On this question, the asker initially included a signature. This was later edited out by a high-rep user. Then, the asker edited the signature back in.

The asker's rep is low enough that he/she probably doesn't know that signatures are frowned on (and didn't take the hint when it was edited out).

Possible courses of action in the future:

  1. flag for moderator attention
  2. edit post
  3. edit post + add comment pointing to FAQ
  4. whine on meta (check)


  • A somewhat-related discussion that may interest you: Make it harder to roll back a moderator edit Jan 16, 2012 at 16:04
  • edit post + add comment pointing to FAQ That. After you posted this, another user removed the signature again, so I went ahead and left the comment myself.
    – yannis
    Jan 16, 2012 at 16:06
  • But, if you notice a repeating behaviour, flag, flag, flag!
    – yannis
    Jan 16, 2012 at 16:12
  • Related.. Good idea not to go for the sarcastic humor angle in your question.
    – user1228
    Jan 16, 2012 at 18:33
  • 1
    @jadarnel27: lol, didn't see you already pimped my question!
    – user1228
    Jan 16, 2012 at 18:34

3 Answers 3


Please just flag this behaviour for the mods to deal with, there's no point getting into an edit war over it. We can put a lock on the question to prevent it happening again should the OP not get the message.

  • Accepting this answer because it's from a mod. Jan 17, 2012 at 13:48

I'd say edit it again, and post a comment. Flagging seems way too much at this point, especially if you can make him realize that there's a rule on the signatures.

  • 2
    Agreed. Edit again, post a nice comment, if you're in the mood add some links to Meta discussion on the topic.
    – Pekka
    Jan 16, 2012 at 16:33
  • 1
    Certainly do flag if the behavior continues after the situation has been explained to the user however.
    – Ben Brocka
    Jan 16, 2012 at 16:43

At the end of the day, the person asking a question fundamentally "owns" that question. While I appreciate the rule against un-needed cruft on posts in SE, I have to say that I'm conflicted about making it more difficult to roll back posts when you own a question.

I can't help thinking that there is potential for someone to edit a question in good faith and change the meaning of it - at that point it should not be difficult for the person who asked the question to say "no, that's not what I meant at all" and roll things back. And I don't see how you can tell the intention behind a rollback. (And what if someone makes a substantial edit to a post, mistakenly edits something important to the question and also removes salutations from the post... what should happen then?).

I think we should be looking to explain the rules to new people and give them the chance to do things the right way, not impose them.

  • don't see how you can tell the intention behind a rollback In this case, it's quite obvious from the revision history, the OP didn't rollback, but did another edit just adding his twitter handle. I think your answer is more relevant to this question
    – yannis
    Jan 16, 2012 at 16:37
  • 2
    "At the end of the day, the person asking a question fundamentally "owns" that question." Not really. meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18221/… Jan 16, 2012 at 16:59
  • sigh - you go and try and explain that to a new user, @Piskvor'sSemifiniteMonkeys and do let me know how you get on. They may well not own it in the sense you mean, but they own the truth of the question - if they say "I have a problem with a bit of code doing "X" in my environment" or whatever, while all of us might be more qualified than them to know what ought to happen, they're the expert on what they're actually seeing happen.
    – Rob Moir
    Jan 16, 2012 at 17:47
  • @Rob Moir: Fair point. (I didn't realize you meant something else than actually "owning" the question.) Jan 16, 2012 at 19:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .