Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:09, 5 March 2013

Template:Not a help page Template:Active editnotice

This page is for discussion of the Misplaced Pages:Signatures page itself, and Misplaced Pages's signature guidelines. To ask questions about how to use Misplaced Pages, see the Help desk. To get help with reference questions, see the Reference desk.

Misplaced Pages Help Project‑class

This page is within the scope of the Misplaced Pages Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Misplaced Pages HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Misplaced Pages Help ProjectHelp Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Template:Misplaced Pages ad exists

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Signing at the beginning?

Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC) How about signing at the beginning of a comment? In cases of long discussions with several editors contributing, it might clarify which thread starts where. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 06:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

We should be getting a software change, to use mw:Flow, at some point in the future (once it's completed), which will solve this entirely. —Quiddity (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I took a look; looks great! Thanks for the response. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of statement which effectively transform a guideline into a policy

I've removed the statement, originally added as:

During discussions a widely accepted community norm is to sign posts; failure to do so can cause undue confusion for readers (especially where no signature is used at all). Persistent failure to sign, once the concept has been explained, is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

Then edited to:

Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned.

Per BRD, I reject the notion that editors can be sanctioned for failing to meet a guideline. If the community wishes to take that illogical position, so be it, but not without a specific discussion, and even then, I'll be interested to see how a guideline can be elevated to policy without jumping through the usual hoops. I do not view a single editor adding a statement, followed by a slight rewording as constituting community discussion. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Per BRD, I added it back, but with an inline link to discuss here. This has had silent consensus on the edits from over 6 months ago. Not signing posts is disuptive when editors do not know the source of comments, confuse them as part of someone's nearby comments, and burdening others to sign for them. This is disruptive. Bots currently miss a lot of unsigned cases.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors are sanctioned for failing to follow guidelines all the time, if they persist in doing so in ways that are disruptive, after being asked to change their behaviour. There are also plenty of discussions where this principal has been upheld by consensus, such as Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Docu. In fact, any kind of disruptive editing may be subject to sanction, even if there is no explicit policy, guideline, or anything else stating that the particular action can be sanctioned. It is contrary to the whole spirit of Misplaced Pages to imagine there are rigid rules about what can and what cannot be subject to sanctions, "this is against a policy, so we can block, but this is only against a guideline, so we can't". Only if you take such an unWikipedian view does it make sense to suggest that the "statement ... effectively transform (sic) a guideline into a policy". JamesBWatson (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does Category:Wikipedians who have opted out of automatic signing exist, with 182 entries, if signing is mandatory?

Why does {{NoAutosign}} exist, with over 500 transclusions, if signing is mandatory?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I suspect many regular users, who probably look for the sig icon when they go to other online sites, have forgotten how non-obvious this habit was when first starting. We purport to care about editor retention, yet we add news rules almost everyday, and expect brand-new users, who are invited to the encyclopedia than anyone can edit, to edit freely, as long as you don't trip over any one of the hundreds of rules, some common sense and some arcane. I grant that most of the rules are necessary, but we add on to the necessary rules, the odd "requirement" that everyone type 4 tildes at the end of their post (sometimes, not always, you must know when to do it and when not). It's a little thing, but it's one more little thing on lot of a lot of other things. And totally unnecessary. I refuse to accept that clever software can't do this for us. If sinebot can figure it out, why can't Mediawiki?

We ought to be working to make it easier for newbies to contribute, not erecting additional barriers, and insisting on existing barriers simply because we've ingrained the habit. I know I'm tilting at a windmill, but it really burns me that we claim to want to make this an enjoyable experience, yet we aren't staking steps to do so, and about to drive another editor away. We'll never know, but I'm sure other editors have abandoned this place because of the arcane rules, and who knows if the SIG rule contributed?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You have given a long argument about why we shouldn't introduce a new rule saying that everybody has to sign. However, so far as I know, nobody has suggested that we should introduce a new rule saying that everybody has to sign. What has been suggested is that, within the existing guidelines, it is reasonable to take steps against someone who is disruptive by persistently posting messages in a misleading way. As for your stuff about "making it easier for newbies to contribute", nobody has suggested that a new editor who fails to add a signature would be penalised. We are dealing, as you know, with the situation where a long-established editor has been knowingly editing in a way that can be confusing and misleading, especially to the "newbies" that you are so concerned about. It is totally unhelpful to produce strawman arguments about why we shouldn't do things that nobody is suggesting doing, and present them as if they were arguments against something else, which people are advocating. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

My argument is that we ought to automate signing, if that is what we insist editors do. I also asked why some are exempt from signing, if that is the rule. I don't see a response to that.

Is it a rule? If so, then we should be remove the opt-out options (or explain why they exist).

You claim there are "plenty of discussions where this principal has been upheld by consensus" and list a single one. Did you read it? That case involved an admin, who ought to be signing (I think the rules for admins ought to be stricter than for non-admins). Moreover, the closing summary by well-respect admin Gwen Gale stated So long as this is only a guideline, such lacks shouldn't bring forth a block but if seen along with policy-breaking behavior, should have some sway as to what might be done about it and how quickly. (Emphasis added). Not only does it fail to support the claim that blocks have been upheld by consensus, it specifically notes that blocks are not warranted, unless accompanied by policy-breaking behavior.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I admit that I linked to that discussion hastily, and made a mistake. I believe I have seen others, though, and if I find one I will link to it. There are various situations where automatic signing is unhelpful. There are, for example, situations where adding a signature at the end of an edit would not be useful, such as some kinds of amendments to existing comments, and addition of some sorts of administrative notes to AfD discussions. Software can be programmed to deal with the most obvious cases, but no matter how complicated a set of rules we program in, there will always be cases which will be missed. My alternative account has a signature which links to my main account's talk page. When I set it up, I found that Sinebot was unhelpfully adding an unsigned message. Goodness knows why. No doubt I could have got on to the owner of Sinebot and asked for some software modification, but it was easier to just opt out of automatic signing. You ask "Is it (always signing) a rule?" That suggests that you have missed the main point I was trying to make above. No it isn't a rule, nor should it be. There are many things which don't have a "rule" against them, but which in some circumstances can be disruptive, and in such cases action can be taken. Much better to keep it that way, than to have either (1) a rigid rule that would impose unhelpful restrictions in cases where it wasn't relevant, or else (2) a complex rule with all sorts of exceptions, making it cumbersome and confusing, and in any case still sometimes failing to draw the line in the right place. We don't have a "rule" that nobody with a conflict of interest can edit, but if anyone with a conflict of interest persistently edits in ways where their COI is disruptive, despite being asked not to, action can be taken against them. in the same way, we don't have, and shouldn't have, a "rule" that everybody has to sign every post, but as you full well know we have recently had a case of an editor who has persistently failed to sign in ways that have been potentially confusing and misleading, and therefore disruptive. We do not have to come down on one side or the other, either everybody must always sign, or risk being blocked, or else signing is optional, and therefore under no circumstances can any action be taken against anyone who doesn't. We can instead take the line that signing is strongly encouraged, newcomers who don't know how to do it can be given friendly advice, others who use their judgement and decide in particular circumstances it is not desirable can, normally, have their judgement respected, but on the rare occasions when someone is downright awkward and obstructive about it we can take action. It is a fundamental failure to understand the nature of Misplaced Pages to think that we have to either have a rule that it has to be done always or else say that no action can ever be taken. There are many things which are not forbidden, but which can be acted on if they become disruptive. This is a simple example of the fifth pillar of Misplaced Pages. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your considered reply. I confess I did not quite follow your statement about your alternate account, but I gather you are explaining a legitimate reason for an auto sign opt-out. I think we are reasonably close on this issue. I am onboard with your explanation that we sometimes avoid writing a rule about something, because it is tricky to get it right, such as nailing down all the allowable exceptions. However, I'm not debating the block of whomever it was, I'm questioning the rule that was added to a guideline without debate.

Examining the sentence closer, I see two issues, both of which may be easily resolved. The second is the "may be sanctioned". It is weaker than "will be" because we don't want that absolute a requirement, but I read it as "any admin who sees a failure to sign has carte blanche to block". I now think I read too much into it, and it is simply noting that sanctions are an option. My first concern is the absolute construction of the first part; the declaration that persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive. Absolutes are always (OK, almost always) a red flag for me. "Intentional" is a very strong word, and absent agreement by the editor, cannot be discerned unequivocally. (I don't believe that in the present case, the editor conceded intent, so the decision to block was based upon observation of persistence, and a supposition that it must be intentional.) The declarative "is" means there are no exceptions. There is no circumstance under which a persistent failure to sign is disruption? A long back and forth exchange between two editors, where one is using a cell phone and either has no tilde, or it is unreasonably awkward to access? No principled reason for not signing can be contemplated? Let me stop my rant and say that if the first clause is modified from "is" to "may be considered" I won't be totally satisfied, but I'll shut up and move on to something productive. (hmm I would be happier if "persistent and intentional" were changed to "persistent, unexplained" because intent is so hard to pin down, but persistent use, coupled with failure to provide a rationale can be observed.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Valid points. How about: "Persistent failure to sign without a satisfactory explanation may be considered to be disruptive and may result in sanctions."—Bagumba (talk) 19:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of instances in real life where there is consensus put people opt out anyways, such as vaccinations and water fluoridation. My credit card offers autopay, which I dont use, but I'm sure I'm still expected to pay my bills on time. If people choose to opt out of autosigning, so be it. This does not absolve them from facing repercussions if they become disruptive. Note also that software can have bugs or limitations, and people may have opted out due to temporary issues or general distrust, warranted or not. A look a the to-do list at User talk:SineBot or its archives indicates that it is far from perfect.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed the wording to Persistent failure to sign may become disruptive, and if it is persistent, despite the problems being pointed out to the user, doing so may be subject to sanctions. It seems to me that this is close in spirit to the versions suggested by Sphilbrick and Bagumba, and if anything even less absolute and categorical, because "may be considered disruptive" suggests, I think, that it may always be so considered, whereas "may become disruptive" allows that at first it isn't disruptive, but there are situations in which it may become so. It also makes explicit the need to try to resolve the issue by talking to the editor, which I hope we all agree is a prerequisite. I guess that is similar to the intention of the original editor who referred to "intentional" failure to sign, but I agree with Sphilbrick that "intentional" is better avoided, and a verifiable act of communicating concerns to the editor is a better criterion than speculation as to motives. I may be subject to criticism for making the change while the matter is still under discussion, but it seems to me to be close in spirit to the suggestions made above, and of course Sphilbrick or Bagumba, or anyone else, is free to tweak it if they are not happy with my version. I certainly agree with Sphilbrick that the long-standing version Persistent and intentional failure to sign is disruptive and may be sanctioned is much too categorical and definite. I also don't like may be sanctioned, because "to sanction an act" can be used to mean not "to apply sanctions to the perpetrator of the act", but rather "to approve and give permission for the act". I think it is very unlikely that anyone would think it meant that in the present context, but it still seems preferable to avoid ambiguous wording. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I agree. And yes, the term "sanction" is an odd word, being its own antonym (as a verb) but no confusion in this formulation.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Upon further thought, very good. You not only addressed my main concerns, but identified two others I hadn't considered, and addressed them as well. Nice work.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Disable and disqualify customised signatures

The purpose of signatures, according to this page, is to identify you as a user and your contributions to Misplaced Pages. They encourage civility in discussions by identifying the author of a particular comment and the date and time at which it was made.

Use of fancy fonts, colours, shadows and other effects does absolutely nothing to advance this purpose. Rather, it draws additional attention to some editors over others, regardless of the merits of the points made. It serves no useful purpose, and seems to serve no function beyond "look what I can do!" and "I like this". Kevin McE (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You may want to review the #Simplifying signatures section above. In short; we just had this discussion. — Edokter (talk) — 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note on section "Appearance and color"

One minor point to note on the otherwise benign and helpful hint given thus:

To display your signature in a different color for yourself only, add the following to Special:MyPage/common.css,
replacing YOUR_NAME with your username:
    #bodyContent a { background-color: #ff7700; color: #ffffff; } 

This code only seems to work after Special:Mypage has been created. The actual contents do not seem to matter; but the CSS simply does not take effect while ever this link is redlined. This is certainly the case with the current wikimedia software (right now on Misplaced Pages: 1.21wmf9 (891fb4c); Wikisource: 1.21wmf10 (ccb9700). Both affected.). Widux (talk) 10:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Different signatures, depending on the namespace

I thought I'd be more likely to get a useful response here than at the WP:Help desk, but if you want me to ask elsewhere, feel free:

I've seen signatures that change colors each time they're signed, or do similarly fancy things. Is there a method to make a signature change according to the namespace? What I'd like to do is to make a signature say "Username (talk)" at pages like RSN or at article talk pages, but "Username (talk) Extra link" only if the sig is on a User talk: page. Is this feasible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Technically the logic you want is embodied in existing templates such as {{namespace detect}}; but beware limitations on signature length and rules regarding so-called "annoying" signatures. Hope this helps. MODCHK (talk) 03:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually hoping to make someone else's sig much less annoying.  ;-)

{{User talk other}} doesn't seem to exist, but {{User other}} is close. But am I correct that this would have to be subst'd, and it would therefore spew the entire contents of that template into each and every sig on all pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure we are supposed to be having a discussion here, but in essence I would suggest the signature might invoke a template (so definitely not a subst), and that template contain something akin to this part of {{User other}} (Thank you, I did not previously know that template existed!):

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:User}}
    | user
    | other
    }}

This approach means the actual signature invocation is short, as all the complicated stuff goes into the template. You should change the tag following ns: to the name of the namespace wish to detect; and replace "user" with "namespace matches" signature code; and "other" with signature for catch-all default case. The only advantage to {{namespace detect}} is you may go completely mad and code cases for lots of different matches, if that meets your intentions better.

Finally the template code itself doesn't have to be in the Template: namespace, so invoking something like {{User:WhatamIdoing/signature}} would work as well. (Obviously you would need to populate the referenced page with template wikitext.) MODCHK (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. I got it wrong. The template is ALWAYS subst'd; so things need to move down a step (i.e. in example above {{User:WhatamIdoing/signature}} would hold the wikitext to launch the template; but only if Preferences option "Treat the above as wiki markup." is checked. Funnily enough, the current guidelines tell you not to do this, so my "solution" to your problem... isn't. Sorry! MODCHK (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Blinking and Other Signature Customizations.

I've recently encountered some debate regarding my signature and a single • and I would like to discuss this. I feel that customization of signatures is a minor definition of self. I do not feel that text-decorations, used in moderation, are a negative thing. The key here is moderation, a single little dot separating the link to my contributions from my talk page is not extravagant and to be honest seems barely noticeable. There has been some discussion about it on my talk page, and I am reluctant to remove it at this time. I believe that if a person finds such a small moderation offensive or annoying, then they should do something on their end to remove the annoyance. I do not feel it is within their rights to force me to depersonalize myself to please them. I have offered ways for them to remove all blinking from their browsers, but would be happy to go into more detail if they so requested to remove "only" my one blinking dot. I am going to stop here before I begin rambling, for I am upset with the violation of my signature on talk pages and the attempt to make me remove my personal uniqueness. I encourage all to read the debate on my talk page and comment here, and will now simply sign this post and wait for responses. -- ShoeMaker   ( Contributions • Message )   14:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am one of at least two users who have attempted to clean the above user's sig, only to be reverted again. It's only two days since this highly relevant discussion was archived. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

We need to draw a line somewhere, I'm sure you can understand that a signature with more prominent blinking features would be pretty annoying. I personally don't have a problem with the minor blinking element in your signature, and wouldn't raise it myself, but it does seem to be on the wrong side of the line the community has drawn. Monty₈₄₅ 16:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

ShoeMaker, why on Earth would you want to have an online personality that annoys people? This is on par with those immature teenagers who dress like they're completely irresponsible, insist that their clothing is an expression of their true selves, and then complain that nobody ever trusts them or treats them like a responsible adult. Every adult looks at this and says, "Yeah, well, your true self expression tells me that you're completely irresponsible, and I believed what you said about yourself."

I'm not going to tell you that you don't have a human right to act annoying (although we might insist that you do it on your own website), but why would you want to tell everyone that your self-expressed, unique personality is an annoying one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Usually I am fairly liberal in allowing people to use custom signatures that make them appear as stupid as they choose to. Blinking, however, is beyond the pale (I consider it to be rude). However, I would not mind if you write a custom CSS that makes your signature blink for those who want it (it must be off for anyone who is not logged in, not only for those who take active measures). —Kusma (t·c) 18:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Straight from WP:SIG, including emphasis: Your signature should not blink, scroll, or otherwise inconvenience or annoy other editors. It think the guideline is clear enough: no blinking. That is the line. Please change your signature. — Edokter (talk) — 18:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Monty, I agree, it is exceptionally minor. Personally to me, it is less annoying than trying to read a red font on a red background or a light gray subscript on a white background. It is also quite annoying for those people that use non-standard characters that do not render in all browsers such as on User_talk:Anomie#Your_signature with the આ of which, by my understanding from a brief reading, instead of the creator of the bot being pushed to change his signature, everyone is suppose to download the correct font to make it display if they don't like the unicode square.

Point of matter: Walter Humala (talk · contribs), AjaxSmack (talk · contribs), Hello Link (talk · contribs) (MOST atrociously User:Hello_Link#And_lastly..., Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs) (Who claims to be a site administrator), and the lists go on... They ALL use much more offensive blinking, and shouldn't administrators be forced to lead by example. Can you really expect an occasional editor to comply with a guideline that your administration and super users do not? Yet, still my • has been singled out for destruction? This seems extreme to me, especially considering that there are 324 instances of text-decoration: blink; on the English Misplaced Pages. -- ShoeMaker   ( Contributions • Message )   21:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Project-Class Help pages
• NA-importance Help pages
• Misplaced Pages Help Project pages