Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Tony Sidaway 3

message: Reagrding the non-Latin characters, then why aren't they removed from the actual article namespace in articles like Wang Chong, Korea, and Japanese language. Chcknwnm 02:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are in almost all cases preceded by the English version or transliteration, and because a reader can expect to encounter some foreign characters in articles on certain subjects.  Signatures that do not display correctly, however, can be an impediment to identifying or referring to a given user, as well as to editing talk pages and responding to posts.  Exploding Boy 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In my signature, I have Korean charcters. Without them, I can still be identified, as 'Chuck' is still there. When foreign characters don't render, they appear as blocks, and don't interfer with editing or responding that I know of. I don't think that it matters whether or not it is a foreign subject article, or a user signature, as users can be of forein heritage and/or have completely foreign names. Chcknwnm 02:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Err, speedy delete?  Why?  Friday (talk) 04:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. I put the hang on tag while I went to see what G1 was. It says, "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." I don't see that here. Maybe Tawker could explain. Thanks, Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Talked to Tawker. Was an honest mistake. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah, I had multiple tabs open and I had one of those enter it in the wrong tab and hit save moments. (Yes Yes, I know, I can always hit Alt-D but IMHO its sometimes best to have a second set of eyes review a A7 CSD (which ironically was deleted in the timeframe I re-loaded the page) -- Tawker 06:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speedy delete? 

message: Since you haven't looked at Tony's actions, is it appropriate to comment at this RfC (you comments are welcome of course, but would be taken in better light if you were aware of the whole situation)? As for us having ugly signatures, who is to determine what is ugly? I think that it's not the 'Chuck' part that is ugly. The green 'u' adds flavor. And the korean charcters (which are actually my name in case anyone was wondering), add some artistic value. If it's the edit box that looks ugly...don't they all? I mean, infoboxes are horrendous, as are things written with  tags. So I think that signatures being ugly is open to too much varied opinion (which is why there are policies on the matter, so that we know what's clear-cut) User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I offer this possible explanation for Ral315's comment: he opened the RfC,  looked at the signatures in the complaint, and decided to make a comment about them. --Tony Sidaway 06:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Outside view by Ral315 

message: It's times like this where I'm tempted to pull out my other signature.

, please do not remove other people's signatures. This is your first warning. Alphax τεχ 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm...not sure if I like being classified as a vandal, as I was reverting blanking, and an obvious attempt to provoke people at this RfC. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, that's just the unfortunate template name actually, not a reference to you being a vandal.  I belive Carnildo just got stuck in an edit conflict there. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 07:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No provoking intended. I keep that sig around as a humorous example of just how extreme signatures can get. --Carnildo 07:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh heh... Cute, There's one that even under my rules that one qualifies for being cleaned up Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 07:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The "warning" was intended to be humorous as well. Alphax τεχ 07:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's all in good fun would you mind removing it? We can refer people to look at   if they want to see it in reference to this discussion. Regards, Charlie( @CIRL | talk | email ) 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temptation 

message: Can we list these, please? - brenneman {L}  13:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They speak for themselves. --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never seen his name in an article's edit history or in an article's talk page. He seems to spend all his time on userboxes. (Joking ... I think) Andjam 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's because Tony deletes all the articles ;-) Actually, his work in raising userbox and sig. issues is important too. Letting things flow along the path of least resistance won't always get us where we want to be. Stephen B Streater 14:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I haven't done much article work in the past few months, but I have over eight thousand article edits (all of them by hand; I never use a bot or automation tool).  At the moment I do a lot of clerk work for the Arbitration Committee and I'm also involved in arbitration enforcement.   I'm a Mediawiki developer and produced a fix for a blocking bug, then promptly buried it when I thought about the ethical implications (knowing NOT to roll out after weeks of testing is, I think, one of my better points).  More recently I've spent my energies as a developer on a tool for measuring vandalism on many Mediawiki sites.    In lisp, because I can.  --Tony Sidaway 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Extraordinary contributions" 

message: I think that people may perceive the sigs differently. Perhaps younger people are more used to glitzy stuff and they can ignore it more easily, for example. So how about this first attempt at a resolution:
* We allow an option in "my preferences" which converts all sigs to a standard format like the default sig for that user.
** Then Tony et al can read the debates clearly
** Others et al can enjoy the eye-candy in peace
What do people think? Stephen B Streater 13:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A software change?  Gosh.  My initial reaction is "surely there must be more important things for the developers to work on."  Friday (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: The outside view by Andjam got me thinking.  So far everything I've seen here just reinforces my belief that Tony Sidaway is a very polarizing editor -  people who deal with him fall into one of two camps.  In Camp A, there those who applaud his bold actions in doing what he thinks makes the encyclopedia better, and they don't care how many people he pisses off while doing this.  In Camp B, there are those who see many of his actions as needlessly pompous, arrogant, and disruptive.  I suspect that never the twain shall meet.  The problem is, those in Camp A who stand around clapping are contributing to the problem- you're reinforcing Tony's holy-warrior approach when what he really needs is a large helping of humility and tact.  Tony, do you see that even when you're right, there's a disadvantage to being so polarizing?  Somtimes we have to piss people off to work on the encyclopedia- no reasonable editor is denying that- I've pissed off plenty of kids who's vanity articles I've deleted.  But, we should still avoid pissing people off for no good reason.  This is just common sense. Friday (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Being able to work well with others is the hallmark of a good admin, and indeed is pretty much a requirement on RfA. --Fang Aili  talk 15:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also agree, He shouldn't piss people off for no reason. ILovePlankton 15:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. — Nathan (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There will always be two camps in any issue, but to call a little bit of refactoring, immensely improving talk pages with each edit, "holy warring" is to gravely misread the issue.  There is no problem for Wikipedia here except a few selfish editors who want to prevent share public talk pages from being harmlessly refactored to improve them. Of course they're pissed off, but that need not concern us as Wikipedians.  They put their vanity before Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 15:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such delicious irony.  Putting your vanity before Wikipedia is exactly what I see you doing here.  Your editing of signatures in this manner has proven far more disruptive than the signatures themselves.   Friday (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: you may or may not believe it has been diruptive, but no matter what you think, it has been disruptive, if it hadn't then we wouldn't be here would we? ILovePlankton 15:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A number of editors don't like their signatures being refactored.  That is an editing dispute.  Disruption is something else entirely. Disruption is not a bunch of selfish editors moaning about their oversized signatures not remaining forever untouched in the place where they were dropped. --Tony Sidaway 16:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How is my signature oversized? Taking up 1.25 lines in my 1200 x 1024 (something like that) browser, and being only 164 characters (with spaces). That's about half of what the guidline says is too much. It's not unsightly, IMO. Unsightly would be Cyde's signature. It's not disruptive. Tony, let me ask you this. A month ago, you blocked Nathan for a "stupidly large signature". You stated that he was being disruptive, and was already asked to change his signature twice. Even though he wasn't clearly violating policy/guidlines, he could still be blocked because he was already asked to not be disruptive. Then I ask you why you shouldn't be blocked by another admin. Nathan and I (two people) have asked you to stop changing our signatures. You have been informed that this is disruptive. By your way-of-doing, you should be blocked. If you don't think so, then you should seriously consider rescinding you support for the block of Nathan a month ago. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, just as it is some people people's opinion that your actions are disruptive, it was your opion and that of two others that Nathan's actions were disruptive. From what I see it's a clear matter of opinion, of which you declare youself to always have the right one. The argument that you are being disruptive is no less, if not better, than the argument that Nathan's sig was disruptive. Also, which guidline says not to flaunt a hideous and enormous signature? And if you do find one, who declares that a signature is just that. Also, you may say that it was because it was over th 300 character limit, and thus he was breaking the "guidline". But then also you are in disregard of the guidline WP:POINT when you change the sigs on this RfC, and are in violation of WP:REFACTOR when you disregard Wherever possible an editor should use the original signatures of all of the parties involved. I suggest to any administrator who sees this, to view the evidence and decide if Tony is in need of a block, based on his own edits that say when they should be given out. Chuck(척뉴넘) 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Blocking to make a point is wrong. Blocking because you don't like something is wrong. Blocking without a warning is wrong. Blocking without a message on the user's talk informing them of the block is wrong. Blocking while bypassing the template warning system (except for cases of serious abuse) is wrong. Blocking to punish a user who didn't actually break policy is wrong. Regardless of how many people complain, you're not even listening - in effect, putting your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la I can't hear you. Please try to understand; from our point of view, you seem to ignoring us and continuing with what you're doing, no matter how many people approach you. I realise that you feel some things need to be done, but remember that there is policy to be followed; this isn't, after all, an anarchy, where you make your own rules. — Nathan (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two camps 

message: Here is my signature, for reference (please don't reformat this one): Chuck(척뉴넘)  . I would like to know honestly: 1)How many lines does it take up in the edit window, and to compare, how many does yours take up? 2)Have you ever found it to interfer with your editing. 3)If I were to put my sig at , could I still sign with ~~~~? 
To use the template, put "" in the nickname box in your preferences. --GeorgeMoney T·C 00:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the code for your sig takes up about 2.5 lines of screen space on my browser.  And yes, signatures and the rest of other people's comments sometimes do mildly interfere with my editing.  But, considering I'm not the only editor on this wiki, that's life.  A mature editor deals with such annoyances without making a big deal out of them.  Friday (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Answers to questions, 1)about two lines, probably less on my computer at home. 2)No, never. 3)I don't know. The only thing that I question (in your sig in particular) is the use of the Korean characters. They don't render correctly on some browsers, and I personally would not want to make people look at gibberish. I had some Chinese characters in my sig for a spell and only found out later that they didn't render correctly for some people. No one mentioned it. --Fang Aili  talk 16:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be more about newer editors though?  Its a bit easier to read and find the end of text, even when its linked than to understand a long blurb of code at the end of a post.  Wikisyntax can be confusing enough.  Consider which namespace you're using as well.  Even much smaller sigs on pages like WP:CP can be obnoxious when trying to process the reports. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, most people will be reading the text on the rendered screen, and there, there is certainly no problem with the sig (unless the Koreab characters don't render, but then they're just blocks and not terribly unsightly. There are numerous articles with Asian characters in them, so that shouldn't be a problem), and when they go to edit they will most likely be looking to place their comment above another, not below. That's the easiest way to edit (as the beginning of the edit below with usually have a ':' or '*' or some other thing to signify it.), and is probably in common practice. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but we're talking about editors here. We love the readers, of course, but the editors make the encylopedia; several lines of html code could be disruptive and confusing interspersed in the discussion. Additionally, Korean and other non-latinized characters don't render well in quite a few cases (I.E. 7.0, non-Windows OSes and non-default skins for example). Do you really think sthat most editors would top post? I haven't found that to be common practice on Wikipedia. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It's possible that newer editors could have trouble with it, though I think this is a minor point. New editors have to contend with much that is unfamiliar. I personally don't recall being confused by signature code at all, and I'm not a coder. I've always just gone to the next blank line and started typing. On WP:CP there are the astericks, which make it easy (for me) to determine what's what. As a side note, I consider my signature to be fairly basic, compared to many, though I am still open to discussion on this. But what this RfC is about is Tony's unwillingness to stop his behavior, even amidst pleas for him to do so. --Fang Aili  talk 17:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can say from answering Wikipedia helpdesk tickets for quite some time that many new users find the code in signatures confusing.  Also, working at things like WP:CP and other such lists, sigs (sometimes even not quite so large ones) are quite disruptive and require extra time to pick out each entry (there are no spaces between entries ;) ).  I guess my concern is, I really don't see any particular reason to get bent over a signature being refactored.  Now, if someone came along and did so to my userpage, I'd be miffed, but general cleanup to help the encylopedia work better shouldn't be something to be pleading about, should it? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point of contention is "to help make the encyclopedia work better". Tony thinks that by changing people's sigs he is making the encyclopedia better (or at least his experience with it), and other people disagree with this. I don't think we are going to resolve this just by telling the complaintants that their concern is immature or not worth their time. --Fang Aili  talk 18:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why that's a contention and I'm certainly not suggesting that immaturity is involved.  Simplifying code on pages where it improves readability and editing can't really be said to make the encylopedia worse, can it?  As another example, have you ever visited a forum where your signature was regulated?  Or perhaps come across certain forums where signatures are allowed on certain posts, but not others to improve readability or standardize formatting?  How about sites that don't allow html code in posts or comments for similar reasons?  Its the same thing here; we want everyone to be able to edit and join in discussions, not just everyone savvy enough to decipher where their comments go in the code. I'm sure there are lots of places where signatures don't need to be bothered with, but there are areas of Wikipedia where its highly helpful and appropriate. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Perhaps reading the talk page guidelines would help then? Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability while preserving meaning. It is a stronger term than copy editing and can include removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information.  This is not vandalism, accumulation can make understanding an ongoing discussion difficult and may discourage potential contributors from involvement. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 16:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a discussion has become lengthy in such a way that it obscures meaning and hinders further discussion, an editor is encouraged to summarize it in such a way as to preserve all significant detail. It is the editor's responsibility to ensure credit is given to those who posted the original commentary. (Wherever possible an editor should use the original signatures of all of the parties involved.) I believe the last part is the most important. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 16:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course.  But when signatures obscure discussion for those attempting to edit, especially new users and some project space areas, that would be a good case in qhich you should not. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're going to cite a guidline, but when it turns against your POV, it's not needed? User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 17:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm, no.  I was attempting to apply common sense to Wherever possible and give a case where it might not be the best idea.  Rules aren't suicide pacts. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's not a guideline, but a technical help page (not that this really matters). The sensible thing to do when refactoring is to keep the important bits of signatures, such as username and timestamp.  The "original signatures" should actually be construed as meaning that; the heavily customized signatures that are now unfortunately so common on Wikipedia are of quite recent origin, and it was never the intention of the technical help document to encourage people to leave useless material on the talk page.  Refactoring is the time to get rid of that if it's causing a problem. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for moving the talk to here, I was just gonna do that myself. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general it isn't good practice to cite a guidline for one argument and then dismiss it to 'reason' wherever possible for the next. As for the first excerpt you took, it says, Refactoring is a form of editing whose goal is to improve readability... Notice is says readablilty and not editability (an argument you used in the section above, which is valid here too). The signatuyre does not interfer with readability, but rather adds a colorful flavor to the end of a long black message. Chuck(척뉴넘) 17:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so this form of refactoring is acceptable then? Could we get a list of which types everyone is ok with and make a meta-list somewhere so we don't step on anyones toes? Oh my. Apparently we disagree with our interpretation of the refactoring instructions and reasoning; I don't favor rulelawyer as a debate option unfortunately. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring talk pages 

message: I don't really want to get into this right now, but isn't this like the 3rd rfc/Tony Sidaway 3?  Whatlinkshere at least shows some of the old links have not been redirected.  This is obviously bound to cause confusion.  Move this to Tony Sidaway 3c, make Tony Sidaway 3 a dab page?  Put dablinks/descriptions at the top of this rfc?  Kotepho 17:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, people keep writing,  or starting to write, Tony Sidaway 3, then it gets deleted for some reason or other.  It's just one of those things. --Tony Sidaway 17:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to sound pompous, but this one should be staying. I thought about make it TS4, but that would be confusing also, Maybe 3c would be a good idea. User:Chcknwnm (Chuck) 17:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Call it what you like.  It is presently the only Tony Sidaway 3 in existence. --Tony Sidaway 18:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: References to pages which are no longer in existence due to whatever reason and which still have references being directed to this unrelated page may be a problem. This is not simply about the name, its about understanding and meaning. Ansell 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many Tony Sidaway 3's

message: Tony's continuing to edit people's sigs (even those who have personally asked him to stop it) on pages other than his own talk page is very disappointing.  I've been assuming good faith til now, but, damn, at this point, Tony's actions sure look they're calculated to annoy rather than to improve the project.   I've left Tony a talk page warning telling him again to please stop that.  Friday (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support the action. --Fang Aili  talk 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds to me like you deserve a round of applause! :-) --D-Day What up? Am I cool, or what? 20:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm trying to understand what the problem is, but these barkingly irrational accusations and frankly puerile "warnings" aren't helping. --Tony Sidaway 22:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Understanding a problem is one thing, however continuing with the action because you havn't come to an understanding yet, just shows a lack of wisdom. Ansell 02:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Friday. If warnings not to change signatures 'aren't helping', then changing them isn't helping either. Try actually not changing them, and you won't get warned. Amazing, isn't it? — Nathan (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind being "warned".  Changing them substantially improves the editing environment so there's a good incentive to keep it up. Oh well, we're going around in circles so I'll leave it there.  I think if I continue to argue with you any more I'll begin to sound like you, which would not be good. --Tony Sidaway 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you don't mind being warned but you ignore said warnings anyway. Of course not, I'm a bad editor, why would you want to sound like me? Perish the thought! — Nathan (talk) 23:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Don't you have something better to do than to snipe and attack at other editors? — Nathan (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so guidelines-compliant signatures are fine, but guidelines-compliant refactoring is not.  This is becoming more clear.  Perhaps you should review the meaning of a straw man argument, since it doesn't appear you understand wwhen someone is using that tactic.  Tony isn't the only one who doesn't see what the fuss is and your possiblities are seriously verging on personal attacks.  I'm not sure why you're so personally invested in your signature, but perhaps that's worth considering? Shell babelfish 15:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, well, I wasn't trying to debate what the guidelines do or do not "allow"- they're just guidelines.  I'm concerned about what's helpful to the project.  Continuing to do minor things that don't particularly need done, after being asked nicely to stop by many people, is not helpful to the project.  This is clear- people who run around changing between American and British English are disruptive also.  What makes you think I'm personally invested in my signature?  I thought I'd made it clear several times on this RFC that to me, signatures are a small thing, not worth getting bent out of shape over.  Tony seems to think they're unimportant, therefore whatever he does with them is OK.  Whereas many of us think they're unimportant, therefore a crusade against them is not neccessary.  Crusades come with a price- if the benefit does not outweigh the price, why do it?  The enjoyment of the crusading is the only rational justification I can think of.  Friday (talk) 15:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is worth it.  You just can't see the forest for the trees because you're deep in the forest.  How many tens of thousands of signatures are left daily on talk pages all across the wiki?  It certainly is worth a few days and a few users to hammer out an appropriate policy.  --Cyde↔Weys 15:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Huh?  We already have signature guidelines- if you see a way to improve them, by all means do so.  Yours is one of the ornate ones, but that's no reason to stomp it out of existance.  If someone started messing with it, and you asked them to stop, and they continued to mess with it, would you not see their continued actions as being intended to annoy rather than to improve?  Friday (talk)
Folks, can I point out a few things?  Here's a sample of comments from the people who opened the RfC.  Speaks for itself really:
*I take no prisoners when disambiguating! This means that I will not refrain from disambiguating links on user pages, user talk pages, talk pages, or archives.
*I created it to make a statement (could be WP:POINT but it depends who you talk to). I hope it's not being used against me in some way.
*I see that that is not true now, and probably should have ended it after the conversation on Tony's talk page. When I added myself to the stressed users and said, "...and have to sit back now and watch as certain admins get away with abusing their power"
*Tell me how 3 flags in a sig (that are 20px each) is disrupting to anyone, except admin's who want to power-trip (that's right, I said it again), because that's all you are doing.
I had been taking this discussion seriously.  I am not any longer. Shell babelfish 16:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, and I forgot this:Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Tony_Sidaway_reported_by_User:Chcknwnm Shell babelfish 16:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This happens all too often, unfortunately.  There's a controversy, and people see that some of the folks on one side have been unreasonable.  So, people then leap to the conclusion that everyone on that side is unreasonable, therefore there's no actual cause for concern or controversy.  I think anyone who actually reads this will see a mix of reasonable and unreasonable statements on both sides of the issue.  Long-time admins are suspectible to this-  they've been criticized by trolls so many times, that now they jump to the conclusion that all criticism equals trolling.  Friday (talk) 16:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "legitimate criticizers" need to do a better job of differentiating themselves from the trolls then.  Because when the "legitimate" people and the trolls are all patting each other on the back and saying pretty much the same things, they all tend to get lumped together.  --Cyde↔Weys 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then.  I appreciate any help anyone can give me on how to communicate more effectively.  I find that signatures are such a trivial thing that a war on them is just plain silly.  That Tony continues to fight this utterly trivial battle despite such opposition sure looks like drama-seeking behavior to me.  Drama is not helpful to us.  You want drama, find a forum- we're trying to be an encyclopedia here.  (Of course, I fully realize that both sides blame the other for the drama- this may be another point where the two camps will never understand each other.)  Anyway, I don't know that I can explain anything further.  Sorry for being so long-winded, but I often tend to cling to the hope that actual communication is possible.  Friday (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope I wasn't being referred to as a troll, because that would be a personal attack. As for the quotes that Shell pulled, I don't recognize the first two, but the second two are mine, and taken way out of context. They don't even have to do with this RfC. It had to do with a previous incident where Tony blocked Nathan for his signature having images, without first giving him a warning. The reason I said I should have left it alone after Tony's page is because I was catching lots of slack, for an overall not-thoughtout set of events, by everyone, including Tony's block of Nathan. As for th 3RR notice, you can't tell me that what he is doing is not considered partial reverting, which falls under the 3RR. I am not looking for Tony to get blocked, I am looking for him to stop changing the signatures, and with the 3RR report specifically, looking for hom to stop changing signatures on this RfC. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (addition) I found the first quote from Shell as I was browsing around. It's on Search4Lancer's userpage. Unfortunately, unlike what you said, Search4Lancer didn't open this RfC (he didn't even endorse the "evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" section. I opened it, all alone, all by myself. Chuck(척뉴넘) 07:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you have proved my point in ways better than I could have possibly forseen.  In the face of the RfC page where Search4Lancer's bold signature finds itself as #2 for "Other users who endorse this summary", you courageously assert that it was not he?  The cirus, it seems, has come to town. Shell babelfish 08:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he said "he didn't even endorse the 'evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute'". Which he didn't. Not that he didn't sign the endorsement. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 08:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Something I probably should have done, but, didn't. I didn't really try to resolve the dispute, I just told him to shut up and leave me alone, in one way or another. Search4Lancer 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoyance 

message: In response to Johnny B Goode's comments:
I disagree that this antagonized a "large" number of users, that the signatures were harmless, or even in need of defending.  Certainly a "call to arms" against Tony was not necessary, although I'm seeing just such comments in this RFC.  Simplifying signatures to improve the editing of discussion pages was a minor event that doesn't justify this much hub-bub.  Common courtesy would dictate that users would see their comments haven't been altered, their signatures still indicate who said what and carrying out crusades across AN/I, talk pages and an RFC are what's truly disrupting the encyclopedia.  --InkSplotch 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you would do well to read the fine print of WP:SIG. It specifically states that it is only a guideline, that is not enforceable. I believe we've recently had a block wrongly made against a user User:Search4Lancer under this guideline even though no such block is allowable. JohnnyBGood  t c VIVA! 23:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What you believe was indeed true. See #2 in the Unblock section on my talk page. As such, maybe I should pursue action against the admin that made the block. Search4Lancer 22:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Try that. I think the result could be both amusing and useful for Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so you think we should all stand by while admins block people for things they aren't supposed to block people for? That's rich. Search4Lancer 03:47, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to JohnnyBGood 

message: George W. Bush is nominated for a trusted position. In his candidacy, he speaks of harmony within differing groups. His nomination and candidacy is not without vitriol and disagreement, but in the end, he gets the job and is invested with powers befitting the office. 
Bush has a view of how to better the country. Many agree with him and support his decisions throughout his presidency. Some are fairly indifferent to the politics scene. But many others hate Bush and disagree vehemently with anything he does, whether it benefits the country or not. They see the name "Bush" and automatically disagree with anything and everything he proposes or enacts, no matter how small. They don't see him as being a "uniter, not a divider". These people will never agree with Bush.
Now Bush is not without legitimate controversy. He does enact and defend some programs that while not explicitly violating laws and policies, may not be constitutionally sound. Yet he does this to better America. He does this to protect the country and ensure it prospers after he's gone. But people disagree that his actions actually accomplish this.
Some have talked about removing him from power. Some have even introduced motions to start the impeachment process. But realistically, the motions are moot and most people know they won't really get anywhere. 
So in the end, there are two views. Bush is sure he is improving the country. Those that hate anything he does disagree. They battle and battle a pointless battle. They could work together, compromise, to improve things, yet they don't. There is just so much pointless hatred. 
--You Know Who (Dark Mark) 00:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, this section is not the place to argue about Bush. It is a simple crappy analogy about hate, and how people will hate "some people" no matter what they do, no matter how good their intentions. If you want to discuss Bush, you may want to see Talk:George W. Bush or some off-wiki site. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I will agree that the analogy is crappy. Bush is more than issue that ppl can't agree upon like whether or not to leave the seat up. Bush is more like hitler. He's just evil. You can't say that there is two sides to every issue here. A man responsible for thousands of innocent deaths is simply evil.--God <FONT FACE="Symbol">Ω</font>  War 04:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The day that an RfC over sig reformatting led to a comparson to Hitler is the day I finally believe in Godwin's Law. That sad day is today. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know how apt the analogy is.  As one of Tony Sidaway's critics here, I can personally say I probably agree with him about 75% of the time. The issue isn't whether he's right or wrong- he's right most of the time.  The issue is that, right or wrong, he goes about things in such a disruptive way that whatever good he's doing is outweighed by the damage he does.  Friday (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you're right. It just seems that the same people fighting him over userboxes are the same people fighting him over altering signatures. But then again, perhaps the people with flashy signatures are more liable to need flashy userboxes. Oh well. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 05:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep in mind we aren't "fighting him" (well, maybe some users intend to, but I don't and I have faith that is not most people's intent), this is just a place to share concerns about his editing methods. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask huge sigs be reduced, and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that he ask them to be reduced, rather than continuing with a method that is clearly offending people. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 05:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am one of the people that was over at the userbox debate recently. That's what got me to this point. I saw Tony doing what he does with them, and asked him question on his talk page. That's when the whole signature debacle started. I am not one of those userbox crazy people. I think they look ugly scattered all over a page, and so I have only the ones that quickly describe me and show which project on WP I'm in. I also subst them, which most people should do, but since a lot of people don't know about that, speedy deleting them creates problems for everyone, unlike going through the reccommended proccess of TfD, which would actually create less problems then going through DRV. However, this RfC is about Tony's changing signatures, not the userboxes. It doesn't matter that the people here are the one's also at the userbox debate. That's true for both sides of the argument, so don't draw inferences from coincidences. Chuck(척뉴넘) 06:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I left him this response on his talk page.
I also wanted to comment here- this type of response is all too typical, and I find it rather unhelpful.  Let me try an analogy: let's say I run a business selling widgets.  One weekend, there's a flood in my store.  I get on the phone to the insurance company, contractors, etc.  My partner comes in and says "What are you doing on the phone?!? This doesn't help sell widgets!"  Of course it doesn't - it's an unfortunate distraction due to circumstances. That's what RFCs are.  Friday (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's theoretically possible, of course, for a user RFC to indirectly help us build the 'pedia- if it gets a disruptive user to stop the disruption.  Friday (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RfC's have a purpose: to fix problems.  Making talk pages more readable and more easily edited is not a problem. Just zis Guy you know? 20:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing it in a manner that is offending people is a problem. -Goldom T Review 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people will rush to be offended over trivia.  This doesn't mean that good edits shouldn't be made. Of course the problem here is the disruption of editing caused by overlarge signatures, and in that this RfC may have the indirect effect of reaffirming the practice of refactoring discussions, it might be said to improve the encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway 14:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JzG's view 

message: Personally, I don't find long strings of code in signatures a problem (except it makes some project pages like  WP:CV a little harder to read where there is often very little invening text).  What I do personally find very annoying, however, is the decision by User:Cyde to use his signature to change the shape of my cursor.  -- DS1953 talk 15:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So refactor it, if it's that big a problem for you. I'm sure as long as you don't alter his comments or attribution, he won't mind. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I view that as a respect thing Mark.  I don't think it's cool to refactor sigs on pages even for clarity.  Just my personal view.  Thanks -- Samir   धर्म 15:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if you truly find it disruptive, and the user will not change it, what are you left with? Having a disruptive element just sitting around on WP? What purpose would that serve. If you truly find it disruptive, ignore the feeling of disrespect and change things for the better. To help, I've taken the liberty of changing Cyde's cursor above on your behalf... feel free to help the encyclopedia where you see necessary. Don't be afraid. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 16:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only things I'm afraid of are death eaters :) But seriously, I don't view it as a big deal, but I don't feel comfortable changing other user's sigs on pages.  Thanks -- Samir   धर्म 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if it's not a big deal, then why bring it up? Methinks you were trying to prove a point, which failed. Okay, back to the encyclopedia. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 17:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not trying to prove a point.  "Not a big deal" referred to changing other sigs on pages, not to Cyde's sig, which I still find bothersome, and which I asked him to change on his talk page, as opposed to unilaterally changing it on this page. -- Samir   धर्म 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So if changing people's sigs is not a big deal, and you find Cyde's sig disruptive, why don't you refactor it? Again, if he's not going to fix something that's disruptive, you're just going to leave it in place, when you could easily just refactor it to not be disruptive and have it be no big deal? So perhaps though you don't feel comfortable with it, you support someone else unilateraly refactoring sigs? --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 19:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Annoying signatures 

message: Yeah, heck of a pussycat. Heck of a rude one. Search4Lancer  02:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the record, no one has ever asked me to change my signature. Chuck(척뉴넘) 19:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pussycat

message: You know, even the Esperanza links serve a purpose. Excessive colouring or sub-/superscripting one's sig doesn't do much, on the other hand. Sigs are there to identify you, nothing more. If you want to be creative, don't impose on other people and have some good sense. Johnleemk | Talk 15:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How exactly is someone supposed to be creative without "imposing" their creativity on others. Ansell|T 04:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done in reading my comment literally while losing the meaning and intent of it at the same time. Johnleemk | Talk 16:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creativity

message: Wikipedia policies and guidelines should be arrived at by consensus of all users, not dictated by admins or a few vocal users.  It happens that admins are given extra tools to enforce policies and guidelines, but even ordinary users can remind people to follow policies.  (As an example, look at all the test templates.)
Sometimes, policies and their enforcement mechanisms have to be debated, and that's what has happened in this RFC.  Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there's a clear consensus, but only a few users seem to be suggesting that signatures should be drastically refactored every time they occur.  And rather than gently reminding people that long signatures with plenty of  and  tags and images are difficult to edit and drain server resources, a few admins are working on a heavy-handed enforcement mechanism.
It's been brought to my attention that this opinion is wrong.  Totally wrong, and inexcusably, unforgivably WRONG.  I'd erase it, but that would be dishonest, since I've already posted it.  So, it's struck out.  -- 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be helpful if you shared the information that led you to strike out this comment. Thanks David D. (Talk) 15:23, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Partially dissenting, pseudo-concluding view by [[User:Elkman|Elkman]]

message: This exchange was moved from the main page after successful mediation by User:Prodego. See User_talk:Exploding_Boy/archive4#Your_conflict_with_Nathan.  "They" refers to "gaudy signatures ... confined to talk pages".  Dr Zak 17:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck, why do you persist in getting involved when you so obviously known so little about the problem?  The problem with how the signature was displaying was clearly that Nathan was using the wrong tag.  It is not selfish to ask someone to change a disruptive signature; see Opabinia's remarks directly above.  The reason it took so long to upload a screenshot was that I didn't know how to do it and was waiting for instructions.  I informed Nathan of the problem with his signature easily half a dozen times, and explained exactly what the problem with it was (and this was before the debacle on his talk page).  Anyway, this issue is over.  Please, leave it alone (and that goes for Johnleemk as well---both of your edits are beginning to veer uncomfortably close to violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA).  Exploding Boy 23:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exloding Boy, please stop saying I know so little. I have been following the situation carefully. When did you tell Nathan that it was supposed to be "color" instead of "colour"? If you did know, why didn't you bring it up again when the discussion came up here. You're right, it's not selfish to ask someone to change their signature. It's selfish to ask someone to change their signature when you're the only one having a problem with it, and you won't show the problem. If you had known it was the color tags, then why didn't you say something on this RfC or talk page during this whole dabaccle when people asked you to upload a screenshot? I think it is obvious that no one else saw the problem, and you did nothing to help the situation by continuously telling Nathan to change his sig, while ignoring everyone else's comments. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Can we reduce this to its bare bones?
#Long sigs are silly but no big deal.
#Tony acted rude and disruptive.
#Any complaints about it get ignored or mocked.
#The people complaining get irritated.
#When they arc up in the slightest they get blocked.
Really, is it any wonder that there is some frustration here?  On the one hand we've got an admin who appears, to any impartial observer, to be trying as hard as possible to make a fuss and nothing happens to him.  But a 31 hour block for what, deleting one comment? C'mon. 144.53.251.2 03:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of your points are dealt with on the RfC.  How many good faith, non-abusive comments do you think it would be acceptable for a person to delete without running the risk of being blocked? --Tony Sidaway 03:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I unblocked him anyway. We'll keep a close eye on him for the time being. I think he's basically good, and he has made some assurances on his talk page not to be disruptive again. If you disagree with my actions, please don't hesitate to let me know, and we'll see what we can work out. Thanks. --You Know Who (Dark Mark) 04:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: : Removed from the comment because it's clearly not a good faith endorsement. --Tony Sidaway 02:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by Nathanrdotcom to Tony Sidaway's final response

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

message: Here is a possible solution to the problem. See User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Proposal_for_resolving_the_sig_problem. It will change long signatures in the edit mode to be just a link to the userpage, but will save it with the proper signature intact. This will allow those who don't like editing with longer signatures to not see them, without imposing their prefernces on everyone else. Please let this solve the problem. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 19:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What a great idea. I could almost have thought of it myself ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, now I'm not so certain it will work. If I'm looking at it right (which is in question because I know nothing about code and what not), to not appear full-length in the edit window to a person running this script, the person's signature has to have before it something like  (or something like that) I don't think that will impact enough signatures to provide the solution here. Chcknwnm (Chuck) 06:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Someone who is making a fancy sig can add this text in too. A polite talk page request should suffice. And we could add it to the sig guideline. Stephen B Streater 07:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just don't see this as a solution. Rather it's a way of exacerbating the problem by trying to ensure that even more completely unnecessary text will be added to signatures. Editors who don't use the secret magic decoder disk (the majority) will simply see yet more clutter in their edit windows.  Some editors will falsely believe that having this bit of extra clutter excuses their wanton abuse of Wikipedia by filling discussion pages up with unnecessarily long bits of html and wikicode at the end of their messages. --Tony Sidaway 12:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would you be happy if the "edit" link stripped out all the junk, and the "Save page" button restored it? This would allow an even more concise format for signatures during editing such as Stephen B Streater. This would cut your signature from 41 to 16 characters, for example. Stephen B Streater 12:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't want an option to restore junk to a discussion page.  That would be a very, very silly thing to have. --Tony Sidaway 12:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here is an example of why I might want it: it would allow me to shorten my sig on the page while allowing a simpler view during editing and also a link to my talk page eg St2. Stephen B Streater 13:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS In this scenario I could use my existing account name too: St2. Stephen B Streater 13:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  You have actually made your signature much longer.  Why do you regard that as a "solution"?  What's wrong with other editors simply editing out unnecessary clutter when they encounter it?  This is, after all, a wiki. --Tony Sidaway 13:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new one would be only three characters, reducing clutter on talk pages. And when you came to edit it, you would also see a shorter sig than my current one. This way talk pages have less clutter, edit pages have less clutter, and no one has to spend time refactoring. Stephen B Streater 13:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your alternative signature, "St2", is obviously much longer than "three characters" and indeed, at 133 characters, is nearly three times as long as your current 47-character signature.   You falsely claim that when I come to edit it I see a very short signature. I assure you that this is not the case.  And correct me if I'm wrong, but that's even before we take into account the extra clutter that you'd have to add to tell the script (which most people wouldn't be running) what to do. --Tony Sidaway 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a question of what you see. In my scenario, the edit page served would contain only the text "Stephen B Streater", and the normal non-edit view would be only three characters long, re-expanded by the submit button, so you would never see the long signature (except in the user preferences signature window, of course). Stephen B Streater 14:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  PS I'm proposing an improvement to the current system, not an improvement within the current system. I hope this is clearer. Stephen B Streater 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That depends on everyone running a bit of javascript, and everyone with a custom signature adding even more clutter to it.  While it's very inventive, I don't see what the encyclopedia gets out of the page bloat that would result from this.  It's simply not how we do things on a wiki.  Discussion pages are for discussion, not a place for spamming information that belongs on the user page. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Your view is common, but not universal. You would be helped by having all signatures short and consistent in edit windows. People could have short but complex sigs without causing clutter. And the more expressive people would also be happy. In short, everyone benefts to some extent. Stephen B Streater 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You keep saying that this would not cause clutter, but I don't see this.  Can't you see that this suggestion necessarily involves more clutter? --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If my proposal is carried out, I will see fewer characters on the screen in all cases, and a consistent set of signatures in edit mode. This is less clutter. I don't care if my computer has to do more work. It does thousands millions 5 billion calculations per second. It can tidy up the clutter and give me a concise and consistent view. Stephen B Streater 17:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This obviously isn't what would actually happen.  The vast majority of signatures would still be without the appropriate delimiter to enable the script to work, the vast majority of users would not have the code, and the effect would be more clutter for two reasons: firstly because you have to add more clutter to get it to work, and secondly because editors would insist that in adding this extra clutter they were therefore immune from all requests to act reasonably.  --Tony Sidaway 17:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My solution doesn't require any delimeters or user code. The extra substitutions would be made on the server, which would look for sigs and substitute them automatically for editing, in a similar way it does for ~~~~ currently. Stephen B Streater 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh then I've completely misunderstood you.  I thought you were supporting this proposal involving javascript and whatnot. Of course messing with the back end is doable.  Whether it actually needs to be done is another matter, but I'll leave that to the more active developers. --Tony Sidaway 18:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just hijacking the section to re-propose my earlier and (my experience selling software indicates) more viable suggestion which doesn't require any configuration or cooperation from apathetic users. The RfC conclusion suggests we don't need it urgently, but I understand there's more coming ;-) Stephen B Streater 18:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  I've just seen the Arbitration has receded. I'll keep my fix in reserve for a rainy day. Stephen B Streater 20:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think arbitration would have had a bearing on your technical ideas.  I suggest you raise the matter with someone like Rob Church. --Tony Sidaway 20:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible solution 

message: Tony Sidaway actually blocked me, any now im left with no account for a weak, and I didn't relise that Tony Sidaway was a bad user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.162.78 (talk • contribs) .
:For extreme incivilty, he is far from a "bad user". Highway Rainbow Sneakers 19:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This user? Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Iloveminun David D. (Talk) 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I blocked his sock account indefinitely because he was using it to evade a one-week block imposed by another administrator. --Tony Sidaway 19:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disappointment 

message: For anybody who doesn't like refactoring of discussions to include trimming their signatures, I've created the above page that they can sign. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Tony Sidaway/No refactor]]

message: I have to post this somewhere - if I posted this to WP:AN or WP:AN/I, I'd probably get laughed at (so I might as well get laughed at here instead). I seriously doubt this will even be respected, but I post it anyway.
A public note to Tony Sidaway:
I've noticed that you are constantly bringing up the signature issue (the fact I had a disruptive signature) whenever and whereever you please. I feel that you pay no mind to the fact that there is a human being on the other end with thoughts and feelings. It looks to me that unlike other admins, you don't care whose feelings you hurt and whose toes you step on as long as you make your point. By constantly dredging up the past, I feel that you're constantly having a dig at me and this is not at all constructive to building an encyclopedia.
So what, I had a disruptive signature and this was resolved. What constructive purpose does constantly throwing this in my face serve?
I would like this stopped immediately. I'm through asking, I'm through being polite. I've already requested this on your talk page and I've been ignored.
Tony, stop having a dig at me. It's not appreciated and I find it offensive. Bottom line, it's disruptive even more than any "disruption" you've ever accused me of. Please get back to building an encyclopedia.
Thank you. --nathanrdotcom 02:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add your name here, then. :) RadioKirk 02:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Does the length of the signature actually affect the ease of which a page is edited?
My estimate is that around 70% of all people that visit wikipedia either don't make any edits or don't look at talk pages (or both). Of those that do, they should know about such things as section editing - which immediately makes pages far more "editable" - and the indent process - which I shall detail below - due to the simple fact that these things are mentioned approximately everywhere.
If the problem is that long signature codes make it harder to see where one response ends and another begins, a far simpler solution would be to simply put spaces in the code between replies; thus...
:One reply.
::A second reply, made with a space between the two replies.
::The second reply also spans multiple paragraphs; no spaces should be added between them.
::This is because it's fairly easy - even with long paragraphs - to spot the colons indicating the new indent.
:::A third reply, which puts yet another space between any two given replies.
This solution would have essentially the same effect, but with far less dickery on anyone's part.
75.182.89.73 (talk) 13:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important question