Forum:Proposed amendment: Signatures

I wish to make the following amendment to the Signature policy:


 * Names used in signatures must be consistent with the wikia username. Users should not use alternate names when signing edits.

Several users have different names they sign with, occasionally changing it entirely. It's causing significant confusion as the name presented on the page is not the same as the username on the their userpage. On the small scale, this presents problems in knowing how to send a message to. In wiki procedures, it becomes immensely difficult to track down who contributed. This in turn affects processes such as RfAs and UotMs, when users have to be nominated by their wikia username. For example, many users will not know that "TimSim" is actually User:Darthkenobi0; and I myself did not realise who User:Raven's wing was until I stumbled across a recent edit, thinking that he was some random nobody putting in an RfA.

The gist is that there's no reason why your signature name should be different to your username. It makes it far easier to contact and refer to people when names are consistent, plus it gives editors due credit for their contributions and recognition by the wiki. --Scottie theNerd 13:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: This should also cover signatures that include phrases or quotes. Signatures should only contain the user's name, not a fancy one-liner like "You call down the thunder, and I'll reap the lightning ". --Scottie theNerd 15:09, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It is confusing to other users (new ones; older ones; etc...). It should have their username. So yeah, well... Per Scottie's reasons above. --CodExpert
 * I don't agree. I think users should be free to go by whatever they like. If it causes confusion, then the confusion can be cleared up. --Cpl. Dunn 13:58, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, how can it be cleared up? It's like, what if my signature is CpL_DuNn. That would be very confusing to users. --CodExpert
 * There is a policy stating that you can't have a username (and by extension a custom sig) that's extremely similar to another user's. Though I do get your point. Chief z 14:32, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dunn, the confusion is is that if a new user clicks on a sig link to a talk page and it says "TimSim" then they'd be confused if it came up with Darthkenobi's page, and thus would begin searching for "TimSim". There's no way that will end. I also agree with Scottie on all counts. Cpl. Wilding 14:21, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I guess I agree with that. 14:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I never really had a problem with different-name sigs. If it did confuse me I'd just hover over the link and the user's real name would pop up. I guess I'm neutral on this one: I have no problem with them and I don't use a custom sig. Chief z 14:32, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The only problem with that is that not everybody knows that trick. Even I've forgotten it time to time and I've been using my current computer for three years. What would a new user who doesn't know that think when they see a custom signature without the user's name in it? Cpl. Wilding 14:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * In the words of General Shepherd, that wasn't a suggestion. I was merely stating my opinon on the matter. Although, to be blunt, if anyone is smart enough to use a computer, let alone find this site, I'm sure they're aware of basic hover functions, or at least can put two and two together. Yes, you've forgotten them from time to time (I myself have lapses in computer knowledge), but you still remembered it, right? Chief z 14:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with this one, when I first saw this "TimSim" signature, I was just surprised. I thought it was a new user, but it turns out to be just Darth. But after seeing it tons of times, you can just get used to it.  Munchable901  |TALK?  14:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely. It's just plain confusing and honestly quite annoying. 14:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well in my opinion having a different signature to your name is confusing but it is up to the user. Maybe you should have on your userpage something along the lines as: Hi! I'm...... Also known as..... AdvancedRookie 14:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * However, it won't appear in the signature. People won't click on a username to find out who someone really is. This isn't a masquerade; there's no reason to hide our online identities. You have 100% choice on your username, so why insist on being called something else? It makes no practical sense; this is a wiki, not a forum. Signatures indicate who has written what comment. They're not meant to look cool or express individuality or personal preferences. Why give users the choice of using a different name when they already have the choice of creating their own? --Scottie theNerd 15:07, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be ok if it is something like my signature:  Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk? 15:46, June 28, 2010 (UTC) ?
 * I personally have something against long signatures, but it's fine in my eyes. It has your name. --Scottie theNerd 15:51, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Place your cursor over the link and it shows you who it is, that's what I do. I oppose this if people are too lazy to simply do that. TimSim (talk) 16:49, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed -
 * Why should every user have to mouse over a signature to see who really made the edit? Sure, there are multiple ways to find out: through links, through the history page, through recent changes and watchlists. But at the basic level of editing, when you see someone sign off their post, you assume that's who they are. It's difficult to accuse people of being lazy when using several different names is what's causing the complication. --Scottie theNerd 17:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * It takes one, maybe two, seconds to do that. As the old adage goes "When you assume, is makes an ass out of u and me". I've never had any trouble finding out who someone is, I put my cursor and it displays the page that's linked. I don't have to look at history, click the link, or otherwise find out, a popout shows me who it is, sure I'm in favor of people using their account names, but I oppose any sort of policy forcing them to do so. TimSim (talk) 17:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Darth you've changed your name from DarthKenobi to Warpig to TimSim. Forgive me, but that is pretty confusing. I don't think it's a problem if people announce the name change, but doing it unannounced can cause small problems, and I'm all for banning the quotes. Smuff 17:42, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a placeholder until I come up with a new idea, if this makes you feel good
 * (EC)Are you seriously suggesting that it's naive to assume that people who sign their comments are actually who they are? Yes, it takes a second to verify someone's identity. Anyone can do that. My argument concerns why people have to do take that step in the first place. In addition, my point stands regarding processes such as UotM and RfA, in which users will make judgement on candidates without knowing that they contribute under a different name. Why would you want to sign with something that is not your username? If everyone on the wiki had an alternate name, we'd have a terrible time referring to people by name. We have to deal with people who go under different names and change their names frequently. --Scottie theNerd 17:45, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's an example on Bord's archives when Jounin impersonated Griever to tell him off. Also, I edit alot on my iPad, so the coursor doesn't work for me very well when I'm on it. Smuff 17:54, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Impersonation is a different matter, and is not allowed under any circumstances. This primarily concerns users changing their own names for different purposes. --Scottie theNerd 17:56, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying it's naive to assume anything. I understand what you mean about UoTM and RFAs, but I oppose a general policy. One stating that for votes or other official discussions one must sign using their account name, I would support, but for casual conversation I see nothing wrong with allowing users to call themselves by a nickname. TimSim is short for Timothy Simons, my assumed internet identity, Warpig312 is my gamertag. Darthkenobi0 ^ (talk) 17:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I see nothing wrong with having one name and hitting the signature button for every comment. Instead, most users are more interested in making bigger and better signatures, and alternating names is part of that. I'm not campaigning against custom sigs, but you are the prime example of why I think we need consistent usernames. You've contributed under three different names and likely you're going to think of more; and you are one of thousands of users. If you really want to have one template for business and one for casual conversation, go for it. I think it's silly and unnecessary to sign under a different name than the one you created. --Scottie theNerd 18:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In-fact I do use two different ones, generally, but on the wiki I'm known as Tim, Darth, and Kenobi, I stopped using Warpig because it confused people. Honestly, I prefer sticking to one of those three names so I'm recognized, and I honestly don't like these fancy signatures, I prefer simple signatures and rarely keep a fancy one. And just because there's nothing wrong with one name, does not mean there's something wrong with going by a few. Darthkenobi0 ^ (talk)  or  I have them both.
 * I change my sig every so often, but do not use 1 for blogs, one for talk etc.etc. Emblem-rank-sgt1.jpgSgt. Bravo  Rider 18:14, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * "I agree completely. It's just plain confusing and honestly quite annoying. SkullRod SkullRod 14:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)"
 * ^ Is basicly my point of view. Doltensig.jpeg 18:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think such an addition should be a bit more lenient. Instead of demanding that signatures "must be consistent with the wikia username", I think it should be closer to saying that signatures "must be identifiable to the user". Rs4life07, for example, went by "Bigm2793", which was his RuneScape username that most people already knew him by. If the existing community would be able to very quickly to catch on and new users would find out who it is easily, then I don't see it as a problem.

Darth, who many of us still refer to as such, is already known as "Warpig" by many, so I think it would be reasonable to let that be a signature, but going to "TimSim" is something that perhaps very few would realize at first and would seem random to the rest. 18:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC) (Edit conflict)


 * Like Chia said, users who go by aliases different from their username are fine, so long as the majority of people know who that person is. It doesn't help anyone if someone changes his or her signature name every week, and only makes things more confusing. So I do agree to some extent with what you're saying Scottie. 23:26, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * How would we establish the point that said user has adopted an alias? --Scottie theNerd 04:40, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I for one cannot see a really good reason for using aliases at all. Users who change their signature all the time can get quite annoying. The reasoning of "you can always float above a signature to find out who it is" is a waste foe time and effort. I don't mind custom signatures as I use one myself but I don't change my name, I like people to see who I am right off. Again as I said, there really is no good reason to use an alias. Just an opinion.  Talk 09:29, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all said above. Having a signature that is not akin to your username for any reason baffles me. For instance, upon seeing Darthkenobi0's "TimSim" I thought to myself: "Wait... what?" Shotrocket6 09:49, June 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. I was like, Wait, what? A new user that contributes to the wiki so much and can vote in the War Room? What? I was really confused with that one. ANd with the Warpig one too, to be honest... Commander W567123daniel Wanna Talk?

I believe that users should not use other names, per Scottie. It only creates confusion. Also to Darth, hovering over names is a quick and easy way to find out who a user's real name is. But if I have to get in the habit of doing that for every user on a talk page, it isn't very efficient. LITE992 14:58, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. People putting on different names in their signatures seems conter-intuitive. The whole point to signing is so people know who said what. If you're using a different name, people aren't going to know it's you unless they hover or click. I say it's vote time.  Poketape Talk  05:19, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Vote
Let's vote on the issue and get it over quickly. All in favor of forcing people to have their real names in their signatures should support.

Support Signatures are for people to be known, not to change aliases.  Poketape Talk  05:19, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - --Scottie theNerd 05:35, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - for the reasons I gave above  Talk  05:38, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - hell, I'm against forcing them when it's casual conversation, but honestly I can see the confusion, got my support. Darthkenobi0 ^ (talk) 06:08, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. 07:37, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all. LITE992 13:15, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per all, bros. Shotrocket6 13:26, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support- Per Allnlm gr  13:40, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Support-  Per all. Lozza U T C