Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User name games

My intention is to solicit community imput on recent trends in user signatures on Wikipedia. It appears that some time ago, people started to realise that they could play around with the appearance of their signatures; this has resulted in increasing... what might be called "artistry"... in user signatures.

Some users have exploited this feature to make small puns (for example, user:Theresa Knott has regularly added anagrams of her user name to her signature. Others have made visual jokes or made use of colours, small images, and font changes in their signatures.  I don't have a problem with any of this.

Other users, however, have begun altering their signatures in such a way that it becomes difficult or impossible to tell which user has posted a given remark. These have included unpronouceable ascii art, among other things. Most recently, User:Sam Spade (who regularly changes his signature) has begun using a signature that not only doesn't include his user name, but doesn't even link to his user page, talk page, or email, but rather links to Template:Open task.

I object to this for several reasons. First, playing around with signatures in this manner makes it much easier for trolls and vandals to take advantage and impersonate registered users or get up to other mischief. But more importantly, it becomes exceedingly difficult to keep track of a given user, or to differentiate a given user's edits from those of other users, which makes tracking and dealing with vandals that much more difficult.

Comments, please. Exploding Boy 20:07, August 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * :I think that "malicious" is where the line should be drawn. -Ril-, who's sig was: ~, was deliberately confusing. Sam Spade's is mildly annoying but not malicious. He should be a good boy and link it to his userpage. Of course, this RFC will probably make him even more recalcitrant. I have a symbol after my sig which I'm sure some dislike, but tough cookies. --goethean &#2384; 20:32, 26 August 2005 (UTC) I thought you  were talking about SS's old sig...his new one misled me, too. --goethean &#2384; 20:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

I love creativity. I enjoy Sam's humor. But it is not a signature if it doesn't identify. WAS 4.250 03:29, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My point exactly. Exploding Boy 03:30, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that signatures should link to the user's user page, and include the full or abbreviated name of the user as latin text. When going through five-year old talk pages trying to figure out what some old fuss was about, nobody is going to remember who ~ or Tasks you can do or some Chinese character is supposed to mean. Sigs are meant to identify, though they may be designed creatively, they are not meant to be a platform for advocacy, anonymity, iconoclasm, or churlishness. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Signatures are meant to serve as easily recognizable, unique identifiers. Any other use is a misuse. If Sam wants to be seen as special or set himself apart from others editors, he should find another way that does not circumvent the function of sigs. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I will add that I have been in a particularly reptilian mood lately and have thought of changing my sig accordingly. Shall I join the bandwagon? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

One may place unsigned at the end of an unsigned remark. If it does not identify it is not a signiture. WAS 4.250 01:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree with Exploding Boy and Uninvited. Barno 18:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

For what it is worth; Sam is now signing with a signature that identifies. WAS 4.250 00:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm glad he's chosen to do so. Since this RFC was never only about Sam it's useful to have a record of the community's thoughts on the matter as it'll probably come up again in the future.  Exploding Boy 00:52, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * The history feature tells all. If you are that annoyed, add notes after their posts stating who actually did the posting once you find out from the page history. People should be free to sig however they want, though maybe it should invalidate votes. Ravedave 14:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As long as it links to the correct userpage and is in within the bounds of decency and logic, it doesn't bother me. --Merovingian (t) (c) 14:30, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

In this case one user objected to my adding notes containing their user name to their posts. Having to check the page history is a pain, and for a new and inexperienced user it might be very difficult to discover who a poster is. This particular user's signature was not linking to his user page, or his talk page or his email, but to a template page. It would be like my signing a post with. Exploding Boy 16:28, September 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Isn't this mostly covered in Sign your posts on talk pages? (I realize that the annoyance is more on high-traffic places like AFD than on talk pages, however.) &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Thanks for providing that link. Exploding Boy 21:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)