you're a practicing sysop, yes, you'll annoy certain editors by your own good and proper actions. However, this does not mean that everything that annoys others is automatically a good and proper action. Friday (talk) 12:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. The sysops most active in pursuing vandals, doing administrative work, hammering out and enforcing policy are often the most despised. Exploding Boy 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Some people naturally have abrasive personalities. Misplaced Pages is not about stopping those people editing, however, it stands to reason that the encyclopedia, and to a lesser extent, the community, are the important parts of this project. By disrupting the community, repeatedly, the user does not show entirely a large amount of respect for the overall process. Ansell 01:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. I'm sure that Tony makes other contributions that are quite well and good, but this bit should be looked at. I see a large lack of respect here. Canaen 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7.  Grue  17:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
8. It seems that Tony is uniquely valuable ;-) How bad would things have got without Tony to light the kindling this early, and how big would the conflagration have been then? Please remember that consensus does not necessarily require compromise - there are several ways forward which could satisfy everyone. To argue without bitterness takes unusual skill - one which Tony has demonstrated here. I do however agree that Tony's actions may have exposed bitterness in others, but I'm sure this was not his preference. Stephen B Streater 17:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
9. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
10. Absolutely. As some have bitterly remarked, it appears Tony is being indicted for...being Tony. Would this action have elicited a response on a similar scale if I had done this, or Raul654 had done this, or an ordinary editor/admin done this? It appears to me that the only fellow controversial enough to have an RfC about stupid signatures is Tony, and the subject of this RfC is more Tony's general personality than anything specific. Johnleemk | Talk 15:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
11. - Bastique▼ _voir 23:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
12. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
13. Tony is, from what I can tell, one of the most consistently, determinedly disruptive admins on Misplaced Pages. It's his way or the highway, and as brenneman points out, there is a point where it becomes counterproductive. How many productive editors has he driven off with his bullying? Jay Maynard 12:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Noisy | Talk 17:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

    I think I endorse this, but I'm not sure I understand it yet. Stifle (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

15. Johntex\ 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
16. Neurophyre 10:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Samir (The Scope)

Seems like the sig issue is a systemic one that is being raised in appropriate forums already. I don't think Tony Sidaway's done anything egregious here, but it would probably be best to let the sig issue be settled to a compromise prior to removing other users signatures on pages other than your talk page. Thanks. -- Samir धर्म 13:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yep, let's not forget that sigs are a small matter. I don't see that Tony's done anything egregious either, altho his continued insistance on formatting things his way is a disappointing response to people complaining about his editing their sigs. Friday (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Echo what Friday said. --Fang Aili 13:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Also echo what Friday said. — Nathan 21:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Agreed. Echo Friday's comments. --Terence Ong 12:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Agreed. — Nearly Headless Nick 08:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Nandesuka

• Everyone other than Tony, please stop making obnoxious and gaudy signatures. They're distracting.
• Hey, Tony, stop acting like a dick.

Well, someone had to say it. Nandesuka 13:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Heartily. - brenneman 13:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. Though I've yet to see a signature I consider obnoxious. --Fang Aili 13:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. Touché. Actually I'd express it in four steps:
   1. Just don't bother with gaudy, distracting signatures.
   2. Just don't get annoyed by someone's gaudy, distracting signature.
   3. Just don't get annoyed if someone simplifies your gaudy, distracting signature.
   4. "Bailiff, kick these two nuts in the butt."

   Can we go back to editing the encyclopedia now? –Steve Summit (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

4. to Tony being a dick Search4Lancer 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   You're not behaving much better. You're trying to escalate the tension for no valid reason. David D. (Talk) 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

   I did no such thing. What I did was agree to one part of Nandesuka's view. Search4Lancer 02:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Nandesuka's two points are really all that there is to say about the topic. Misplaced Pages is about article namespace, all non-article pages are just subservient to creating nice articles. I am happy if we can keep people from cluttering article space, and I frankly don't give a damn if people put "ugly" characters on talkpages. dab (ᛏ) 07:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Well said. Ghirla</font> 09:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
7. David D. (Talk) 17:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
8. I'd stayed away from this one as being overly harsh, but yeah, I have to agree. Sadly I see little chance that Tony will admit his error, much less change his ways. Friday (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
9. Canaen 18:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
10. I don't know if non admin type people can talk in here but I've been watching this unfold and I have to agree with what dab said. Whispering 21:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
11. Paul Cyr 04:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
12. Conti|✉ 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
13. --AySz88^-^ 02:57, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
14. Stifle (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
15. Johntex\ 17:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)