"

 Defacing compliant sigs 

This edit has been partially reverted as it changed two users' compliant signatures on a project page without prior discussion with the users. Since the only apparent motivation for your edit is to supplant WP:SIG#Customizing your signature (an official guideline) with your personal preferences, this constitutes vandalism, and this response constitutes a warning. Please do not alter others' presentations of data without cause, in violation of WP:POINT, creating the very squabbles you claim to wish to avoid in favor of actually writing an encyclopedia.  
Well, ""Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia."" I don't see Tony's edits as vandalism (even in an extended sense), though the last few seemed to have a bit of spite and muse to them, which I don't like. 

 If any of my edits have given the impression of spite that was an error. I am aware of no spite.  I only seek to improve the encyclopedia. 

 I don't think you quite understand.   Any discussion can be improved by refactoring.  This will inevitably involve, as a desired end product, reduction of noise, the most obvious of which is unnecessary content in signatures, ""compliant"" (whatever that might mean) or not.  Discussions are about, believe it or not, the exchange of information, not the repeated depositing of random graffiti on pages devoted to discussion of a subject not related to that graffiti.

 I'm running out of polite ways to say ""you are behaving  in an incredibly stupid manner; please reconsider your approach to Wikipedia.""  -Tony Sidaway 

Hey, Tony, per our Wikien-L discussion... if you're pissing people off seriously when you do it, knock off doing it.  The cure is worse than the illness, when you piss them off.   

Tony has more guts than I do...I am constantly tempted to help save server lag by ""fixing"" signatures. 

I'm not saying they're not annoying.  But I am saying, and have said (with a chorus of agreements, but not unanimity) on Wikien-L that the consequences of getting people angry by refactoring sigs in a manner they believe is abusive is worse than the consequences of leaving the sigs as is.  There's been discussion about a signature size limit, which I support, in some form or another.  But the side effects of refactoring a bunch of random people's sigs are that they're percieving it as abuse by Tony, not as a cleanup effort, and reasonable people should always think twice if people complain that they're being abusive.
The proper solution to this has to either be Tony being a lot more polite about the refactoring (for example, telling people on their talk pages, nicely asking them to change, ec), or for there to be a policy change that limits sig size so there's no question as to whether the refactor is ""ok"" or not.  Tony irritating people when he's acting fully in compliance with policy is acceptable to me.  Tony irritating or abusing people when policy has gotten vague on a point, is not.   

Please stop defacing users' signatures when they are clearly in compliance with WP:SIG. Willful and intentional violation of WP:POINT is''' vandalism and may result in a block from editing Wikipedia. Kirk talk to me "