Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Signatures of living persons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Inclusion in BLP policy

[edit]

See wt:BLP#Images of signatures. -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-07t07:40z

Too many "tiny guidelines". Better to be added as one sentence to WP:BLP and discussed on its talk page. FT2 (Talk | email) 12:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with FT2; no need for a specific guideline here. Let's discuss the details at the WT:BLP page (and WP:VPP). We can redirect this title to the appropriate section of WP:BLP. TheFeds 19:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like it and think Fences and windows is creating something worthwhile and informative and we should take a look when it is formed. The issue of signatures is rampant and out of control and is in need of something detailed to help users understand the issues. Off2riorob (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm done expanding and tweaking for now. IANAL, so take this all with a pinch of salt. Fences&Windows 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with any proposal to mandate removal of signatures if subjects complain. For some subjects, where the signature played some significant role in their life, the signature is not frivolous decoration, and adds substantially to the article's educational value. For example, they may have been at some point defrauded and their signature was relevant to the prosecution. Nobody should have veto power over such a signature. Dcoetzee 21:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you expecting issues like that to affect many articles (BLPs) are there some examples you can think of? I think that living people who have a signature that is well out there in the public domain would never ask for removal. Have you seen the other discussion at the pump all related to the request from the green party to remove the signatures from their politicians articles? Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen any concrete examples where I imagine the signature is particularly important, but I'm uncomfortable in general with the idea of anyone having "veto power" over any of the content of an article - if the signature is frivolous decoration, it shouldn't be included in the first place. If not, nobody should be able to force us to remove it. I would support providing a clear justification of importance for the use of the signature of any living person where such signature is not already available in widely-published sources. Dcoetzee 22:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would support adding that in the text also. Editors should provide clear justification of importance for the use of the signature of any living person where such signature is not already available in widely-published sources.Off2riorob (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a comment as per this discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Removals

[edit]

Commons directs people to OTRS if they want them removed, perhaps we should try to do the same to streamline the process a little bit. Peachey88 (Talk Page · Contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added link and comment regarding OTRS. Off2riorob (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Dignity" argument seems dubious

[edit]

I think that interpreting the UN Declaration of Human Rights to be a manifesto for open-ended censorship is unreasonable. I know I've seen this argument elsewhere, but to me it seems as crank an argument as anything the American militias have promulgated. The call for dignity is a call for people not to be harassed and demeaned by governmental forces - like if the TSA sent you to a special locked waiting room at the airport with no bathroom access and offered public access to the live video feed. I certainly can't see it as a ban on copying signatures. Wnt (talk) 01:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is wording we use at Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues. It's also repeated on Wikimedia Commons. I didn't just come up with it de novo. It's not a ban on anything, it's a reminder to editors to remember morality when editing. It's too easy to intrude on privacy because we can. Fences&Windows 19:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think much of it there either. But in the hypothetical case I outline above, I can see why a public image archive might feel reluctant to be used in some pattern of government humiliation of a target group. Although when the actual case came up, as in the Lynndie England photographs, most organizations including Wikipedia choose to use the photos [though I see there is a sexual-censorship issue outstanding here though not Commons]. But reproducing a simple signature doesn't even conceivably lead to the humiliation (or loss of dignity) of a target person. So whatever your opinions on the larger argument, I don't think this belongs here. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the wording, I put it together quickly. Reach for that "Edit" button! Fences&Windows 21:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

legitimate purpose of autograph exemplars

[edit]

Many people collect autographs - and many books show exemplars of actual, secretarial and auto-pen autographs of living people. For such people who use such (including almost all celebrities, political figures, athletes, astronauts etc.), there is no reason not to allow the specimens in their articles. If a person produces autographs which are sold in any substantial number, they have no privacy claim on the image <g>. Otherwise, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs. No policy which ignores this legitimate use should be adopted. Collect (talk) 11:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So edit the proposal to add this caveat. Fences&Windows 23:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this claim? An autograph of a living person is a hand written real thing, a tracing of a claimed autograph published through wikipedia is a totally different thing and what is encyclopedic about it? Why is it suggested that we have to publish tracings of claimed signatures of living people so as not to infringe on these users wanting this? I just don't get this issue at all. This is the comment I would like explaining, WP would be stopping something which is of encyclopedic value to anyone collecting autographs , what is encyclopedic value in a claimed tracing of an unpublished signature? and are you suggesting that wikipedia has a duty to the people that collect tracings of such things to publish such things? Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that multiple reliable sources contain such material, that the exemplars are found in scholarly works and other encyclopedias, on what basis ought WP be more restrictive than other tertiary sources and secondary sources? Clearly once multiple reliable sources have such, why ought we not include them? Collect (talk) 14:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple wikipedia reliable sources contain someones verifiable signature and the living person was publishing it there would be no reason to remove it, would there. Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The initial wording did not recognize that - so I emended the wording, which I am sure will be acceptable. BTW, I am prety sure WMF does not want "legal issues" being raised, as a matter of legal concerns on their part (recalling a letter from Mr. Godwin applying to an earlier talk pageon BLPs). Collect (talk) 14:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely"

[edit]

How is "widely" defined, when you say signatures must be used "widely" in reliable secondary sources? Isn't it sufficient that a signature is simply available from these sources? Wnt (talk) 12:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think "widely" may be a problematic word - does it mean one source widely held by libraries is sufficient? That a dozen small books not held by any library becomes sufficient? Etc. I would suggest "readily" is more in line with WP policies elsewhere. Collect (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Widely" is avoided because it is ambiguous: does it refer to a single source with distribution on a global internet site or in print in over a a million copies per issue, or to at least two (or three) sources even it those sources are obscure academic publications, or behind paywalls? "Readily" applies to the former and not the latter. patsw (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All signatures are primary sources

[edit]

This page is misusing the term 'primary source'. All signatures, no matter how many times they've been copied, are primary sources for what the signature looks like. It is not actually possible for a signature to become a secondary source, no matter how the source handles it.

I realize that this is a poorly understood area, and that Wikipedia has done a particularly poor job of explaining primary/secondary sources to editors in the past. You might find it helpful to read WP:Party and person. In the meantime, rather than telling editors that they might misuse "primary" sources, I suggest that you list specific examples of inappropriate sources, such as credit card receipts, court documents, etc., that they should never scan signatures from. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Some signatures (a very small number indeed) are found in secondary sources and can rightly be called secondary sourced. Examples I can immediately think of are John Hancock and Walt Disney, where the reproduction of their signatures is for purposes beyond the identification of the signature itself. I'll invent a term and call them iconic signatures. patsw (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The signature itself is always a primary source for what the signature looks like. It might be found in a source that is generally reckoned as a secondary or tertiary source, but every signature (and every reproduction of that signature) actually is a primary source for what the signature looks like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly, by this definition a quote in a book would be a primary source so could not be used as it is "found in" a source. The whole point of the distinction is that if an independent source reproduces a signature from a primary document, that's some indication that the signature itself is of importance. A signature simply lifted from a primary document won't be. WhatamIdoing is playing semantic games. Fences&Windows 21:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles about photographs and paintings. Those are primary sources. But we only have articles if they are discussed in secondary sources. Agathoclea (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agathoclea is right: Photographs, paintings, and signatures are all primary sources for what the photo/painting/signature looks like. If the photo/painting/signature/whatever is discussed in a secondary source, then that is an indication of importance, but that does not turn the object itself into a secondary source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on BLPSIGN as official policy

[edit]
CLOSED:

No consensus for BLPSIGN to become a policy or guideline. Concern raised about potential misuse and general low encyclopaedic value, though there is a loose acceptance for some limited use in some instances - and this can be worked out on a case by case basis on the article talkpage. This essay to be marked as a low importance Guidance essay as there was some acceptance of the amendments. SilkTork ✔Tea time 01:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I hereby request the comment of users, regarding the proposed policy, WP:BLPSIGN. I hope that this RfC discusses one important question among others: What is the risk of harm to a living person if we host a faithful reproduction of their signature? and also gain consensus regarding what BLPSIGN should say and then decide if it should be an official policy. Thank you for participating. Regards, Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting a signature sounds like a bad idea to me. Where is the main discussion on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given the point made in the project page about international and, in the United States, for example, even different jurisdictions, it would appear to me to be a bad idea. I would feel somewhat more neutral about the subject if it was that of someone who is no longer living, but for a BLP policy, I concur that it goes beyond the realm of providing information (speaking as a biographer). The Wikipedia has enough risks already, with some editors either including contentious information without reference in some articles, not to mention issues with copyright violation. Please err on the side of caution. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to have their signatures, even if they are still living. So long as the image is not super high quality, it is just so people can see how they signed and perhaps if something was actually signed by them. Sumsum2010·T·C 22:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Replying to the question: "What is the risk of harm to a living person if we host a faithful reproduction of their signature?", the risk is that someone will use the image from WP and perform some act of forgery or counterfeiting. As for possible changes to the WP:BLPSIGN, that is a tough one. I can see a few options:
  1. Permit signatures for all living persons
  2. Permit signatures only for famous personages (celebrities, politicians, athletes) that routinely give autographs, or whose signature is likely to be collectible/famous
  3. Prohibit signatures of all living persons.
Off hand, I'd agree with MartinH above: it just seems fishy to be publicly displaying signatures: it's an invitation to forge contracts and so on. On the other hand, I can see how, say, Barak Obama's signature could be displayed, since it is widely reproduced in many places anyway. --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think some variant of #2 is the best option, though weaken "only" to something like "normally only". Public officials (such as presidents who sign bills into law), artists, and many other kinds of celebrities use their signature in their public life in connection with the activities for which they are notable. Some (such as fashion designers) may even go so far as to use some variant of their signature promotionally, like a logo, or it may have been incorporated into a public monument, like the autographs and hand/footprints at Grauman's Chinese Theatre. In these cases, this means not only that reproducing it on Wikipedia has absolutely no risk to their privacy or otherwise, but also that its representation is reasonably encyclopedic information.

In all other cases involving the signatures of living people, there should be a case-by-case determination of both the relative public availability of their signature (i.e., if you have to get it from a court document, then it's not public in any meaningful way) and its informational value to the subject's article. Though that determination may just be equivalent to the first rule that I stated. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally find the idea of adding signatures to articles, whether the person is living or dead, to be rather stupid. I understand how they appeal to some people, but I still find it to be a waste of space. That being said, option 2 is the most sensible of the lot, even though it will inevitabally lead to bickering over whether specific people qualify or not. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on the first point; hosting signatures seems to me like putting a toe over the 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information' line. However, I'll concede that articles concerning presidents, fashion designers, and the like could benefit from the display of their signatures. As for 'bickering over...[the signatures of] specific people', perhaps a rigid stratification could be put in order (president = signature, athlete = no signature). Of course, when you take into account special cases like Pelé, whose signature (presumably) is right on his shirt, then we have a problem with the rigid stratification...but then again, how do you quantify how well-known a signature is? You can't, so my idea stands. Sorry for the rambling; arguing thusly is a bad habit of mine and also it's 00h44. 21655 T/01 04:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing just this section so I didn't see #Categorizing signatures below. Wow, I suck at coming up with ideas. 21655 T/01 04:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always at a complete loss to understand the argument that we need rigid, arbitrary and abstract rules to avoid people having to discuss what to do in particular cases. It's rather antithetical to how editing (should) work here (WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, WP:CONSENSUS, etc.), and while a rule that offers no guidance has no utility, the goal of a rule shouldn't be to squelch disagreement and override all contrary judgments (or even preclude the possibility of forming a judgment through a discussion process, or "bickering" as some would have it).

I don't see any benefit (or indeed, rationale) to categorically excluding any profession, such as athletes: if your signature has been published on the front of a Wheaties box, there aren't any good arguments that there's a privacy concern in reproducing it here. postdlf (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I suck at coming up with ideas.
This discussion may help in deciding. Connormah (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the signature itself is extremely notable for some reason, such as the signature of John Hancock, or is part of a logo, I see no reason to display people's signatures at all. Other than in the above cases or perhaps a scarce few others, it seems like unnecessary trivia at best and a serious privacy violation at worst. Ibanez100 (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err on the side of caution: I think Ibanez100 has a good point: A lot of signatures are really a trivial addition - they do not help the reader learn much more from an encyclopædia article. Considering the possible downsides of including a signature, I think we should err on the side of caution for most BLPs. However, where the signature itself is interesting or has historical relevance in some way, it might be worth including. The signature of a TV presenter is a pointless addition to an article, but a politician's signature on a treaty might be very interesting. bobrayner (talk) 07:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like WP:BLPSIGN's distinction between primary and secondary sources. In a way, this allows third parties to discriminate on our behalf, between what is a relevant or an irrelevant signature, avoiding disputes on-wiki. Almost everybody leaves a trail of signatures on primary documents, but only in a few cases does a secondary source think the signature is worth highlighting. bobrayner (talk) 07:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caution is the way to go. Where the signature has major relevance it can be included and it should have something to do with secondary sources taking note of it. Dzlife (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do just want to draw debate participants' attention to the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 August 2. (I believe that the wording of this RFC may have come from my post therein.) I do not see a pressing reason why it's necessary to include signatures in articles about living people, but I do see ways in which the signatures could be misused. I think this is a clear case where the very small benefit to Wikipedia is far outweighed by a risk of potentially very serious harm to a living person.—S Marshall T/C 00:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested guideline - Based on the comments above, a possible guideline that may strike a good balance is the following:
Generally, signatures of living persons may not be reproduced in Wikipedia. A signature of a living person may be included if all of the following conditions are met: (1) The subject has publicly published their own signature; (2) Secondary sources have reproduced the signature, with the subject's consent; (3) The image of the signature is from a reliable source, and (4) The signature is directly relevant to the article in which it is displayed."
I've put this text in the project page, since it is clearer and more precise than the comparable text that was there before. If anyone wants to modify it, go right ahead. --Noleander (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I agree with S Marshall and others - the detriments of using BLP signatures outweigh the benefits in most cases. Also, I know for a fact that the WMF legal department has to deal with this issue from time to time, so it would be nice if we passed this policy so that they could work on more important things. Kaldari (talk) 22:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the comment above that hosting signatures in general is unencyclopedic and trivial. It's a classic case of infobox creep, where hosting a few notable signatures (John Hancock's and Thomas Jefferson's) leads to an expectation that every article is incomplete without the "signature" field being filled in. The signature images that get uploaded are usually unsourced, which goes against our verifiability policy. They're usually PNGs that get poorly traced over as SVG paths, for some ungodly reason, which essentially turns them into crude forgeries. And people are going to keep doing it until we tell them not to. This whole thing falls under "indiscriminate collection of information". If the person's signature is actually worth including, it can fit in the article, not the infobox, and its significance can be sourced, just as we do with "fair use" images. We should certainly get rid of them for BLPs, since as I mentioned the existence of a few verifiable signatures produces a glut of unverifiable fakes. Then we should get rid of them for all but the most important cases. —Designate (talk) 11:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the eradication of signatures based on perceived importance. They are far from unencyclopedic, and I would posit that they provide readers with a level of detail that they have come to expect.   — C M B J   12:58, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing signatures

[edit]

In discussing this, I do not refer to Wikipedia article categories, but to the signatures themselves. Does these categories help? Is there need to refine them? For the sake of completeness, I don't make the living/dead distinction.

I know there's overlap in these categories. People like Paul Revere might be in all three. The persons in these categories have no expectation that their signature is private. For me, that expectation of privacy is the critical consideration in formulating a guideline here. patsw (talk) 11:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A counter argument in this case, we cannot distinguish the notability of the signatures of people into an "Iconic" category because if a person is notable, he has an article on Wiki, meaning that both Barack Obama and, say, Aneesh Chopra fall into the same category. Either a person is notable, or he's not. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a term of art we use in the Wikipedia to determine if a topic should have a stand-alone article. If you mean it in that sense, every BLP article is, by definition, the biography of a notable living person. My reference to iconic refers to the signature and not to the signer. As I mentioned earlier, there are relatively few iconic signatures. patsw (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that the signature of a head of state on a law would fall under the "public signatures" category? Rlendog (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would first ask whether there is something about 'the signature itself', not the person, that is notable or interesting in some way. It might be a signature on a historic document; it might be part of a brand or logo; it might be on famous works of art; I don't really care. The fact that a signature is "collectable" is not really sufficient as there are people out there who collect any damn thing; there's a "collectibles" vendor near my house with one window full of signed photos of obscure 1980s sportspeople &c who would barely pass the GNG themselves. bobrayner (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that this proposed WP guideline is focusing only on signatures of living persons. Many of the examples above are dead, and their signatures can be included in WP almost without limit, and thus don't affect this proposed guideline at all. If you want to give examples to help clarify this proposed guideline, it would be better to use living persons, like Colin Powell, Barry Bonds, Lady Gaga, etc. --Noleander (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why this proposal was written

[edit]

I thought linking to the original discussion might help: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 77#Signatures. Images of signatures of New Zealand Green MPs had been uploaded and we received complaints: User talk:Adabow/Archive 4#File:David Clendon signature.jpg; commons:Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard/Archive 9#Catherine Delahunty signature. The signatures that sparked the complaint are still hosted at Commons as they don't see a problem: commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:David Clendon signature.jpg. Fences&Windows 20:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is now closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hosting images of living people's signatures

[edit]

Having no policy or guidance for Wikipedia hosting of images of living people’s signatures seems highly unsatisfactory to me. This essay only seems to deal with linking to these sort of images, and anyway it is only an essay. If you (not notable and without a WP biography) write me a letter and I scan your signature and upload it without your knowledge I have infringed no policy or guidance and the only recourse may be for you to request deletion. Am I correct?

From an ethical point of view this seems to me to be an invasion of privacy like uploading a photograph of someone taken in a private place as discussed at Privacy rights in the Image use policy. This is without regard to any security risk. Am I right in thinking that someone's photograph taken in a private place is deleted even if the photograph is declared to be free and is widely available? I am wondering about signature images on web sites without (reliable) information about whether the subjects have given permission.

Is there any support in trying to develop this essay into a guideline which gives general advice such as at present but which also includes stronger requirements against some rather limited types of unsatisfactory use of signatures? Would it be better to seek to change at WP:Image_use_policy#Privacy_rights or even WP:CSD#F11? Thincat (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

d:Property:P109

[edit]

How to link this essay, so it can be accessed from d:Property:P109? Do properties on WikiData have a way of adding "guidance" about their proper usage? --Andrybak (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. PRIVACY
27.124.95.236 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This essay needs some TLC

[edit]

I wrote a tl:dr post here, but I have some concerns about this essay.

It provides the advice that the signature should be removed and the OTRS team notified, but it doesn't explain why the OTRS team should be notified. (The text was added by someone who has not edited recently so I cannot ask them.)

I initially guessed it was because of the OTRS role in verifying identity, thinking that we shouldn't be responding to an anonymous request to remove some information without verifying that the request actually came from the subject or their representative. However, if that guess were correct, then it would suggest contacting OTRS first, and only after receiving confirmation of identity from the subject, would the editor then remove the signature. Because it suggests removing the signature then contacting OTRS, it may be that the contact for OTRS is for some other reason.

As an active OTRS agent, I thought it would be obvious to me why OTRS is mentioned, but I haven't yet figured it out.

In the linked thread, it appears (but this is an inference) that the reason for contact was for rev del, but if you want rev del that's not the place to contact.

If the concern is identity theft, which is a very legitimate concern, the cure is removal of the image from Commons, not removal of the link to the image in the Wikipedia article. Obviously, Wikipedia doesn't have the authority to instruct Commons to remove an image but somebody ought to be coordinating with Commons to make sure our policies and guidelines are in sync, and if Commons agrees that deletion is warranted in these situations, this essay should be identifying how to request that deletion.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying about Commons is someone else's problem. Of course an editor might like to raise the topic over there, but as I recall discussions, people here could not see an encyclopedic reason to include signatures in articles. There are the usual exceptions for where the signature might have been discussed in reliable sources, and for pages like Barack Obama where the signature and pens used for signing become objects of media fascination. I don't know why OTRS is mentioned, but one thought might be that if someone says "I represent John Smith and he wants this signature in his article", their request is non-actionable unless OTRS confirms it, which would require Smith to contact OTRS, and the query to OTRS would be to ask if such a request had been made. Even if confirmed, I think there should be a reason based on encyclopedic merit to include Smith's signature. There was a case years ago where an SPA got signatures from various places and posted them in many infoboxes. After much turmoil they were removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as commons goes, see c:Commons:Courtesy deletions and c:Commons:Courtesy deletions/2, which is basically what removing a non-copyright-able signature would amount to. But keeping the thing on Commons doesn't really raise big issues as far as I can see. I would expect that if someone is savvy enough to find it on commons, they're probably savvy enough to find it on the internet period, as it was originally found on put on commons. The "barrier to entry" for a Wikipedia article in comparison is much much lower. GMGtalk 18:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I would add that the easiest thing to do here would be to add signatures explicitly to WP:BLPPRIVACY and largely call it a day. GMGtalk 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled]

[edit]

Why include a living person's signature on Wikipedia profile? This is utterly confusing and unnecessary. Classless not something I should expect from Wikipedia. NO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.200.34 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Signatures_of_living_persons&oldid=1243866671"