Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JohnnyBGood (talk | contribs) at 17:30, 1 June 2006 (→Outside view by []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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: 16:10, 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 ILovePlanktons sig.
7. Removal of signatures from the talk page of this discussion.
8. More from this RfC's talk page.
9. and again

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.

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. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 02:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:43, 1 June 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.

Users who endorse this summary:

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)

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)

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. Search4LancerFile:Pennsylvania state flag.png 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. User:ILovePlankton 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.

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)
4. StuffOfInterest 15:51, 1 June 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)

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.
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)

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)

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)

Outside view by Phil Boswell

I'm wondering if I am alone in wondering whether it is utterly hilarious that so many huge and ungainly signatures are being attached to the outcry against Tony's refactoring. There is at least one signature above which takes up 6 whole lines in my edit window: can you guess which it is? Freedom of expression is a fine thing; however expressing yourself by painting graffiti or playing your music raucously is generally seen as offensive and this is the on-wiki equivalent. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Tony Sidaway 14:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Precisely. Any significant work for the improvement of the environment will necessarily attract people who simply enjoy complaining about the "disruption" caused by their feelings being hurt. Yet it's clear from the discussions so far that only a minority of editors regard refactoring of large and obstrusive signatures to improve the editing environment as extraordinary or exceptionable.
2. I find it quite hilarious as well. Of course the people with signatures that violate WP:SIG are going to come out against Tony Sidaway here. --Cyde↔Weys 14:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Comment Interesting argument Cyde. Grue's sig is almost 25 letters longer than yours, can you believe it? So it must be FAR beyond the guidelines of WP:SIG. Even worse, mine is now almost 2 letters longer than the example sig given there. I wonder why I have not be blocked yet for a such grossly oversized sig and violation of WP:SIG. CharonX/talk 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   I too find using WP:SIG funny, especially since it is currently being modified to support this position. A position it didn't support 2 weeks ago. JohnnyBGood t c 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Really? "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." WP:SIG, from May 13, 2006. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

3. It's like you read my mind. I was laughing about this earlier. ×Meegs 14:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Funny how that works out. .:.Jareth.:. 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
5. Alphax  15:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
6. Exploding Boy 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Andjam

I can have some sympathy with Tony's grievances, but I have run out of sympathy for the way he acts on them. Be bold, but don't be reckless. His response to the RfC (including the language used) has been sometimes dismissive as well, especially when he engages in the disputed behaviour in the RfC itself.

Tony has a history, still ongoing, of attracting criticism for actions which, while having some merit and support, have been a bit too bold and sometimes lacking in civility. Tony may have tried rectifying this, but if so, he needs to do more. Andjam 15:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bingo. Friday (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. StuffOfInterest 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
3. This is the key. Al 15:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Nandesuka 17:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by D-Day

OK, let's compare this to your desk at work. You like your desk. In addition to your work stuff, you have a few personal items, pictures of your family, maybe a good luck charm, etc. Then, while you're gone, someone comes along and puts those items away, or worse, takes them away totally, citing "They're distracting everyone else." I happen to like my signature. I get irritated when people screw around with it. I politely asked Tony if he would consider highlighting the sig, right-click, then cut it when he makes his comment, then paste it back where it belongs when he's done. That way, it's out of his way, and no one gets mad at him. Everybody's happy! Unfortunately, it has come to this. The fact that Tony continues to persist with this activity, as well as the TOTALLY UNNECESSARY block on Nathan for his signature block, makes me doubt him whenever he claims that only Encyclopedic activities should be allowed. --D-Day 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's a problem though: you have no right to bring all of the crap you keep on your desk around with you to everyone else's desk ... and not just their desks, also the table in the conference room, the coffee table in the sitting room, the workman's bench, and even the nightstand in the parlour. And your suggestion amounts to little more than just picking up all of the crap, getting work done, and then setting all of the crap back down. --Cyde↔Weys 15:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your agrument is flawed Cyde. What you suggest is that every editor is put in cubicle. The walls are grey. The floor is grey. His screen and keyboard are standartisized and firmly fixed on the (grey) desk. He may not speak while at work. Nor may he eat or drink. He must wear a special uniform (grey). Putting up any signs of individuality is strictly forbidden. No pictures of family, no personal mugs, etc. I expect that alot of work can get done in such a highly productive environment. CharonX/talk 15:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the nature of my objection at all. The analogy between a personal workspace and a signature which you use to sign your comments everywhere is fundamentally flawed. --Cyde↔Weys 15:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cubicle = Userpage perhaps. Like Cyde says, you don't typically carry knick-knacks around with you like sigs. .:.Jareth.:. 15:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

True, I believe their analogy is flawed however. A sig on wikipedia is equal to a sig in real life. No one tells you how to sign your name when you're out in the real world. You can put anything you want on a sig for a licence, or a home loan. JohnnyBGood t c 17:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Elkman

All this talk about signatures, user boxes, and so on is time that could otherwise be spent editing encyclopedia articles. I don't know about anyone else, but it's hampering my interest in contributing to the encyclopedia too.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Misza13 15:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
2. As I've said before, people are spending far too much time worrying about making pretty signatures and far too little time creating an encyclopaedia. It's far better to be known/to stand out for your great edits than your bitchin' sig. In my view, it would be far better if signatures were totally uncustomizable. If people need an outlet for their creative expression then perhaps they could take up macrame. Exploding Boy 15:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

   Or décollage. --Cyde↔Weys 15:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Exactly. Signatures are a small thing, which is why we don't need a highly dramatic crusade against them. Friday (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
4. Tony Sidaway 16:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC) Refactoring is a little thing. All this fuss over a little tidy-up. I completely agree that this nonsense over trivia has been a complete waste of time.
5. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 16:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by geni

Complex sigs are a problem (ok I think that anything but the most basic of sigs is a problem but I understand that might be viewed as rather extreme) but what Tony is doing is not a time efficient way of dealing with it. A better approach would be to talk to the users who's sigs you have a problem with or try and get support for enforcing a stricter sig policy (possibly through software changes).Geni 17:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.