Moved to talk page[edit]

Another outside view by Baseball Bugs

Here's an idea: You want uniform enforcement? Program the "save" button so that, if it's a talk page, a proper signature is appended if there isn't already one there. Or, modify the signature bot to make it work for Docu and anyone else who fails to provide either a signature or a link. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comment by Pzrmd[edit]

For convenience sake:

Docu has been an established admin before (if not everyone) almost everyone here had even heard of Wikipedia. He has signed this way for years, and suddenly a bunch of trendy new cliquish users/officers (Clarification just for TenOfAllTrades: Not everyone involved is a trendy new cliquish user/officer) decide they don't like it, and harass him nonstop about it, even suggesting s/he should be blocked. What if Docu were to unblock him/herself? Are we going to strip Docu of adminship? Docu has made over 90,000 edits, and certainly deserves to sign in an unconventional way. Calling it "appalling behavior" is just…weird. This is probably the most absurd RfC I have ever come across.

Yes, Docu has been here for a very long time, but how does that excuse him from abiding by the same guidelines and policies by which everyone else is bound (especially since, as an admin, he's expected to "enforce" those same guidelines and policies)? And what is this "trendy new cliquish users" supposed to mean? How is it cliquish to expect an admin (or any other editor) to abide by the guidelines and policies accepted by the community at large? The fact that many different editors and admins (probably quite a few more than those I listed) have asked him about this should be a clue that perhaps there's something in his actions onsite that needs to be changed.

Finally, stating that Docu is somehow special just because of a longer period of service on the site, and therefore deserves to have guidelines and policies bent or ignored just for him: that's just plain absurd and smacks of the reasoning used by the pigs in Animal Farm that all animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others. He doesn't deserve to break guidelines just because he feels like it. Unconventional signatures are not the issue here; rather it's the lack of a link to his user and/or talk page, and his refusal to include a timestamp in his sig. He has been repeatedly asked (very politely in most cases) over far more than a year to adjust his sig to meet the guidelines, and he has repeatedly refused to do so. While this RFC purposely doesn't address anything to do with his admin bit, if he continues to ignore the two guidelines and one policy I mentioned on the main page, it may end up bringing that into question at some future point.

However, my whole point here is to get him to understand that refusing to abide by these policies and guidelines is unacceptable, and to commit to changing his behavior (as spelled out on the main page). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant: Meatball: Vested Contributor ViridaeTalk 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Wikipedia:No vested contributors, which is not really followed in practice. Anomie⚔ 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(side-note) I have to say, Any "newbie" insisting on this behavior would have been blocked as disruptive long ago. Anomie⚔ 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) is a very, very sad comment. We're not fascists. Pzrmd (talk) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the below endorsement of Pzrmd's view, in light of an error in my statement and also because I really only want to endorse the spirit of what he's saying, i.e. that Docu has been a valuable contributor for nearly all of Wikipedia's history and that should be recognized. –xenotalk 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I don't think anyone was seriously considering blocking Docu for this (and I'm sure folks would line up around the block to swiftly unblock him if they did, myself included). I won't quite echo the tone of what Pzrmd is saying (admitting that I haven't looked in depth at his evidence, so it may be justified), though I do agree that old habits die hard and can't really fault Docu for habitually continuing a habit he picked up back in '03. It's not like his name is that long to type, heck he even provides the User: prefix to remind you what you're looking at. –xenotalk 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
    Currently 20 (or 18, minus Nihonjoe and Enric Naval) endorse "Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed." -kotra (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
(Nihonjoe) You are purposefully misunderstanding my argument. Pzrmd (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm taking it at face value. If you want to expand on the apparent meaning of your argument, please do. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay…I didn't take this very seriously and it's way to much work to give a full response to your weird arguments, but I'll just say this: a completely arbitrary "misunderstanding" by Nihonjoe: "How is it cliquish to expect an admin (or any other editor) to abide by the guidelines and policies." I said a lot of cliquish users are harassing Docu and didn't say that it was a cliquish thing to do. Pzrmd (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really about WP:SIG[edit]

I see several editors that are characterizing this as just a simple WP:SIG violation. I see it differently. The real problem isn't nonconformity to WP:SIG: it's that Docu just doesn't seem to care. It is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere to continuously delete or ignore users' legitimate concerns, never offer an explanation, and never recognize that these actions are causing persistent, recurring drama. This "simple WP:SIG violation" has directly caused at least two AN reports and an uncountable number of attempted discussions on Docu's talk page. That Docu makes no attempt to resolve the situation with even an explanation, much less compliance, only serves to prolong the issue and encourage further drama. This is disruption.

If this were simply a WP:SIG issue, I too would just chalk it up to an annoying inconvenience, no action needed. However, Docu's obstinate, uncommunicative behavior surrounding this inconvenience has become a source of endless drama and disruption. The drama and disruption will not end until something changes, and it's not likely to be the steady stream of annoyed editors. -kotra (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, his generally poor attitude and abrasive dealings with other users is well-documented, yes, but the scope of this RfC is the refusal to heed the calls from dozens of people about the signature. I don't think I've ever participated in one of these til now, but I'm not sure if the scope can be expanded. Tarc (talk) 04:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to expand the scope; this is all described in the original statement. The issue as described there is disruption and civility; WP:SIG noncompliance is merely the catalyst. My objection is to those who seek to reduce the issue to just WP:SIG noncompliance. -kotra (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kotra is correct in his interpretation, though the desired outcome is only that he be non-disruptive and civil by using a standard sig (or even a non-standard one that has the links and information mentioned). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That argument would carry more weight if it weren't made clear in the opening sentence that THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE SIGNATURE. If there are concerns about his overall fitness as an admin, then that's what the RFC should have focused on. They are trying to get the admin blocked for breaking a non-existent rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the it applies in this case, I'm not sure where this idea came from; that guidelines can't be enforced by block if non-adherence to them is disruptive. –xenotalk 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It's only a guideline" is just wikilawyering. But the goal is not to get anyone blocked, rather to let Docu know that his historic practice of not signing properly is no longer in sync with general practice, and the time has come to make a change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wikilawyering. A guideline is not a rule. And the alleged "disruption" is more along the lines of "we don't like having to do two extra keystrokes". Obviously, whoever looks at this case will decide if it's "disruptive" or not. But if there is no sanction, such as a block, then what's the point? We've already been down this road, and the conclusion was, "Yeh, he should use a normal signature, but we're not going to make him do it; but if he still won't do it, we'll complain again." Even now, the user is losing sleep over this threat of continued complaining-with-no-enforcement. I'm sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am confident a block will not be necessary, but it is also clear from the RFC that numerous editors support a block if the situation is not resolved. We do not have codified "rules" in the sense you refer to; editors with as much experience as Docu are expected to be collegial without them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you get this idea, that disruptive non-adherence to guidelines can't be enforced by block? –xenotalk 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (again, not saying that Docu's signature is as such, but in general)[reply]
So you ARE proposing to block him, then? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the view by Viridae? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the present case, no, I wouldn't block someone for this or propose that they be blocked. However, I am confused at your belief that guidelines can't be enforced. –xenotalk 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to block him, then what type of "enforcement" do you recommend? Meanwhile, many signatures don't have contribs. If I want to see contribs, I have to make a couple of extra keystrokes. That's also "inconvenient". "Inconvenient" is not "disruptive". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The hope is that he will reform without being blocked. This is, after all, a collegial system. However, 22 people have currently agreed that a block would be warranted if he does not make a change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was the "hope" the previous time(s) this issue was raised. So far, nothing. As Dr. Phil would say, "How's that workin' for ya?" With no threat of sanction, why would he bother changing his approach? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everyone is so immature that they require sanctions to play nice with others. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Again, I'm just trying to correct your apparent misunderstanding that because WP:SIG (or any other guideline) is "just a guideline" that there's no "rule" and thus it can't be enforced. In the present case, I'm hoping that no enforcement is necessary. –xenotalk 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm trying to correct your apparent misunderstanding, that without the threat of a block, there would be any reason for him to change anything. He's obviously impervious to criticism. Either threaten to block, or drop it (again). Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be missing the point. Guidelines are enforced all the time, so your going on about things being "just a guideline" and there's "no rule" make no sense. It appears this RFC is growing teeth and the filing party may be willing to place a block if the desired result is not achieved, my disagreement with that course of action notwithstanding. –xenotalk 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I interpret the first sentence as an introduction to the issue, not a summary of the issue. You have a different interpretation, but honestly we're splitting hairs here. Also, I was not commenting on his fitness as an admin (although I would question that as well), I was commenting on his behavior as an editor. The block I endorse is for the disruption caused by both Docu's WP:SIG noncompliance and behavior surrounding the noncompliance, not specifically for the actual noncompliance. I agree that a block for just breaking a rule (non-existant or not) would be silly; there must be actual disruption caused. That this issue has been raised so many times is evidence to me that it's not just a mere guideline infraction: Docu is causing actual disruption. -kotra (talk) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What "disruption"? Having to make two extra keystrokes to get to his page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am referring to Docu continuously ignoring/deleting legitimate concerns raised about this issue, and Docu's continued refusal to prevent the inevitable drama that results from this ignoring/deletion. Docu could easily resolve the issue by providing a legitimate explanation or changing his signature; yet he has demonstrated no interest in doing so. To me, this is disruption. -kotra (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, he does not consider it to be an issue. Not for him. For you, maybe, but not for him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. However, the view "I'll do what I want, if other people don't like it, that's their problem" is not how Wikipedia works. -kotra (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one place this can lead: Indef block until he promises to change his signature to link to his pages (and, hopefully, to his contribs - which many of the above users also don't do, but you don't see me filing a "disruption" complaint against them). If you don't indef block, nothing will change. You might as well start the section right now: Indef block, yes or no. There's no middle ground on this one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, there's two. He changes it without being forced. ViridaeTalk 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can give it a chance before escalating prematurely. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't threaten an indef block, there is no reason for him to change. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a reason. It's called "courtesy". Being courteous is roughly... infinitely more important than caring officiously whether something is a policy or guideline.

I would agree with above posters that arguing that a page need or need not be heeded because it's "just a guideline" is Wikilawyering. Please read WP:WIARM and recall that this is not a courtroom, nor any kind of formal system of rules. It's a bunch of people building an encyclopedia, and playing well with others gets us there. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline only requires a link to one of: user page, user talk page, or user contribs. I'm sure everyone would be happy if he altered his sig so a single character linked to one of those, plus it included a timestamp. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you take the vote, or consensus, and tell him, "Your next signature and every one after it must conform to guidelines, or you will immediately be indef'd." Is that pretty much it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly clear this is what the community wants, and that enough people consider it a problem that something needs to be done. So if he continues to refuse to change his signature, what's the alternative? Do you have any suggestions? Exploding Boy (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't helpful Bugs. Let Docu speak for himself. –xenotalk 05:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given this RfC has only been up for 7 hours and Docu has yet to make a statement (I don't expect him to, but we should give him a day or two), I don't think issuing such an ultimatum would be helpful yet. -kotra (talk) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm not saying you issue this ultimatum right now, I'm just saying that's what it will come down to. And I will be very interested to hear what he has to say, assuming he's been notified about this (which he has: [1]). Until now, all he's heard is complaints, not threats of blocking. And I can see, down the road, that he will take it to the ArbCom, and they'll either support you all, or they'll tell you to take a hike. Come to think of it, wasn't there already an ArbCom case about this very issue? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only ArbCom case I know of is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- (similar in some ways, not in other ways), but that's from 2005. -kotra (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's different; that's a deliberately misleading signature. This is no signature, or more specifically, no signature with a link; thus requiring the user to make a couple of extra keystrokes to get to his page, assuming one even wanted to. I thought Docu had been dragged into ArbCom court over this. Or maybe it was only threatened but not carried out. I do know this has come up various times, one way or another, but nothing has come of it. And unless there's a threat of action, it's likely that nothing ever will. So we'll see. I would just like to see a decision as to whether this breaking of a guideline (not a rule) is sanctionable as if it actually were a rule - because if it is, then the so-called "guidelines" then become "rules" by definition. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, there has apparently been no ArbCom case about Docu, at least not for this reason. In the discussion that came up in September 2008, it was closed with no decision and the community was advised to take it to RFC or to ArbCom - pretty much like earlier this month, except now someone has decided to follow up. In September, there was a rather telling comment about certain users having too much time on their hands. This whole thing strikes me as nannyism - trying to force someone to comply with something that's not a rule, just for the sake of conformity. Having to hit a couple of extra keystrokes is being labeled "disruptive". The guidelines don't require the talk page, only the user page. So if they have only the user page, it would again take 2 keystrokes to get to the talk page. So what's the value of that loose guideline? It will be interesting to see how this all turns out. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this isn't about WP:SIG. If what mattered was that every admin must have a link to their talk page in their signature, then this RFC would include Stifle.

The reality is, of course, that Stifle's signature is perfectly acceptable. And by extension so is Docu's. It's a case of gander sauce.

What this is, is a witch-hunt. And I deplore it very strongly.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, S Marshall. Stifle's current signature ([2]) looks fine to me:
Stifle (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's datestamped, and has a wikilink to his userpage as its first link. The second talk link doesn't point directly to his talk page, true — instead it points to User talk:Stifle/wizard. That page provides a list of reasons why one might wish to leave a message for Stifle, and provides helpful, subject-specific instructions.
Surely we don't need a rulebook to determine that the intent (and effect) of Stifle's signature is to make him very easy to contact, whereas the effect of Docu's signature is to make contacting him more difficult. Stifle's approach, though nonstandard, is welcoming and helpful to new editors; Docu's is not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not being sarcastic. I like Stifle, and I hold him in high regard.

Nevertheless, you don't need to be a genius to figure out that Stifle's "wizard" is about as helpful as a call management system. Self-evidently, its purpose is to prevent Stifle from receiving messages.

For the avoidance of doubt, I view this as acceptable and my intention here is not to target Stifle. Rather, I want to show by analogy why Docu's signature is not an issue.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two are not comparable. Stifle's signature provides both a link to his user page (sufficient in itself, per the guideline) and a link to the "talk page/wizard," at the top of which is a link to his talk page. He explains his rationale for creating this "message system" at the top of the page. Furthermore, several of the choices in his "message system" are links that create new sections on his talk page. All of this is completely acceptable:his sig links to his user page and timestamps his contributions. It further links to a page that gives information on a variety of ways to contact him. Docu's signature does none of these. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Marshall notes, Stifle's talk-page link actually takes you to that "wizard" page. I had some friendly exchanges with him recently. I couldn't figure out what that "wizard" page was about, so I just went to his actual talk page and posted. That was certainly more inconvenient than Docu's approach. But I didn't go filing an RFC about it, I simply worked around it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You find it more inconvenient to click twice than to copy "User:Docu," scroll up to the find bar, paste, click Go and click User Talk? Or to scroll down, click page history, find Docu's name, and click User Talk? In any case it's irrelevant, as the guideline clearly states that a link to the user page (which Stifle's sig provides) is sufficient. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I click something labeled "talk", I expect to be taken to an actual talk page, not somebody's home-grown "wizard". The number of keystrokes is probably about the same for either user. But at least with Docu, I know what I have to do. Being taken to something that's labeled talk and is not a talk page, is more disruptive and annoying than Docu's approach. But it's not worth making a thing about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not even close to the same number of keystrokes (or mouse clicks), but we're obviously going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Stifle's signature clearly conforms to the guideline, and his "wizard," while unusual and probably unnecessary, seems easy enough to figure out even for a brand newbie. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except I shouldn't have to "figure it out". You go to an actual talk page, you click "new section". Or if you want to add to an existing thread, you look for it and edit it. There's no need for any freakin' "wizard". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. But the fact remains that Stifle's signature is within the guideline since it both provides a link to his user page and datestamps his contributions, while Docu's is not. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet Stifle's is more disruptive and misleading. Not that it matters. This is a totally stupid issue. If you want a hard-and-fast rule about signatures, then build it into the system, rather than badgering someone because they won't conform. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You think so; I disagree. And in any case, for the umpteenth time, Stifle's signature conforms to the guideline, while Docu's does not. But you're right: it doesn't matter, since this is about Docu's signature, not Stifle's. And yet again, the community has made its feelings clear: Docu's signature is disruptive, and his behaviour surrounding the issue is disruptive. And there are plenty of other rules, policies and guidelines we expect people to follow but don't "build into the system," even though we could. Civility is one example. Edit summaries are another. Plagiarism is a third. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've got admins here that use obscenities and other condescending comments to peons like me, and nothing happens. I can't wait to see what will happen when you try to block an admin over the issue of a signature. I should sell tickets to that one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[undent]What does that remark have to do with anything? Admins shouldn't be exempt from our policies, and several people have argued on this page that they should be expected to provide an example to other users. I like you, BB, but I must admit your comments on these pages have me utterly baffled. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC is what has me baffled. They're trying to hang somebody over something that (until this morning) was not a rules violation. Something was said somewhere about how just because he's been doing it this way since 2003 doesn't give him any special privileges, because everyone is equal. Then I say, so block him already, and suddenly, oh, no, we can't just do that, we have to be very careful. Why? Because he's been around since 2003 and is an admin. So much for the "everyone is equal" line. I just find this entire process extremely offensive. If it's a rule, enforce it uniformly. If it's not a rule, then drop it. And if it's not just about the signature, then rewrite so that it's not just about the signature. Someone used the phrase "witch hunt". That pretty well covers it, so far. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't mischaracterize the situation. It was a requirement before today. It said "must". It still says must. –xenotalk 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people are trying to hang anyone, and I think the RFC is a good way to go: if there's any possibility of a block being as controversial as you seem to believe it would be, then it's obviously better to get clear community support first. Also, this way Docu has ample opportunity to simply change his signature and avoid a block altogether. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Until Xeno reworded it, it was ambiguous. It could be taken either way. Meanwhile, they run sinebot successfully against IP's and the like. Why is a user allowed to "opt out" of that bot program? It just leaves things ripe for a situation like this. Ironically, the bot program's zeal for quick-adding signatures is a nuisance, since you can't use rollback for vandalism - you have to use a normal save-the-last-good-version. There are plenty of things that are inconvenient here. Making a couple of extra clicks to go to Docu's talk page is way down the list. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why people can opt out of sinebot. It's silly, I agree, and perhaps should be discussed in the appropriate place. But it's got nothing to do with this RFC, and neither does the existence of other inconveniences. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu's explanation[edit]

I do not consider Docu's 2003 explanation a valid explanation anymore. The signature button has been part of the edit toolbar since at least 2005. -kotra (talk) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just add some code to the "save page" button to insert the four tildes automatically on talk pages, if it wasn't already done? Then you could get rid of that annoying signature bot program. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not all talk page edits should be signed (example) and not all non-talk page edits should not be signed. Stifle (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that the situations you describe could be accommodated through proper coding. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or Docu could just use the standard sig (one mouse click!). His claim of it being too difficult to type is not acceptable as even on a standard US keyboard it requires two keys (Shift and `) to type a tilde. If he can't handle that incredibly difficult keystroke set, he should be able to manage a simple single mouse click on the sig button found above every edit box on the site. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or you can use two keystrokes to get to his page if you need to... assuming that's not too difficult. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As Fut. Perf. pointed out in one of his comments, the time is far more tiresome than the lack of a link. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the rule requiring it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Admins should not simply comply with policies, they should go beyond that and ensure that their behaviour is a good example of best practices for other users. Adambro (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy requiring ANY kind of signature. You can't string somebody up for "breaking" a rule that doesn't exist. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to require a proper signature, then make it a requirement, or better yet, program it in so that the user doesn't even have to think about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are rules too and I wish you would stop trying to posit that they aren't. –xenotalk 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, you seem to think that Wikipedia is some kind of formal system of "rules". It's not. Whoever told you it was: they were wrong. Please review WP:WIARM. "It's just a guideline" is an argument made by someone who doesn't get it. Take the time to get it; it's worth it. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The signature bot seems to do just fine at finding talk page sections that are missing signatures. Seems like it could be tweaked a bit to do likewise with Docu's entries, or for that matter any talk page entry that's missing a signature. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should raise this at VPP and determine if community consensus exists for expanding SineBot's scope beyond users with >800 edits. –xenotalk 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been informed that the signature bot actually would do this for Docu except that he has expressly "opted out"[3] - which now makes me suspect that he's doing this just to be annoying. However, he's still within the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've been misinformed, SineBot won't operate on users with more than 800 edits. –xenotalk 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? And what's the purpose of the "opt out"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
a) I don't know, I asked slakr. [4] b) Most bots have opt-outs, for various reasons. –xenotalk 13:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at the last AN discussion about this, pressing AltGr+^ is neither difficult nor inconvenient. All of de-wiki manage a AltGr++, and all of fr-wiki manage a AltGr+2, I'd think that Docu could, too – if he just wanted to. Amalthea 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a nice button in the toolbar and scripts like qSig allow you to have the button near the "Save Page" button and to remind you to sign. I, too, do not see any difficulty or inconvenience if one just wanted to sign their posts. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu's two, mutually inconsistent explanations

This seems like the best place to draw attention to the fact that in the 5 years between September 2003 [5] and December 2008 [6], Docu's reason for not using a proper signature seems to have changed significantly. --Hans Adler 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures[edit]

Looking at Wikipedia:Signatures, it merely says it's "a good practice". However, it also says, "It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log." But does that require a link? Or does it only require that if any links are used, then it must be one of those three? As I re-read it, I think it's the latter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the majority of editors here are going to disagree with you. This should be obvious by all the attempts over the last long while to get Docu to fix his non-sig into a real sig. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show me where, in that guideline, that a linked signature is required. Maybe I missed it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your Wikilawyering is becoming very tiresome. Edison (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews' Law seems to be relevant here:
The wikilawyers and trolls always want a codified set of rules on an issue, so they can subvert the spirit while adhering to the letter. [7]
--Hans Adler (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, you seem to be analyzing the "letter of the law". Wikipedia has no laws, and the "letter" is utterly irrelevant compared w/ the spirit. This is not a courtroom. Please review WP:WIARM. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the relevant instruction:
At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature.
Is that not clear enough? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conformity?[edit]

I really think this persecution by some of Docu is characterized by rigidity and infeasibility. Is there no room of eccentricity. Do we all have to march to the same drummer. This reminds me of fascism. Should we roundup all who are a bit different and force them to conform or destroy them. Do we have to fulfill the prophesy that all mature institutions persecute the innovators who were responsible for there success. I might point out that Jimbo, our fearless founder, has been a bit of a nonconformist. If people like Docu are forced to conform then I see no reason why I should continue to contribute to an institution that would allow such a thing to happen. The few times I've asked Docu for help I received courteous well informed replies. I support Docu's right to be a bit different. I have been keeping track of this issue for some time now and I find it interesting that admin who have been most aggressive and intransigent on Docu's discussion page have not commented here. --droll [chat] 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no problem with him being a little bit different. I don't have a problem with playing around a bit with the sig, either (should be obvious as I have multiple colors and Japanese in mine). However, Docu should have a link to at least one of his user or talk pages, and he should have the timestamp on any of his comments. That's common courtesy and it's a guideline here. Not doing so is disruptive and not civil. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show us where the guideline requires a linked signature. Maybe I missed it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the sentence 'At least one of [your user page, user talk page, and contributions page] must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log.' Your attempt to read this sentence otherwise above is, frankly, absurd. Algebraist 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See previous section. I read it your way at first also - until I realized that it's simply restricting what you're supposed to link to, if you provide links. The problem is not with Docu, it's with the wishy-washy nature of the signature guidelines. If you want to make it a rule, then do so, and then you can nail Docu, or anyone else who won't do a proper signature. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to echo what other's have said elsewhere. Your wikilawyering is tiresome and doesn't help the subject of the RFC in the least. –xenotalk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the guideline seems not to say that we all need convenient signatures that makes us easy to contact, then the letter of the guideline is wrong. We're not married to the letter. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Docu's comment regarding me[edit]

Docu wrote in his response the following:

On my successive comments, while avoiding to discuss the underlying question, 日本穣 went on to issue additional warnings about the problems he had with my subsequent post.

The part emphasized in blue is completely false. I addressed his question each time he replied and posted to my talk page. He apparently didn't like my reply, but I addressed his concern directly. You can see the entire discussion here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that he even thanked me for the clarification of why I closed the discussion the way I did. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you're simply annoyed with him in general, and you're trying to get back at him by getting him punished for "breaking" a non-existent rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually more annoyed at you than at him. As others have pointed out, you are being deliberately obtuse and picking at non-existent nits. Your "Well, you didn't specifically say I couldn't do that, so it must be okay" argument sounds like it's coming from some whiney teenager. If we had a list of everything you couldn't do (or specifically spelled out every tiny detail of what you should do), it would take us years to make the lists. Guidelines are rules, and if you don't follow them (without a damn good reason for not following them), there are consequences.
As for the reason for this RFC/U, it's plainly and clearly spelled out on the main page. I have nothing personally against Docu, nor do I have any ulterior motives of trying to "get back at him", but I do find it concerning that he's been being asked to fix this issue for well over a year and has either ignored or sidestepped any requests to make the change. Especially as an admin, he shouldn't get to pick and choose which guidelines and policies he follows as that undermines the whole point of having them. The ones in place are there for a reason, and there's absolutely no valid reason for him to be ignoring these ones. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for christ's sake, stop being obtuse and attacking everyone's motivations for posting that they have a problem with Docu. This is a community, and when someone...ESPECIALLY and administrator...deliberately chooses to flaunt flout the norms of a community, they should expect to be called out on it. There has been such a wide array of users and other admins who have a problem with this, problems that have been aired over the last few years if you look through the AN archives, that dismissing it as a bunch of people with grudges is childish and severely lacking in the assumption of good faith. You should know better. Tarc (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incivility... Anyway, if this RFC is supposed to be about the general conduct of Docu, then make it about his general conduct. Refusing to use a proper signature does not appear to be a rule violation in and of itself. Seems like there is ammo building up for a variety of concerns. The admin's supposed lack of communication is probably of much greater concern. Maybe you should rewrite the RFC to broaden it out and create a list of grievances. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you being intentionally obtuse? –xenotalk 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to see this from different angles. The complainant made this to be about the signature. There is no rule requiring a proper signature. If you want such a rule, then you have to make it a rule. And if this is about the admin's conduct, then make it about his conduct overall, not just about his signature. As I recall, I was making somewhat the same argument last September. You all are trying to make someone conform to something that isn't a requirement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What part of guidelines are rules don't you understand? –xenotalk 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines ARE NOT rules. The bases being 90 feet apart is a rule. The locations of the grass lines around the infield are guidelines. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're sorely mistaken. See my below suggestion for you to start intentionally and disruptively flouting our guidelines and see how quickly you get blocked. –xenotalk 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's "flout," not "flaunt." Edison (talk) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Engrish iz gud. Tarc (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I actuallly typed "flaut" rather than "flout" initially, but that is a musical instrument. Edison (talk)
Baseball Bugs, not everyone here has some sort of grudge or history with Docu. I've never – as far as I know – bumped up against him on any issue, editorial or administrative. I still think that his position is discourteous to the community, and I am disappointed that over the last year or more he has not been able to either articulate a reason why clicking on the sig button is too difficult, or just do it already.
If you want to engage on this issue, do it on the merits, not by dismissing Docu's critics as a bunch of vexatious troublemakers. (While there may be some vexatious troublemakers present – they're a fixture of most any RfC involving an administrator – tarring us all is not supported by any evidence.) I haven't seen any persuasive argument that Docu's unconventional signing practices don't inconvenience other editors, just a few awkward suggested workarounds. Editors shouldn't have to learn a whole new mode of communication to interact with an administrator. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me I've said that I also find the lack of a linked signature annoying. And it seems like there are various concerns with this admin. You should list all the concerns and make a cumulative case, and then you'll have something. I find the unwillingness of a user (admin or otherwise) to communicate to be about 100 times worse than whatever issues there might be about his signature. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment[edit]

Re Libstar's point as to evasiveness about being an administrator - Special:ListUsers will always tell you reliably and honestly what the person is. I use it a fair bit on foreign language wikis (where strangely most of the English commands, in English, work fine). Orderinchaos 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Wikipedia:List of administrators. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rule requiring an admin to post that fact on his page? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm aware of. One's part of the Mediawiki software, the other is general practice on en.wiki. It is courteous and the right thing to do but I think that at least is one case where one cannot enforce courtesy. Orderinchaos 10:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why should anyone have to search those lists? Whilst admins don't have to identify themselves on their user pages, Drawn Some and I both asked Docu directly on his talk page and he refused to give a straight answer. this is clearly a breach of Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct regarding "failure to commmunicate" LibStar (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm totally in agreement with you, but I can't imagine how on earth it would be enforced - it might be a civility issue but I think it would be stretching it. "Failure to communicate" actually references a finding at the Betacommand case where quite different communication issues were being addressed - this related primarily to the use of admin powers. I've found ListUsers useful when people have been masquerading as admins (or more) when they are not. Orderinchaos 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not even know listusers even exists till now. and I've been editing a while. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, took me a year or so to find it. I find that and Special:Prefixindex (another one I didn't find for ages) very useful. Orderinchaos 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of special lists and such on Wikipedia that can take a long time to find. If you enter them in the search box it takes you to an article about them rather than the actual special list. Edison (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I ended up having to check his RfA which took a bit of doing to find. I am not an inexperienced user but I have never had need to determine whether or not someone is an administrator. A new user would find it almost impossible and they would likely have the most need to know. Drawn Some (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What search technique would ever find such an obscure gimmick? Edison (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Cdogsimmons comment[edit]

Most of the editors commenting in this RFC have been totally uninvolved with bilateral articles. For the record, yes I've been involved in bilateral AfDs. LibStar (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it best to ignore Cdogsimmons' fallacious logic and to just move on. I only became involved with a single article upon seeing a curious DRV case, and had little interest in the topic area as a whole. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Pzrmd[edit]

Interesting that Pzrmd also has copied Docu and signed the same way, [8] and [9]. So of course s/he sees no problem in Docu's signature especially when s/he learnt it off Docu. LibStar (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did the same thing on my talk page. Repeatedly. Despite being told not to. I am wondering which former use this person is a reincarnation of - someone has posted what I assume is their idea on my talk page but I am not familiar and have no way to substantiate. ViridaeTalk 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that fall under the heading of Wikipedia:Don't be a dick? Seems discourteous in the extreme.(Assuming the copycat is not a sock). Edison (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems Viridae considers any unconventional way of making a point a POINT violation. But what point was I even making Viridae? Pzrmd (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the point you were making is that Docu's signature is ok. however, that is one issue with Docu's signature, it sets a bad example to other users. why do we even bother having a standard four tilda sig then? LibStar (talk) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Baseball Bugs[edit]

Several times so far, you have claimed that to get from "User:Docu" to Docu's user page takes only "two extra keystrokes". I can't think of any way to do that in the general case in three keystrokes, please enlighten me. Anomie⚔ 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the "history" tab and then click on whichever of the three items you want to see for the user: user page, user talk page, or contribs. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't work on high-traffic pages (like AN/I) or older discussions. (And strictly speaking, those are mouse clicks, and not keystrokes, but anyway....) Docu's comment may be buried in the middle of this history, or even pushed off the first page of edits. The difficulty is compounded because his comments are note timestamped, denying the searcher a hint as to where to look in the history. Further, history pages take time to load, and (for those of us with older computers) can be slow to render. This is also a genuine nuisance for editors who contribute to Wikipedia using mobile devices. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also the fact that we're expecting new/inexperienced editors to know all of that. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Well, then, make it a rule instead of an option. In fact, while you're at it, require all three instead of just one. That will save a fair number of keystrokes also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It already was, but you were just being intentionally difficult. Now I've tightened up the sentence, so please drop this unproductive line of argument. –xenotalk 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that you could just change it unilaterally. Why not go all the way, and say in the opening section that a signature, rather than being just "a good practice", is required. Then you'll have it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't unilaterally change anything, I just removed some flowery language to counter your lawyering. However, I'm not going to go around changing the leads of guidelines because one wikilawyer wants to be obtuse. How about you go start mass-canvassing for AFD or RFA votes and see how quickly you get blocked? Perhaps then you will realize that guidelines are rules that may be enforced by blocking. –xenotalk 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The canvassing page makes it clear that some types of canvassing are OK and some are not, as you just said. Canvassing to provide information is OK, canvassing to try to garner votes is not. And you did change the signature thing. You changed it from an option to a requirement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, he did not. It was a requirement already, as was clear to everyone except you. Algebraist 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"It is common practice to include a link..." is not a requirement. "Signatures must..." is a requirement. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not stop signing your posts, then? If it's so optional...
It was a requirement before my copyediting. It said "must". However, you latched on to the prefix sentence, which I've now removed as flowery and unnecessary. This is my last response to you, my time is better used elsewhere. –xenotalk 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the signature is so bloody important, why not program it into the "save page" button? Use logic similar to the Sinebot, which seems to know what needs a signature and what doesn't. Program all 3 options in, and it would much more convenient for all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) If it is sensible and courteous and not terribly inconvenient to do something – particularly something which a lot of other editors have asked for – why on earth would we demand a codified rule? Call it WP:Be A Nice Person (this policy did exist under another, coarser name, I suppose), or even WP:Be A Cold-Hearted Utilitarian; it works either way. Wikipedia is not a nomic. We expect people to make a reasonable effort to get along and make things easier for each other without requiring a rulebook. It is rare indeed that we write a new policy solely to deal with one obstinate editor, even if he is being supported by a ruleslawyer. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. I'm not getting through - ironically to folks who call me obtuse. It will be interesting to see what happens once you all block Docu over this signature thing. But let's suppose he starts using a signature. Then there's no block, and everything's peachy, right? Except it isn't. If he still won't communicate, if he still deletes comments and posts the false edit summary "archived", then you'll be right back here with another complaint. If that's how you want to operate, fine. It just doesn't strike me as a very efficient way to deal with it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You took my reply right out of my mouth, TenOfAllTrades! Anomie⚔ 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do find it strange how vigorously Baseball Bugs seems to want to defend Docu's signature, or rather lack of it. Docu has consistently failed to provide anything resembling a good reason for his failure to provide a proper signature with a timestamp and a link or two so I don't understand why Baseball Bugs wants to put some much effort into defending what Docu is doing when all it does is make it harder for other users, the vast majority of whom don't have any problem with providing a signature. As I've previously said, it doesn't matter whether or not it is required by any policy. Admins should be an example of good practice, should be easy to contact, and should understand that just because something isn't specifically required by a policy, it doesn't mean they won't be expected to do it. Admins cannot be expected to know every policy of by heart, but they should be expected to appreciate the spirit of the community and should be considerate of other users by not doing things to make it difficult for others unless they can explain why it is necessary to do so. Adambro (talk) 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So block him already. Most everyone seems to think that a proper signature is required; a rule. If he's violating a rule, then inform him that he must obey the rule or he's blocked. Period. You don't need a bloody RFC to do that. Just do it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would take an administrator with considerable stones to just block someone outright for violating WP:SIG. When 45 editors line up behind a block though, it becomes easier to justify. –xenotalk 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And assuming he cares to request an unblock, he'll say, "I violated no rules", and he'll be unblocked straightaway, and you'll be back where you were a couple of days ago. Now, if you want to file a broader RFC about various allegations of admin misconduct, then you might have something. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly responding to Adambro, here, but my own experience is that Baseball Bugs has a strong tendency to take an unusually contrarian stance on a wide range of issues. I wouldn't quite call it trolling -- it's a peculiar mix of devil's advocate and court jester. Not to say that dissent and argument are unimportant; they are, and so is perspective. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I feel the need to speak out, especially when I see the lemming mentality setting in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So wait a sec. Now the behavioral guideline, which very clearly states it is to be treated with the occasional exception, now is a must? What is that, "policy-lite"? Seriously, if all these people think Docu needs a link, have all these people turn it into policy. Then you can remove the flowery language that allows for the exception. Otherwise, congrats for wasting everyone's time. --Kbdank71 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they really cared about the signature, if they really thought it was important, they would build it into the system. Instead, they're using this as an opportunity to beat up on an admin they don't like, over an issue that's trivial. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 53 editors who have supported Viridae's viewpoint. I am among them and have had minimal (if any) interaction with Docu. There is no sinister plot here, just a desire for timestamps and proper signatures.
It is not possible to insert signatures automatically because people must be able to edit talk pages for other purposes, such as adding rating templates. There is development work ongoing to improve the talk aspect of talk pages, including automatic attribution of edits (LiquidThreads). But it is not close to completion.
In the meantime, anyone who believes behavioral guidelines are purely optional is simply mistaken. This is not a government, and we do not have codified, binding rules written down. Instead this is a collegial environment in which we expect editors (especially admins) to follow community norms, including guidelines and many unwritten practices. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Community norms that allow for the occasional exception, right? --Kbdank71 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has proposed a viable explanation for why there should be an exception in this case. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not possible"? Don't gimme that. This is only computer programming. Anything is possible. "53 to 1 or a few"? The lemming mentality I was talking about earlier. I'm an American. I don't accept the notion that being in the minority makes my viewpoint incorrect, or that being in the majority makes it correct. There are always other ways of looking at things. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why this isn't in the software; I pointed out that development work is ongoing to make it happen. If you invent a way to tell which edits to a talk page should be automatically signed that is simpler than having the editor manually tag the edits that should be signed, you should make a submission to bugzilla that explains how to do it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the concept is in development, then leave Docu alone and wait for the programming to be done. Meanwhile, this "not possible" stuff - if so, then how does sinebot manage to figure it out? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The short answer is that Sinebot does not sign all posts that should be signed. There is no ETA for the updated talk page code, and it is not close to completion. Frankly, it appears to me that you do not actually know what is going on either with Mediawiki development or with automatic signing bots; your arguments about them might be stronger if you did some homework first. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on those rare occasions when I forget to sign, Sinebot fixes it, so it seems to be generally satisfactory, even if it's not foolproof. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me a single instance after you passed 800 edits where Sinebot signed for you? (I originally left this unsigned to prove my point, but since Algebraist has written below it with the same indentation, I'll sign now to disambiguate) The fact is you're just plain wrong here. –xenotalk 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
You seem to disbelieve the 800-edit-limit. Do you actually suppose that Slakr is deliberately lying about the operation of his bot? Algebraist 13:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu's response and comment on Libstar[edit]

Does anyone agree his ranting on about me has nothing to do with his signature? Docu is known for his diversionary tactics, which again is not expected behavior from an admin. LibStar (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's somewhat bizarre. For me, the biggest issue is the lack of timestamp and link to his talk page.--Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty hard to derail an RfC. It's not like an ANI topic, where anyone can post anywhere and the discussion can get distracted, wander off and die down. Those long lists of signatures tend to stick around - and they stay noticeable. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think Docu has made any attempt to address the central issue. that is why does he feel justified to use a difficult to communicate with signature. If he provided a picture of his keyboard that had no ~ symbol or something like that. the complete lack of reasoning only reinforces his stubborness. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought that maybe he uses a pencil in his mouth to type or has severe arthritis or the use of only one hand, no one really knows and it's no one's business.
However, I think he just likes to keep things as simple as possible and not duplicate what the software already does, like document who made a comment and when, and instead of archiving he deletes and notes it in the edit summary. He is also has a point in that a signature can be deceptive and someone can claim to be an administrator and not be and archives can be faked. He relies on the systems that would be used to check such deceptions as the primary means of communicating the information in the first place and avoids all of that. At least this is my observation, I could be completely off-base and he could just be doing it to piss people off, but I think that unlikely. He probably does achieve some amusement at all of this commotion and outrage, I must say I find it fascinating and perhaps amusing as well. Drawn Some (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
we can only guess why, but in the interests of community harmony and standards (not guidelines) expected from admins, the total deliberate ignoring of people's reasonable requests is a cause for concern. People seem to think his high level of editing is a redeeming feature, however all of it can be done by a non admin. LibStar (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. You know he never asked to be an administrator? My personal belief is all administrators should come up for re-RfA every three years. It really ought to be yearly but that would be too much volume. If it is a matter of community trust there are probably other admins that are less trustworthy and deliberately act uncivil and game the rules and stuff like that. I saw something where a bureaucrat even was running a sock account to hide stuff, whether or not it needed to be hidden. Drawn Some (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to why he won't use a standard signature, don't rule out the possibility that he just doesn't think it's important. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the simplest explanation. Drawn Some (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that Docu is pushing back over this signature issue because he's always done it this way. (Looking at the archived discussions before my time, the majority of the discussions are signed the way Docu does. For example, all of Sanger's posts are signed just as Docu does.) One gets into a habit of doing things, & just because everyone else does it differently it's not enough of a reason to change. But having a lot of new-comers (I started on Wikipedia 8 months after him, so maybe Docu no longer considers me a newcomer ;-) tell him he has to change will not get him to change him to do so. -- llywrch (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about forgeries[edit]

All my comments clearly identifying me as the one who made it (no need to check the user page to see if there is a difference between the name on the signature and the user name).-- User:Docu
Without a time stamp how can I confirm that Docu made the above post? With the time stamp, you can look up posts, but without one, it leads to the potential of people creating bogus posts that would require users to dredge through every post to find the comment. This is particularly annoying if you want to provide a link to a specific comment.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think that's a problem unique to Docu. ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But here's the difference, right now it is easy to spot the forgeries because there has been relatively little editing being done, but if we had waited several hours and there were 100 edits made to this page, it would be easy to find the original post based upon the time stamp. And find out what the original forgery/statement was The time stamps are a simple means to find an specific edit---and to confirm who said what (or didn't say what as the case may be).SoWhy 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the time stamp clearly gives the forgery away.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely pointing out the lack of validity in concerns raised in this RfC. Sigs and timestamps are no guarantee of validity. They can be forged and altered; the only proof of editing is the History. Fences&Windows 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timestamps allow me to tell when things were written without extensive effort to cross-reference the page history and, in the rare cases when it is needed, to quickly find an edit in the history to verify it has not been changed. Timestamps are also required for archiving bots to be able to properly archive talk pages. The first of these three functions is the most important. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they can be used to figure out that a forgery has occured. When somebody goes looking for SoWhy's statement above, they won't find any comments made by him at any hour ending with a :17 on Jun 18, thus it would be readily clear that his statement is not legit. They would then see my edit, at :17 and click on it to realize that I forged his signature. Do the same with the fake Docu comment above. In order to find it, (if it wasn't tied directly to my edit) would be to go through EVERY edit looking for it. In this case, you have an idea that it occured at or before 19:50 on the 18th. But what if Docu puts his edit out of order or something happens that it gets messed up? Looking for a specific edit by him could be a challenge as you don't have the time---and looking for a forgery from him on a busy page like ANI might be nigh impossible. The time helps to dig into people's edits and histories when necessary.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I can sign with a clearly false name and noone would know without carefully checking the history, which may be a lot busier than this talk page. (actually Orderinchaos here) -- ClearlyNotARealNickname 10:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokes, wheels, sticks and spanners[edit]

Moved from main page

  1. I agree except I think spokes are good things for wheels to have. Drawn Some (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just researched and apparently that was a BE phrase. I replaced it with one I hope everyone understands :-) Regards SoWhy 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the problem was you used the phrase improperly. It's more like..."a stick in the spokes"... Not a spoke in your wheels. =) (FWIW your new phrase is even less comprehensible!) –xenotalk 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How much I want to imagine that I am fluent in English, I notice again and again that subtleties like that are lost on me. I decided to go ahead and change it again, to avoid using phrases I found on LEO. It's only distracting from the main statement otherwise if people have to think about what the hell I could have meant by that. Thanks for the comments though :-) Regards SoWhy 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're idiomatic expressions: metaphors referring to a related but unwanted object (thing) preventing something from working properly, in case anyone was still confused. Of the two, putting a 'spanner in the works' is far more common, so I don't really know what Xeno was saying :P - it was more understandable for me. It is also true that the original phrase was used incorrectly, making everything more difficult. Either way, the non-idiom one is better. Whew! Ale_Jrbtalk 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's a spanner? Wrench in the gears, maybe. =) –xenotalk 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it, if you say "Spanner in the works" in the U.S. people will think you mean "spammer". Drawn Some (talk)

A spanner is a type of wrench, and "a spanner in the works" is British English for the American English "a monkey wrench in the works". The former explains the punning title of John Lennon's book, A Spaniard in the Works. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I know,... I was just being facetious... I learned of spanners from my engineering days in the sunny land of Azeroth. –xenotalk 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspected so. I just wondered if you were aware of the Lennon book, and also if you know why it's called a "spanner". I expect it's merely physically descriptive, but maybe there's some other subtlety there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but of course!, It's called spanner because "it is a specialized wrench with a series of pins or tabs around the circumference." ;p –xenotalk 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume it's called a spanner because it spans. It provides leverage for turning a bolt or lugnut or whatever. Meanwhile, I had not seen that book cover in a long time. Notice how it's a cut-and-paste mockup, so Lennon didn't have to do anything other than write the contents, such as they were. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the meaning goes back to pre-history with an Indo-European root. Drawn Some (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably from the time they used to write in the sand, hence the term Sandskrit. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on Greg L's view[edit]

While I am critical of the way that many admins rally around one another, especially at ANI, this is not such a case. Many, if not most, of the people that are protesting Docu above are admin. Many if not most are, including myself, are especially concerned about Docu's sig explicitly because he is an admin. This RfC was started by an admin. A quick look at the names of people who have approached Docu, and I recognize at least half of them as admins. While there are plenty of examples wherein you can cry that admins are rallying around their clique, I think it is a little disingenuous to do so here, when it is perfectly obvious that most of the comments garners a large number of supports were written by admins (Viridae, Xeno, and SoWhy.) You lose credibility when you cry foul when the evidence clearly shows your position not to be applicable in this specific case. Cry admin clique/elitism when the admins are circling the wagons, not when they are throwing somebody under the bus. If Docu doesn't listen to the community's voice, then desysop/arbcom might become an option. But let's not rush things, in the grand scheme of things leading to a potential desysopping this would be among the more lame reasons.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"in the grand scheme of things leading to a potential desysopping this would be among the more lame reasons." Absolutely. If there are real reasons to be concerned about Docu as an admin, let's get those out in the open. Fences&Windows 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This very well could lead to a desysopping, if he refuses to listen to the community. I think there is a clear consensus that he needs to address (not ignore) the sig situation. So, if he does get desysoped, it would be because he refuses to listen and serve the community. If he wasn't an admin, I wouldn't care one hoot about this sig, as an admin, I have higher expectations. As the community has spoken, I do not see desyopping as being out of the question... his loosing the bit/this going anyplace, is a choice he can make. This is not an RfC where the desired outcome is unobtainable or where the RfC is merely a formality on the way to ArbCOM, this is an RfC that can be shut down immediately by Docu's saying, "OK, I'll change my sig."---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no general call for blocking[edit]

A number of editors have thought this RfC is an attempt to get Docu blocked. Please note the nomination does not call for this. The nominator purely wants Docu to use a standard signature. LibStar (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have that as a condition, then you're right back where you were in September, when the discussion went nowhere on ANI, and for exactly the same reason as I recall. It again raises the issue of how important is this signature business really? You either have a rule or you don't. If you have a rule, then enforce it. If you don't, then drop it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't believe he should be blocked or hassled about this. I can't read a bit of Nihonjo's signature, half is in Japanese characters and the rest is too small to be legible. Stifle's talk button leads to some strange set of instructions about communicating with him. Benjiboi's signature I thought was "Banjoboi" like that kid in the movie Deliverance, I'm still not sure what it says. I don't like Docu's signature and wish he would use a "normal" one but at least it's straightforward. Drawn Some (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the other issue is lack of date and time stamp. LibStar (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's particularly aggravating when there are multiple comments on the same page by the same person and you're not sure which was made when. The later comment could be higher on the page. I guess my point is if I were the Wikidictator the software would sign everyone's comments and no more of this silly signature stuff. I'm surprised people don't have signatures that flash. Of course, when I've worked in an office I haven't decorated my monitor with stickers and bobble heads, either. Drawn Some (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments about the other signatures are right on the mark. Nihonjoe's signature is just a bunch of little boxes on my screen. Useless. I've already talked about Stifle's misleading (but harmless) approach. And I have also wondered why Benjiboi's signature reads "Banjiboi" or whatever. I just assumed it was some kind of inside joke. Notice I didn't file on RFC on any of those guys. And the timestamp issue is not really that important. You can usually tell who he's responding to. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you should download the font set to see Nihonjo's signature. I get very aggravated when I run across some minor Indian language and get odd symbols instead of the beautiful characters. I don't have a problem with the kanji, my problem is I can't read what comes after it without using the settings for partially blind people to enlarge everything. Drawn Some (talk) 05:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I could go to Best Buy and get a big honkin' screen so that the microscopic print after the little boxes would be readable... OR, he could start using a normal signature - like he expects others to do! Ironic, ain't it? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would still be missing out by only seeing the Roman alphabet. I am fairly sure it has become standard because it is the simplest, not the most attractive. Drawn Some (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Nihonjoe's real name by hovering over it. I can't see Docu's real name by hovering over it, so I have to resort to reading it. :) As for the boxes vs. the Japanese characters, it wouldn't really matter, as I would still have to hover over it. Some users apparently forget that this is the English wikipedia. :) Although if they use Greek or Russian letters, that's tolerable, since it's kind-of readable. But for English words, the Roman alphabet is usually the optimal choice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt Nihonjoe would be responsive if a large number of users had trouble viewing his signature -- you could even mention your concerns to him, personally, if it actually bothers you. If your software lacks support for Wikipedia's text encoding, I suggest you upgrade to more modern software. If you could demonstrate a long history of problems, of users approaching Nihonjoe about the issue and being brushed off, of Nihonjoe refusing to acknowledge community norms, of Nihonjoe's signature causing confusion for newcomers or difficulty tracking threads, or even explain some way in which Nihonjoe's signature failed to comply with longstanding community practices, if you could do any one of those things then you might well have a point. As it is, I have to agree with Carl's assessment, above: please do your homework. It looks to me like almost all of your 50 most recent edits have been related to this RfC; why is this so important to you? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because I don't like seeing the piling-on mentality going on against someone who's not causing any real harm. It hits close to home. The other signatures, which are every bit as disruptive and annoying as Docu's, if not more so, are also not harmful, and likewise don't call for an RFC. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other users have been RFCd and blocked over their signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, there is one more thing, that I had forgotten about and was just reminded of. Xeno moved my reasonable alternate suggestion to this page, along with the condescending remark that it had nothing to do with the RFC, i.e. that it did not conform to the goal of trying to bully Docu into conforming to a vaguely-worded and haphazardly-enforced standard. If he had left that in place instead of trying to "hide" it from the RFC itself, I probably would have left this alone. So you have Xeno to thank for a lot of this. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure that was a reasonable suggestion, BB. The issue isn't that Docu simply forgets to sign properly (like I often forget about edit summaries), it's that against the wishes of the community he just doesn't do it, and apparently for no good reason and beyond that, according to many users, that he has behaved disruptively around the issue. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree wholeheartedly with Luna's comment. Nihonjoe is a polite admin that I have no issues with. Baseball bugs, why are you so interested in this? we work by consensus...simply commenting much more than others isn't going to necessarily more weight to your goal of redeeming Docu? LibStar (talk) 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that hover thing works on my computer, too, I see his name has an "e" on the end. I just don't usually hover on peoples' names unless I am planning to click on them and I usually ignore the hovering but am too lazy to figure out how to turn it off. Now I am wondering what those characters actually mean. Google says "Yutaka Japan" but honestly I just don't know. Drawn Some (talk)
The three characters literally mean "Japan" (the first two) and "prosperity". The last one also happens to be my name. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I corrected the way I spelled his name, in the earlier post. Yutaka Japan, I'll take-a Hong Kong. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did mention to Nihonjoe today that the second part of his signature is too small to see on my 12 inch monitor without using the setting for blind people but he said he can see it okay on his 12 inch screen. I know he didn't mean to slander the quality of my monitor but I felt a little sad. 8-( Drawn Some (talk) 05:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry your screen can't handle my sig. I modified it slightly; is that a bit better? ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's MUCH better, it is legible now without increasing font size. Thank you! But I am still sad about my notebook. Would you also be willing to buy me one of the new 13" MacBook Pros? We can pre-order now. Just leave a note on my talk page with your credit card number. Drawn Some (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find me a high paying job, I'll be happy to buy you any notebook you want. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd be happy to see all ability to modify signatures ended and all editors use the standard sig. Some of the fancier ones are a huge pain. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an idea. A standard signature would look just like mine, with all 3 links, except they would simply say [user name] and [user name's talk page] and [user's contribs]. That, along with programming the signature to be automated, would care of the whole megillah. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The standard signature is like mine, which has never been modified: a link to the user page and a link to the user talk page, plus a date/time stamp. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the contribs would improve it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something I have learned from all of this is there is a signature button right above the box where I type. There are some other buttons that look pretty handy, too. One day I will figure out what they are through experimentation. Drawn Some (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just be careful not to push the one that makes the universe implode into a singularity. That one could spell trouble. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, the one with the skull and crossbones? Exploding Boy (talk) 06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's the one that's invisible except unless you hover over it. So be vewwwy, vewwwy careful. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(side-comment for LibStar) It's quite ironic that you ask Baseball Bugs why he is so interested in it when you've harassed the hell out of Docu. Pzrmd (talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked questions to Docu like at least 10 others about the signature. If it is harassment then report it. LibStar (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Assuming you meant ten other editors) that completely reinforces my case that Docu has been harassed and that you know you are only adding to the harassment, but you don't call it that. Pzrmd (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then report it for harassment, otherwise it's an empty claim from you. end of story. LibStar (talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I report it when there is already an argument about it here? And explain why it is an empty claim if I don't report it. I don't understand that. Pzrmd (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you are claiming that editors have engaged in harassment, please follow steps to follow up your claim as per Wikipedia:HARASS#Dealing_with_harassment. LibStar (talk) 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're not serious and we both know it. And you seem to be avoiding my questions. Pzrmd (talk) 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am dead serious, I have seen time and time again, editors accuse someone of harassment etc without following it through. When you say something on wikipedia it's on the record (unless you retract it). it's like the The Boy Who Cried Wolf. LibStar (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you're the only one who has ever brought it up. Do you honestly believe I would report it in this situation? Pzrmd (talk) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
to accuse someone of harassment is something serious in wikipedia. you should be careful when using such words. LibStar (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pretending. You're avoiding the argument. Pzrmd (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing this frivolous RFC might amount to harassment in the larger sense, but I think it's ultimately up to Docu himself to decide if he's being harassed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, he was hassledPzrmd (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But LibStar knows what I meant. Pzrmd (talk) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not Blockable

IMO there is no way that I would support a block on anybody for using this sig, it is inconvient and a poor choice in sigs, but it is not a blockable offense. That being said, as an admin, I expect more. Should he refuse, I would not be opposed to having his relinquish his bit. In my opinion, he either needs to step back from the bit or change his sig. His sig is ok (but marginally so) for a non-admin, but not for an admin.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if the consensus is that he should be blocked, then he should be blocked. Not saying that the consensus does say that, but just that, "not a blockable offence," doesn't hold water. ╟─TreasuryTag►Speaker─╢ 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Intentionally unhelpful behavior is not acceptable from any editor, admin or not. Being unresponsive to reasonable concerns from the community is also not acceptable from any editor, admin or not. We already see he won't listen to reason. The only tool left is the clue-bat. Nobody's ever given any other reasonable suggestion to try from here, right? Why are you dragging your feet? Friday (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And IMO, if he doesn't respond, then we ask for the bit, but I would not support a block. If he prefers to sign the way he does, that's fine by me---so long as he's not an admin. I don't see this action as an offense wherein I would block a normal user. It is inconsiderate, but it is not an unforgivable/intollerable sin.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the bit is not something anyone relevant has the power to do. Blocking is something any admin can do. And yeah- by itself, the sig issue is merely inconsiderate. But when he digs in his heels and refuses to be sensible? We don't need any editor like that, ever. Friday (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out (again) that users have been blocked before over signatures the community considered disruptive. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then that needs to stop. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Why? Blocking is legitimately used to prevent disruption. If the community expresses its feeling that a signature is disruptive, and the signer refuses to end the disruption, then blocking is absolutely appropriate. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The community has not expressed that signatures are disruptive. The rest is hypothetical. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
But it has, as I've already explained. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is community consensus that a particular signature, or lack of, is disruptive, how would you propose we deal with the problem? Adambro (talk) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If there is community consensus" there certainly is not so I don't feel like participating in this hypothetical.
"how would you propose" I would not propose, because this would cease to be a community worthy of my participation.
Rigid conformance and witch hunts to enforce conformity are not a Wikipedia value. A successful community will recognize the value of divergent views. A community that continually self-selects conformity while exiling those outside the norm quickly becomes insular and irrelevant. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Good lord, are you serious? Someone had previously described this behavior as seeming like "teenage rebellion". You sound like you're agreeing, and going a step further and suggesting that such teenage rebellion is a good thing. You're making this very philosophical when it should be practical: Do we welcome editors with such stupid antisocial habits, or don't we? Friday (talk) 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
I would have to see the specifics, but I could see cases where blocking for a truly disruptive signature was called for... a sig which is deliberately misleading or has tons of graphics that it slows down performance or makes inappropriate statements are valid reasons to block. A sig that doesn't link or have the time? Rude yes, blockable? IMO no. Without knowing the specifics around the other cases, you can't really make a blanket statement and say it covers all the bases.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be the basis for removing the bit. That being said, yeah, he's digging in his heals and "refusing to be sensible" but I have to ask, if he wasn't an admin, would we really care? My answer is no. If he wasn't an admin, then I would say this RfC was a clear candidate for WP:LAME. My only concern is that an ADMIN has a sig like this and refuses to listen to the community on this subject. If an individual sat back and said, "I would listen to reasonable request, but I don't see this as reasonable" I wouldn't care enough to block.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Docu should ask whether witches float or sink before he gets thrown in the water. Drawn Some (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikifornia Über Alles! SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Comment: Of course he can be blocked. Viridae's statement as endorsed by 56 editors (see this revision -do not edit) includes the following (at the end -can't be missed): "Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer." Doing a ctrl-f search for the word "block" shows that of the 56 editors, only 2 of the 56 did not agree with the blocking aspect of the statement (Aervanath and Balloonman). 2 endorsed, but were only not sure about blocking (Enric Naval and Nihonjoe). Unless there is a dramatic swing in the way this RfC is headed, I'd say there is enough disruption overall (and consensus here) for a block of indefinite length until such time as Docu decides to be less obstinate and sign comments in a more helpful fashion. R. Baley (talk) 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it quite clear that you don't give a damn about the encyclopedia, and honestly, Wikipedia would be 50 centillion units of goodness better off if you, or even better, Friday, left the project rather than Docu being blocked for any amount of time. Pzrmd (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to be civil towards other contributors. Adambro (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That statement was completely uncalled for. Please stop. Enigmamsg 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Comment on the issue, not on other contributors. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being rude doesn't help the encyclopedia, either. Vicenarian (T · C) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have commented on a contributor as well; I'm only doing it back. What they have said about Docu is extremely offensive, but technically (according to you) "civil." Get over it. Pzrmd (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg L's comment[edit]

I was going to endorse this, but I realise I possibly wouldn't pass an RFA today. So I'm not sure if I would go that far. I agree with the concept, but not the conclusion. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't know whether you would pass or not but if you didn't you would have plenty of company. This is a whole separate issue, this administrator-for-life issue. It's been rejected in politics for the most part. On Wikipedia votes aren't considered good enough but when we !vote someone into something it's for life or gross malfeasance. That makes me chuckle. Drawn Some (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. Passing an RfA today is much, much more difficult than it was a few years ago. Enigmamsg 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That and admins necessarily through their responsibilities (cleanup, dealing with vandalism, protections, blocks etc) get involved in controversial issues that make them enemies. I know I'd have made a fair few through issues I wouldn't have given a hoot about had the community not placed their trust in me to do a job a bit over two years ago. Orderinchaos 19:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • [C]ontroversial issues that make [admins] enemies. I read before where some admin wrote that unless admin-hood was a lifetime appointment, they would get booted for making enemies for blocking some kid who did nothing but replace entire articles with “ERIC IS A FAGG!!” I don’t buy it; not for a nanosecond. I think the community is far smarter than that. Moreover, I’ve managed to run across a good handful of immature, mean-spirted admins with not even half the judgement my son had when he was only 16 years old. Docu highlights the shortcomings with the current system of lifetime appointment; you admins can’t even control your own peers on something as basic as being bull‑headed and arrogant about his refusal to sign his work.

    My recommendation would be for the admin community to wake up and smell the coffee about reigning in and kicking out the worse 10% of their ranks. For it is this subset that stands out like a sore thumb and makes the rank and file look at each other in bewilderment and start considering remedies you guys might not like so much. Greg L (talk) 03:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand the role of admins. Admins are not appointed to "control [their] own peers". The whole point of this RFC/U is to get Docu to stop flouting the guidelines and policies and pay attention. Admins aren't "higher" than other editors, and any editor could have brought this to RFC/U. Saying "you admins" like it's some sort of epithet is not a productive way to respond to this issue. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quoting you: Saying "you admins" like it's some sort of epithet is not a productive way to respond to this issue. Two things: 1) I don’t think that way and any rational interpretation of my above writings doesn’t suggest it, and 2) either your imagination ran amok or you have engaged in a blatant attempt to seize the moral high ground by holding yourself out to be a high-road, cool-headed person who pretends to admonish others in an attempt to pull the rug out from under their arguments. That is not a productive way to make a point, Nihonjoe.

    As to your Admins are not appointed to "control [their] own peers" statement: that’s my point. I am saying that if the admin community doesn’t get their act together and figure out a way to weed out the childish, mean-spirited Admins, the rank & file will figure out a way to do it, and you might not like the technique; better to do it yourself. And I’m not talking about how it would be this RfC that would weed out the bad apples; I’m talking about wholesale reform on Wikipedia of how Admins are held accountable and weeded out. Such reform is coming.

    As to your Admins aren't "higher" than other editors, I suppose it depends on how one defines “higher.” Using the common-sense definition as it would apply on Wikipedia, of course they are. They have the right and ability to block regular editors for days or weeks. That sort of power requires maturity, patience, fairness, and good judgement. Sometimes, it just isn’t there and once one realizes a mistake had been made in giving an Admin his or her that power, it is just too late since the current system for properly identifying these bad apples and stripping them of their powers has too many shortcomings to shake a stick at. Greg L (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if that's not what you meant by your use of "you admins", but that's how it appeared to me. Your characterization of me in your "b" segment, however, is completely off the mark. I've never once said I was somehow on a higher moral ground than anyone else. No one has ever brought this particular issue (Docu's refusal to use a simple signature which follows the guidelines and policies of the site listed on the main page of this RFC/U) to RFC/U before, and I completely agree that it needs to be addressed. If you don't see this RFC/U as an attempt to bring Docu inline, then I don't know what to tell you. There are obviously quite a number of us who are tired of Docu flouting the rules everyone—especially admins—are expected to follow; again, that's the whole point of this RFC/U. Threatening to start a "rank and file" revolution because it's perhaps not moving as quickly as you want does nothing. Keep in mind that Docu was "nominated" as an admin back when most (if not all) of the processes currently in place didn't exist, so using him as an example of how the current system may need improvement doesn't work so well as the current system didn't give him the twiddled bit.
That said, the RFC/U consensus is overwhelmingly of the opinion that Docu needs to change his signature method, so there is some progress being made. We'll see if Docu chooses to listen to the voice of the community and make the simple change requested, or if things will have to be taken to other venues to address the concerns raised here. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of things[edit]

On MuZemike's view: I'm afraid that is still not a standard signature. It appears as if Docu is typing the whole thing instead of tildes. Plus, in the past, it has been noted that he uses some sort of linked sign of noticeboards etc. But looking at the diff provided and the response to this RfC, I think Docu is now purposefully avoiding to sign his posts, as if trying to prove a point.

Secondly, I noted this earlier today. I informed the concerned editor Hipocrite about it and waited until someone responded to it. William M. Connolley removed this as non-violation. What struck me strange here is despite being an admin Docu chose not to discuss this with the user at all, who by the way is a well established editor, nor did he properly inform the editor about his concerns over the username. LeaveSleaves 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Docu chooses to type out the signature rather than use the tildes, isn't that his problem? Apparently he has an issue with typing tildes. Maybe he only has one hand and can't easily do combination keystrokes? And maybe he doesn't like using the mouse. Who knows. But if he starts linking his pages and starts including a timestamp (even if he manually types it), I don't see the issue. I told him he should use a standard timestamp when he might be the only participant in a thread, because bots won't archive sections without standard timestamps. –xenotalk 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manually typed signatures are fine with me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but WP:AGF is out the window as far as this "tilde typing is hard!" stuff. There is no reasonable or believable explanation for how "~", "~", "~", "~" was ever harder than "dash", "dash", space, "shift-U", "s", "e", "r", "colon", "shift-D", "o", "c", "u". Tapping your your own timestamp by hand now seems even more absurd. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu explained how difficult it is on his keyboard in 2003. All keyboards in the world are not alike. The tilde even on a standard English keyboard is not the easiest to type. Drawn Some (talk) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really give much weight to 6-year-old arguments, and find it a bit implausible even back then. Even if true, it does not explain why a 1-click cannot be used. Has he ever given an explanation for that? Tarc (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong, I was just giving you more information. I'm not going to look for the diff because it has been discussed elsewhere here on this talk page or on the RFC page, I was just letting you know that it is (or at least was) significantly more difficult on his keyboard at the time. I don't bother with much that requires more than two keys or sometimes even those with two keys. For accent marks like grave and aigu I find it easier to use a character set. In the end he is correct in that the only way to be sure who wrote something and when is to check the page history. Drawn Some (talk) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would kind of hope he's changed keyboards since 2003, also. I think I have at least twice in that time. Orderinchaos 10:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<< The "sig" button at the top of every edit-window is perfectly accessible. And every other user on Wikipedia manages, and I'm sure he's not got a completely unique keyboard. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it was so impossible for him in 2003, how did he use manage to post these signatures with a user link and timestamp in 2003:[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Then he switched to omitting the date [31],[32] or just typing the signature, like the practice many have objected to:[33]. Edison (talk) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You scare me...---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edison, I don't think he ever claimed it was impossible, just inconvenient (or something similar). I honestly do think you ought to ask him, though. People aren't really using the opportunity created by this RfC to ask Docu about his reasons for doing certain things. We might have something to learn by some of his reasoning even if we don't necessarily agree with the conclusions and his actions. Drawn Some (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu's signature has been discussed numerous times on his talk page and other noticeboards about his signature. To my knowledge, there has been no new or satisfying explanation for his signature. Even this RfC is the place to address those queries but Docu's response instead somewhat defends his signature and instead chooses to comment on other users. Here's another example: I visited the old discussion at WT:SIG that Docu mentioned in his response. He chose to leave the discussion after editors turned the attention to his own signature. LeaveSleaves 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's also a frequent signature user at Commons, which requires the use of tildes. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Outside view by SchmuckyTheCat[edit]

I don't think it's useful to call people "accusers and harpies." I also reject the idea that this is not an issue "in the actual, you know, project." It's very much an issue in the project. Docu may not be a rampant nationalist POV warrior, a paid corporate shill, a quack medical or fringe theory pusher or anything similar, but clearly many users find his behaviour disruptive. The idea that this kind of disruptive behaviour is any less in need of being dealt with than any other kind, and to characterize as a "witch hunt" the admittedly extreme lengths to which the community has had to go to get some action on its legitimate concerns around this issue is disingenuous and short sighted. Just because other users' behaviour is worse doesn't mean we should simply ignore disruption. Admins routinely block inappropriate user names; is this any less valuable than blocking edit warriors, POV pushers and vandals? It isn't, though the latter may be larger problems. Wikipedia as it stands is a huge project; no single user or admin can do everything, but every kind of disruption, no matter how seemingly insignificant, requires some kind of attention. The small matter of a signature may seem ridiculously insignificant, yet just look at the amount of disruption it has caused over the years and leading to this point. If we didn't have to deal with these trifling matters, particularly when caused by an admin, more of us might have the time and energy to wade into larger, more complex disruptions. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. Those who persist in saying this is a minor issue seem to be missing the obvious, the constant discussions about this over many years and this very request for comment. It has only turned into a major issue because of Docu's inability to either conform to the norm or provide a good reason for not doing so. Many users have politely asked about this and he's not done anything to address their legitimate concerns. Simply dismissing it as a minor issue is going to see it continue to be a major issue, for as long as it is unresolved, various users oblivious of the previous requests will continue to ask Docu about and everyone else continues to have the inconvenience associated with the lack of a link and timestamp. Everyone else seems to be able to manage to provide a reasonable signature without much difficulty. Adambro (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The issue is that an administrator seems not to care whether his behavior upsets a lot of other editors or not. Caring is better than not caring, when it comes to collaborative work, which is what we're here for. If you think that everyone who has an issue with Docu's signature simply needs to shut up, then please do go ahead and change human nature real quick. If that seems too difficult, then maybe a better solution would be for Docu to take his colleagues' concerns on board, and somehow adapt to the world as it is, and not as he might wish it were. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In a voluntary collaborative environment, colleagues must get used to the fact that their colleagues behavior might not conform to their own. If this doesn't affect the product then they ought to get used to it. Docu's signature or lack of one is not disruptive, and it doesn't affect our product. This is entirely a case of those who find it disruptive are "choosing to be offended", which is patently ridiculous. Look at what the above from adambro says "only turned into a major issue because of Docu's inability to either conform to the norm". SINCE WHEN has Wikipedia required rigid conformity? If it is a major issue because of people who choose to get offended can't let it go and keep raising the issue, then they are the ones who've failed to accommodate their fellow volunteer. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Schmucky, that suggests an elegant solution. Just change human nature real quick, and then there won't be a problem. :) If that seems difficult, then it might start to look like a good idea for us to accommodate each other in simple ways, especially when asked politely over and over again.

I don't think Wikipedia is about rigid conformity at all, but courtesy does matter. If enough of my colleagues ask me to do something, as a favor, and it's easy enough for me to do... I'll do it. Why not? -GTBacchus(talk) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting that so eloquently, Exploding Boy. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Schmucky, it sounds to me like you've got some unrelated axe to grind regarding "conformity", and it's clouding your judgement on this issue. This isn't about doing what's standard for its own sake- it's about not being gratuitously rude and unhelpful to others. Because we're all volunteers it's extra important to not tolerate people being dicks for no reason. Anything that makes this job less pleasant for the volunteers should be avoided, unless there's some positive aspect of it to balance things out. Here, there's no positive aspect to Docu's petulance. Friday (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Docu is a fellow volunteer, yes, but so are the rest of us. We need only to accomodate other volunteers when this accomodation benefits Wikipedia. If, as you put it "colleagues must get used to the fact that their colleagues behavior might not conform to their own", then so must one rebel get used to the fact that the majority of this community finds his behaviour detrimental to the project, even if he disagrees. And if the general community believes this behaviour to be detrimental then this behaviour is detrimental, simple as that. On Wikipedia, consensus=fact. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Schmucky, I understand that you and some other users don't find Docu's signature disruptive, but it's clear that many others do. As you say, everyone who works here (and it often is like work) is an unpaid volunteer, and this is a collaborative environment. Not everyone is suited to working in such an environment; it's often not easy, and it frequently means having to accept that things will be done in a way we don't personally like. I think it's pretty obvious in this situation that enough editors, over the years, have found Docu's way of signing an inconvenience. The proper thing for Docu to have done in this situation, in the absence of any compelling reason not to, was change the way he signs; instead he has steadfastly refused and as a result a mole hill has turned into a mountain. So what's the community to do? Allow one user to disregard the will of the community, inconvenience others, create problems of the type enumerated in the discussion above, and ignore the guidelines that everyone else is expected to follow? If one user doesn't have to sign properly, why should anyone? (a justification that we can be damn sure others will use if this situation isn't dealt with.) In a collaborative environment we sometimes have to do things we don't want to do. In Docu's case, that means complying with the entirely reasonable will of the community to make minor modifications to his signature, while in ours it may mean blocking Docu if he continues to refuse this entirely reasonable request. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of having an RfC is to answer just this question - is this conduct disruptive, or not? So far, the answer is pretty clear; indeed, it is much clearer on the RfC page than on this Talk page, where a relatively small number of contributors have written a disproportionately large amount of text. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that if the Project can't be seen to be able to coerce an editor into carrying out some minor action which would make interaction with him more pleasant, then that hardly bodes well for the Project's ability to deal with the aforementioned nationalist nutters, quack scientists and spammers, does it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You understand the difference between the project, what readers read, and talk pages, right? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
There aren't two projects here, one for the readers and one for the contributors. Articles, which are generally what readers see, don't exist in isolation from everything else. Good articles depend on contributors working together to write them. Anything which harms the community also harms the articles and so is detrimental to readers. Docu's signature is disruptive and so doesn't just disadvantage other users, it disadvantages readers. Whilst the community is spending time, rightly or wrongly, worrying about this issue, they are not able to concentrate on what you imply is the proper project, our articles. Adambro (talk) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Users who oppose this summary"[edit]

Is this commonly done on User Conduct RFCs? I had thought not... Cirt (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People usually put objections to specific outside views on the talk page. Friday (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So this should be removed from the active RFC main page (and/or perhaps moved to the talk page)? Cirt (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. ViridaeTalk 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from main page)) Users who oppose this summary:

  1. I was too optimistic. Docu is still pratting around. I'm astonished to discover he is an admin. Endorse de-sysoping for being a huge waste of time William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted [34] Cirt (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"de-sysoping" is completely counterproductive. Either we have this disruption with Docu as an admin, or this disruption without Docu being an admin. That just seems like revenge. Pzrmd (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) You don't mean counter-productive. You mean irrelevant William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the idea is that, if he weren't an admin, then there would be less expectation that he make his signature convenient. Many commenters have noted that, if he weren't an admin, they'd have no problem with his signature.

    I don't necessarily agree with that position, but I do believe I've summarized it accurately. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The section should be removed as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. I suppose the idea behind that is that we're not trying to figure out what we don't agree about, rather what we do, so the main page shouldn't be distracted by comments from users opposing a particular summary.
On the point of de-sysoping, Pzrmd should realise that what is expected of an admin will differ from what is expected of an ordinary user, so if the problem persists, removal of admin rights has to be a possibility. For example, the role of an admin is such that they should be easily contactable by inexperienced users and Docu's lack of signature makes this difficult. This would still definitely be a problem even if Docu wasn't an admin though as you suggest. Adambro (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
…? William, I meant counterproductive. Why you argue with that is beyond me. Pzrmd (talk) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I suppose you might have meant it, but in that case I fail to understand you. Why would it be counter-productive? Because Docu is a useful active admin who makes a positive contribution with his admin powers? That is certainly an argument you could make, but the one you made ("Either we have..." is the argument I'd expect from "irrelevant". Or perhaps "a distraction" William M. Connolley (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that would be a good argument as well. Pzrmd (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Docu wasn't an admin, I wouldn't care one iota about his sig. It would be questionable, but I could live with it. The only reason why this is an issue is because he is an admin. In my opinion he needs to decide if he wants to be an admin or sign the way he does. This issue isn't big enough to warrant a block, but it does infringe upon the ability to be an effective admin.---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no excuse.[edit]

There are not one, but two tools that pop up in an editing window to insert your properly-formatted signature. One is the button at the top of the window, the second is a link labelled "Sign your posts on talk pages:" at the bottom just under the edit summary section. And for those who say it's not an issue, not only does the very fact that it is here after so much discussion prove that it is and issue, but we even have this template for the very purpose of explaining it to people (which, IMHO, he has not seen enough of on his talk page and, regular or not, should be getting far more often). --BlueSquadronRaven 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which he has not seen enough of? So we should harass him ad nauseam with a template. Good idea. Pzrmd (talk) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea would be for Docu to provide a proper signature like the vast majority do without much difficulty. Adambro (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, not everyone has the same editing options. I don't have the buttons at the top of the window, but I do have the "Sign your posts on talk pages" link at the bottom. Having said that, I don't think that the lack of either or both is a compelling impediment to signing properly. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Docu cannot use any of these features to sign a standard signature he should say so, but he gave no such reason, so we can presume he is deliberately not using the standard signature. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Just someone playing a game because they can. And we're worried about school students making asinine edits—who would have thought immaturity was so close to hand?  HWV258  09:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, de-sysopping and blocking are warranted. BlueSquadronRaven 21:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons[edit]

I happened to notice Docu edited the village pump over on Commons - he seemed perfectly capable of signing over there [35], [36], [37], [38]. So it's fairly clear his "excuse" it's too much effort isn't good enough, because he manages it elsewhere without a problem. I cannot think what makes the English Wikipedia any different or special when it comes to signing. Majorly talk 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And Majorly hits the nail right on the head and down into the spinal cord...--Aervanath (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on his user talk page about this, but he chose to "collapse" it, citing that he wasn't abusing any tools. Whatever that means. Perhaps its time for an ArbCom case, given his reluctance to discuss any factor of the case? seicer | talk | contribs 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it needs arbcom intervention, there is nothing they can do that the community can't except desysop and they are very unlikely to do that, even with the new, more proactive arbcom we have here. ViridaeTalk 02:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Docu gets de-sysopped over this trivial matter, then something has gone seriously wrong on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was only about the refusal to sign correctly, yes I would agree. However other issues such as communication have been brought up. ViridaeTalk 03:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Docu is forcing editors to consider desysopping over such trivial matter, then you might wonder that this is not a trivial matter at all. LeaveSleaves 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu hasn't "forced" anyone to do anything, other than to make a couple of extra keystrokes if they want to get his contrib history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say is Docu had the chance (in fact, still has the chance) to fix community's perception by making this slight change is behavior. The fact that Docu is inconsistent with his signature and is in fact continuing with the behavior merely to make a point shows his attitude towards the community. Sysops as supposed to be model editors, both in terms of their contributions and dealings with community. If Docu blatantly ignores other editors' multiple requests to make this small change, I'm not surprised that people are considering desysopping. LeaveSleaves 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary subsection

(I'm splitting off this section, as it seems to deal with the RfC in general more than the specific issue being raised above. The comment from Adambro below had immediately followed a comment from LeaveSleaves above. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]


I find it strange that Baseball Bugs still tries to claim this is simply a "trivial matter". The evidence to disprove this can be seen in the form of this request for comment, the numerous times this has been raised both on Docu's talk page and elsewhere, and the strong consensus which seems to have formed here calling for Docu to use a proper signature. Clearly, rightly or wrongly, it isn't a "trivial matter", or at least it isn't because Docu has continued with this practice and consistently failed to discuss this. It has only become a more significant issue because of Docu's failure to address the perfectly legitimate concerns of numerous contributors. The removal of Docu's admin rights would be unfortunate but clearly he can only retain those rights whilst he has the trust of the community. The erosion of that trust has been down to the actions of Docu, rather than a failure of the community to tolerate his behaviour. Respect is a two way process. If he wants the community to respect him and consider it appropriate for him to continue to have admin rights then he's got to demonstrate a respect for the community. Whilst the community continues to concern itself, again, rightly or wrongly, with the issue of Docu's signature, this is disruptive to the work of the community. This could very easily be resolved by Docu agreeing to provide a proper signature like pretty much everyone else. His failure to do would seem to show a lack of respect for the project and his fellow contributors. Adambro (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "model behavior", this is the guy who should have been de-sysopped immediately: [39] That's a hundred times worse than Docu's apparent refusal to conform. And enough of this talk about "the community". A handful of editors have a problem with it. Apparently another 800-plus admins don't think it's a big deal. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "apparent refusal"? Docu's refusal to talk about this is refusal enough. And why can't this RfC's overall mood be considered as reflection of community. When community bans are discussed on AN, does each and every sysop or user do you believe participates for a successful ban? This RfC is significant enough representation of there is disapproval towards Docu's signature and his behavior regarding its discussion. LeaveSleaves 14:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overreacting to a user's harassment on one's own talk page is hardly grounds for desysopping. Blocking said user would be. Orderinchaos 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs it is purely your opinion that admin referred to in wikiquette is "100 times worse". Wikipedia is not a democracy and does not require the majority of administrators to appear at RFCs or any other decision making forum. And persistently spending more time here than anyone here doesn't necessarily make your arguments stronger. Look at the discussions, there is pretty clear consensus that the signature and communication are big issues of concern of Docu. how we resolve it is not as clear consensus...but to say this is not a big deal because almost 100 different editors has commented is really trying to cover up Docu. LibStar (talk) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being outnumbered does not make me wrong nor you right. Tolerating an admin hurling obscenities at a user while beating up on another admin for something that is merely inconvenient tells me that the priorities at wikipedia are way out of whack. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That the people posting here have not discussed the other admin you mention does not mean they approve of their behaviour either, BB. Like me, they may simply have been unaware of it, and as far as admins go, it's not like they all know each other and have regular meetings. But the cases are different anyway: that admin made one rude comment (that I'm aware of); this one has been refusing polite requests to follow our own guidelines for years. Both are unacceptable, but to my mind Docu's behaviour is worse. Losing one's temper and saying something rude in the heat of the moment is understandable; Docu's flat out refusal to change the way he signs despite the clear will of the community as expressed both here and on various talk pages over the years is not. As others have said, I'm not sure why some people are still trying to claim this matter is trivial or unworthy of our attention. Docu's continuing refusal to follow the community's wishes even in the face of this RFC, where some are calling for desysopping rather than simple blocking, is truly bewildering. But I also find it strange that some people seem so anti-admin in general, insisting that there's an admin cabal that protects its own, yet they're willing to defend the clearly problematic behaviour of this one admin even as other admins are asking him to change it. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a bit inconsistent that you were prepared to invoke the weight of numbers just a couple of hours ago when you felt you could claim a silent majority on your side, whereas the expressed opinions of a very large number of experienced editors ought to be ignored.
I'm not persuaded by the argument that this RfC somehow means that the inappropriate conduct of other admins is being glossed over. It should also not be read to mean that the participants in this RfC endorse the conduct you've linked in your diff. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, and all that. Since you bring it up, however, perhaps comparisons with that case would be appropriate.
  • Was the rudeness part of an ongoing pattern of conduct, or a one-off?
  • Has the admin in question repeated the behaviour since?
  • Have multiple editors raised the issue with the admin in question without receiving any satisfactory response?
  • Has there been evidence presented that the community has disregarded any additional misconduct from this admin?
  • Would it be good for the project to encourage desysopping for one intemperate remark, particularly one that responds to deliberate baiting?
Wikipedia is generally a very forgiving place. (It can be argued that we are sometimes too much so.) If a problem does not recur, we don't generally go in for heads on pikes. On the flip side, if you present evidence that Taulant has made a habit of hurling obscenities, I will gladly line up beside you when you file your RfC. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solution[edit]

An impersonator got in on the act and momentarily confused a few people before getting blocked. Nothing to see.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


OK I've set up a user, and user talk page, and will create a script that mirrors the edits and will add a proper signature to User:Docu comments on the 92 editors talk pages that have a problem with his signature. I will have the scripts finished in a day or 2. Will this work for everyone? If so we can close this out and get back to work. User Docu (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

will you add a signature to all talk pages not just the 92 editors? LibStar (talk) 13:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second LibStar's question. The goal here is not to get you to sign just the pages of people who have objected to you not signing, it's to get you to sign everywhere a normal editor would sign. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's the go with this User: User Docu? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, the script is easy to modify. All Talk pages, correct? User Docu (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should know that by now. LibStar (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Adambro has blocked User: User Docu. Who was he, does anyone know? Docu, can you confirm this was you? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also Test Script (talk · contribs). No idea who this is, nor really what it is they are proposing, but their reference about to Docu in the third person would suggest it isn't him. Adambro (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What was the point of this idea, which appears to be (thankfully) aborted? Tarc (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK the script should be working now! Test Script (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this idea correctly, User:User Docu aka User:Test Script (ie: not Docu) is proposing some kind of bot that will sign Docu's posts with a link on the talk pages of those who have expressed a desire for Docu to change his signature. It should go without saying that this is not an acceptable solution to the issue nor is it related to this RFC, and I would ask whoever this user is (s/he claims to be an admin) to please stop distracting everyone from the business at hand. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit like a WP:POINT violation... Cirt (talk) 19:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Whoever it is, we're probably best off ignoring them and proceeding normally. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question asked of Docu[edit]

I have asked Docu to provide a yes or no answer: does he intend to comply with the consensus or not. In addition he has been warned that if the answer is no, or this is no answer it may be escalated. diff. ViridaeTalk 22:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bring the RFC to Docu's talk page

I am not talking about Viridae's question to him, I'm talking about what followed. Give the guy some room to breathe.

Cut and pasted from user talk:Docu
There would be many admins who would swiftly unblock Docu (and I'm sure Docu himself). Stripping him/her of adminship is going to make everyone on your side look absurd. I don't know why it is so absolutely necessary to smooth over some small eccentricity from a user with 90,000+ edits from over seven years. It may be frustrating for cliquish social fairies like you, but stopping Docu from making 5,000 mainspace edits for every one weird signature shows how hopelessly dense you are. And to Docu, please don't let the fascist clique discourage you. Pzrmd (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
most of the 90,000+ edits could have been made by a non admin. We don't hand out adminships on the basis of number of edits. LibStar (talk) 03:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. Pzrmd (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
then why did you mention it? Docu can still continue to edit without admin rights...which might I add are a privilege given to trusted editors. LibStar (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you would have to strip Docu of adminship in order to block him, one of many common-sense reasons. Pzrmd (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no if there is a community consensus as per WP:SANCTIONS to block him for non-conforming signature, then any admin that unblocks him would be liable to be blocked as they have breached established community decision. in other words, he can still be blocked and still retain adminship. LibStar (talk) 03:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is pointless. Stop throwing rehash at me. Pzrmd (talk) 03:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Libstar: there is no consensus, this RFC is a stalemate. NVO (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no consensus on remedies but there is consensus that signature and communication are an issue...but we will wait to see if Docu obliges and changes his signature and saves us all the trouble. however, one path may be referral to Arb Com. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

so you admit you're wrong in saying that in order Docu to be blocked he must first be stripped of admin rights. LibStar (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I could cream you in an argument, as I have done before, but it's not worth my time right now. Go write an article or something. Pzrmd (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let everyone read this discussion. you're clearly wrong on this. better not reply to dig yourself deeper. LibStar (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you obviously missed where I implied/said Docu would obviously unblock himself. No more of this. Pzrmd (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
clear policy here regarding admins unblocking a block Wikipedia:Wheel war. refer to An administrator deliberately ignores an existing discussion (often at the Administrators noticeboard/Incidents or Deletion review) and implements their own preferred action or version of an edit you're wrong!LibStar (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you're expecting Docu to be compliant? Pzrmd (talk) 03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you claimed "There would be many admins who would swiftly unblock Docu (and I'm sure Docu himself)" this would be a violation of WP:WHEEL. thus your claim that blocking is pointless is wrong. Unless you can find an overriding policy, best to keep quiet and move on. I have won this argument. LibStar (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That takes a lot of compliance, something you and your clique argued Docu absolutely did not have. Pzrmd (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If Docu unblocks himself he will almost certainly be desysopped. ViridaeTalk 03:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's what I was saying. Pzrmd (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec - you said "Yes. Absurd." and then changed it)You might think so, but you would be in a minority of one. Long standing policy and practice says that admins must not undo a block placed on their account by another admin. Anyway - I'm not waiting a response from you, but one from Docu. ViridaeTalk 03:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I can see any administrator unblocking him/herself. Pzrmd (talk) 03:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pzrmd, without reference to the present case, I can assure you that an admin unblocking themself is perceived to be a gross misuse of administrative tools and would be very damaging and escalate whatever situation led to the hypothetical admin being blocked in the first place. –xenotalk 04:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. If an administrator unblocks himself, that is considered wheel warring and can lead to desysoping. seicer | talk | contribs 05:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later comment)Well it didn't use to be such a big deal; admins would unblock themselves all the time two or three years ago, and I wouldn't blame them. Pzrmd (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "two or three years ago" anymore. See Consensus Can Change. Any admin who unblocks themselves now will most likely be desysopped, at least temporarily.--Aervanath (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
yes, yes, yes, ok, I get it. Pzrmd (talk) 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As this may reflect on the tone of discussion, it seems worth noting that Pzrmd seems to have abruptly retired following the creation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/pzrmd; I'm not fully aware of the circumstances surrounding that, otherwise. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest I suspect we will find that Pzrmd was a sockpuppet/new account of someone who would not be granted the right to re-appear i this way following abandonment of the old account. His nature was quite combative. Or at least in my various experiences with him. ViridaeTalk 08:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automatic signatures[edit]

A number of editors have tried to defend Docu by saying since signatures are not automatic, therefore they are considered optional and thus he has no case to answer. One reason they are not automatic is that if you go back and correct/amend your comments on a talk page you won't get an automatic signature posted write next to say where you corrected your spelling. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; not to mention that there are talk pages where one does not sign, and non-talk pages where one does. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Docu does, however, have ((NoAutosign)) on his user page. This means he is well aware of the existence of Sinebot and is deliberately thumbing his nose at the idea of signing his talk page posts properly, even when presented with a mechanism for it to be done automatically. Frankly, the more I see of his behaviour, the more inclined I am to see him de-sysopped. --BlueSquadronRaven 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as any sort of violation or problematic behavior. The fact that the template exists means that users have an option of opting out of bot signing their comments. LeaveSleaves 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I use that template because in the rare case that I forget to sign, I'll notice immediately and don't want an edit conflict with the bot. --NE2 15:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, you stopped needing it about 133068 edits ago ;p –xenotalk 16:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another reason not to use non standard manual signatures[edit]

on ANI page The archival bot, which moves the oldest sections to the archives in order to reduce page length below 256KB every day, does not always recognize nonstandard, manually inserted timestamps LibStar (talk) 07:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

licencing?[edit]

Just checking - does not signing using tildes cause licencing problems? 82.33.48.96 (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of what??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP may be talking about possible issues with the GFDL. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Algebraist 21:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume s/he's talking about licensing of user contributions. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What licensing? Everything we write here becomes the "property" of wikipedia, right? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you click the edit button you get a message that says (partly) "You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL. You agree to be credited, at minimum through a hyperlink or URL, when your contributions are reused in any form." Exploding Boy (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I get it, sort of. Article content comes under GDFL. Talk page content is not article content, and the improper signature issue would only come up on talk pages, so it's a non-issue. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure you must agree to license all your contributions, not just article edits. In any case, you get same message in talk page edit windows as article edit windows Exploding Boy (talk) 05:09, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why anyone would wind to license anything from my talk page is hard to figure. :) In any case, I would think that the license "release" would be tied to the actual user ID info from the edit history, because anyone can put anything (or, sometimes nothing) as a signature, but the user info on the history is done in a specific, consistent format. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... yes, but most users' posts are either signed with a link (in which case even if the signature is different from the username, which is also not permitted by the guideline, you can still click to find the username) or are autosigned by the bot. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what every edit page states between the editing box and the edit summary box: You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 and the GFDL. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above user's signature looks like boxes on my home PC and like Japanese characters on my work PC - except that hovering over it presents the actual username. However, the history is consistent and is the best source of who-did-what-when. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try this: Help:Installing Japanese character sets. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never concerned myself with the "licensing" issue anyway. I assumed from day one that whatever I wrote here was relinquished to the vast bit-bucket known as wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've never concerned yourself with licencing but you felt the need to make six contributions to my very simple question? Thanks, I guess. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Others have explained above why the page history is not the easiest way for many users to determine who wrote what when, but it seems that even if you can't view the characters in Nihonjoe's username on one computer (because you don't have Japanese character recognition) or read them on the other (because you don't read Japanese), you can easily determine his username by hovering over the signature and reach his user or user talk page by clicking on it. That seems like an endorsement of linked signatures. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linked signatures are a good thing, but they are not required. If I had my way, every signature would have all 3 links that mine do. But that's merely inconvenient, just a few extra clicks to find - just as with a non-linked signature. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are required, by our signature guideline. Crikey I'm having the strongest feeling of déjà vu right now... Exploding Boy (talk) 05:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That wording was modified by an editor to give the impression it's required. But it's not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was always required. The guideline read "At least one of those pages [user, user talk or user contribs] must be linked from your signature" long before Xeno edited that section. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But Baseball Bugs seems to enjoy rehashing point over and over and over and over in a rather pointy way. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an RfC to ban him from this RfC? :) (mostly kidding, noone get all bunched up over it, pls). But honestly, when do RfCs usually wind down? It does seem like we are retreading the same ground over and over now. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I've been wondering: At what point does somebody make a ruling on this RFC and close it down? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ud) "RfCs that are listed by the RfC bot are also automatically ended by the RfC bot after thirty days. If consensus has been reached before then, the RfC nominator(s) can remove the RfC tag, and the bot will remove the discussion from the list on its next run.

"Manually added RfCs must be manually closed. This is accomplished by deleting the text that you added from the RfC page.

"A request for comment on a user, however, needs to be closed manually. This should be done by an uninvolved editor." Exploding Boy (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer my question at all, so I'll just keep watching it and see what happens. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take it to mean they can run for up to 30 days unless consensus has been reached before then, at which point a manually added RFC needs to be manually closed by an uninvolved admin. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so assuming it runs clear to July 17th and remains open, what happens then? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, if the RFC hasn't been closed already, then an uninvolved admin is recruited to do the honours. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines vs policies[edit]

Since several users seem to be under the impression that guidelines don't have to be followed because they're not policies, I quote here some relevant sections from WP:POLICY:

The idea that guidelines do not have to be followed because they're called "guidelines" and not "policies" is, simply, wrong. Some of our guidelines include:

I doubt many would argue that these do not have to be followed by virtue of being "only" guidelines. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Guidelines exist because of consensus, and I think that's what a lot of people are missing when they try to justify certain people's behaviour. BlueSquadronRaven 05:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And by ignoring guidelines just because they are guidelines, you are generally violating some policy or another. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it seems that the main difference between the two is that in case of disagreement policies take precedence over guidelines. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGF is a thoroughly useless guideline, as even Grawp is acting "in good faith"; and as I've found through bitter experience, COI is not enforced. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the only Grawp I know is a Harry Potter character. I find AGF a very useful guideline and I see COI enforced regularly. It's odd how we can have such different experiences and just goes to show how very large Wikipedia is. But for me your comments only strengthen the view that guidelines exist for good reasons and can and should be enforced. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very funny. The point being that even the worst vandal thinks he's doing the right thing. Hence "assuming good faith" is the same thing as "assume a human being is writing it". In my experience, there is no consistency in the enforcement of COI. My most trying experience with this was when a guy came here with an SPA for the sole purpose of selling his "not available in stores" CD collection. Not only was he allowed to get away with, but I was shouted down and threatened on the ANI page. So I have no faith whatsoever in the alleged "enforcement" of COI guidelines. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't trying to be funny... Anyway, vandalism is different from good-faith editing. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to fuck things up somehow, such as by blanking pages or adding nonsense. There's no doubt that good-faith editing can be problematic as well, but good faith editors aren't deliberately trying to stir up shit. AGF just means that we should remain civil and start from the point of view that the person we disagree with isn't deliberately trying to be disruptive -- AGF doesn't mean that we must treat obvious vandalism as good faith editing, however. As for COI, it's unfortunate in the case you cite that other editors were not able to see the problems with the editor in question. Is it possible that one reason for that is the tendency of some editors to devalue guidelines (and therefore believe they aren't enforceable) because they're not called policies? The guideline clearly states that editors must not use Wikipedia to promote their own interests. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe you don't know about Grawp. In any case, I think the abuse filters have pretty well curbed his activities. I don't agree with your assessment, as you can't possibly know what someone's real motivation is, even if he tells you, because he could be lying. AGF is useless. Defend the content and enforce the rules. That's what matters, and that's what to focus on. As for COI, the guidelines were ignored on the grounds that they didn't matter in that case. And no one on ANI bothered to do anything about it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that one, then he certainly isn't acting in good faith (any more than our wheeled friend or any of the other persistent under-the-billy-goats-bridge dwellers). Period. As for the other issue, I'm going to have to assume that we aren't getting the full story. I've never seen anyone allowed to spam Wikipedia once admins are made aware of the issue (in the almost four years I've been here). Perhaps you can find this particular thread so we can review it and perhaps come up with a reason why things weren't done the way you think they should have been done. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's THIS about?[edit]

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry about, just someone looking to cause some trouble by the looks of things. See here where it was discussed earlier. Adambro (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MuZemike's addendum[edit]

(In case you didn't know) Xeno changed the guideline. Pzrmd (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno clarified it, and anyone following this RFC/U already knows that. It's been discussed a few times here already. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's completely possible that MuZemike missed it, and it sounds as if he did. He hasn't commented afaik very much if at all on this talk page. Pzrmd (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, a ctrl-f search shows MuZemike didn't comment at all on this talk page. Pzrmd (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People often read things without commenting, so we have no way of knowing for sure if he's read or not read this page. I would hope he has as this is where the discussion in the RFC/U is happening. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said "in case you didn't know." Pzrmd (talk) 20:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He changed it in order to support his argument that it's a rule rather than just a guideline. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which I resent. Pzrmd (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm getting tired of repeating myself on this matter, as, I'm sure, is everyone else: the guideline stated that signatures "must" contain a link to at least one of the user, user talk, or user contributions pages long before Xeno's edit. Must. Not should, might, could, or any other qualifier. Must. Xeno's edit didn't change the substance of the relevant section, or its meaning. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it did. And in any case, I speak English natively, and a guideline IS NOT a rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one in this section ever implied that it did not say "must" before. Pzrmd (talk) 06:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You speak English natively? What a peculiar way of saying that. Anyway, Bugs, I give up on discussing this with you. Xeno's edit didn't, as you're implying, make it appear as though the guideline was requiring something it hadn't prior to the edit. And it has been explained to you thoroughly enough for even a non-native speaker to grasp that guidelines are not, by virtue of being called "guidelines" rather than "rules" or "policies," simply to be ignored, and exactly why Docu should change their signature anyway, even if that were the case. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines still can be ignored. Baseball Bugs only said Xeno changed the wording to support his argument. What the hell is wrong with the phrase "I speak English natively?" Pzrmd (talk) 06:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look up "guideline" in any thesaurus, "rule" will be listed as a synonym, so arguing that a "guideline" is not a "rule" is pointless and fallacious, Baseball Bugs. You've brought this up multiple times, and had it refuted multiple times by multiple people, so please drop this argument before it gets any more pointy. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A thesaurus includes all vaguely similar words as synonyms. Baseball Bugs is correct in the way Wikipedia defines a guideline. (♬be nice♬) Pzrmd (talk) 06:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines are rules (whether you and BB want to believe it or not), and yes, they can on occasion be ignored if there is a really, really good reason for it, but they should not be completely ignored as is the case here. While they do not have the same weight as a policy, they are every bit as important as policies when it comes to the overall smooth running of the site. They are used to clarify details related to policies which are impractical to include specifically within each policy. For example, WP:RS and WP:N are very closely intertwined with adhering to WP:V and WP:BLP, and (as mentioned here already) adhering to WP:SIG works closely with WP:EQ to tie into complying with WP:CIVIL. Arguing here is not going to change that. If you want to start a discussion on whether WP:SIG should be adhered to or if details of it should be changed, feel free to take it to the village pump. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text of the guideline before:

"It is common practice to include a link to one or more of your user page, user talk page, and contributions page. At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log."

Text of the guideline after:

"Signatures must include at least one internal link to one of your user page, user talk page, or contributions page to allow other editors simple access to your talk page and contributions log. "

Any idiot should be able to tell that the meaning is the same for one thing, and for another Xeno's edit has remained for 2 weeks now, clearly and unambiguously indicating it has community consensus.

As for those who think guidelines don't have to be followed, I suggest you reacquaint yourselves with WP:POLICY; you can begin by reading the section above. And for the billionth time, even if it were true that guidelines can be ignored, which it isn't, that still doesn't change the fact that Docu's signature is disruptive and that the community wants him to change it.

And Pzrmd, please don't move my posts around in future; I place them where I intended them to be. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's annoying when you post out-of-order. And there is a reason Xeno changed it. "it is common practice where one of your pages must be linked" Pzrmd (talk) 06:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have no idea how annoying I'm finding this entire conversation. So annoying, in fact, that I'm done with it for today. And, by the way, what you've written above is not what it says, in either version. Exploding Boy (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the first version implies, of course. Pzrmd (talk) 07:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Sk8er5000[edit]

Could someone else please take a look at questions (currently, questions 3, 4 and 5) asked by Docu at the above editor review? I get the feeling that Sk8er5000's view expressed in this RfC is being given undue weight at the review and, personally, I fail to see the helpfulness of such questions. The questions almost seem to be a formatted reply or a challenge to Sk8er5000's comments but I think an editor review is a wrong venue for something like that. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine to ask questions like that at an editor review, though I think Docu is likely being pointy on purpose for the reasons you give. Sk8er5000 seems to be handling the questions just fine, so I wouldn't worry about it. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting an example[edit]

By virtue of closing this ANI thread [40] an admin has effectively declared that it's perfectly OK for an admin to say "F.U." to an editor. So the civility policy has been officially declared to be irrelevant, and the argument about Docu "setting a bad example" is officially bogus. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're oversimplifying that discussion, and you mischaracterized this one in your comment there. I have repeatedly stated that this RFC/U has the goals stated at the top of the main page of the RFC/U, and no other goals. Whether you choose to believe that or not is irrelevant. If someone decides to pursue other remedies elsewhere, I have no control over that, but THIS RFC/U is not trying to de-sysop anyone, least of all Docu. Please stop with your mischaracterizations. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, this RFC/U should have the endgame of desysopping Docu for two different though sufficient unto themselves reasons: 1) disregard for communication with other users and general obfuscation tactics, 2) deliberate disruption regarding his signature, as evidenced by his use of a standard sig on Commons. Unfortunately, +sysop seems to mean +sysopforlife, and so getting him desysopped for this behaviour is likely a futile endeavour. This is a serious problem. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're onto something. Admins should come up for renewal periodically, to get re-voted. This is not the U.S. Supreme Court. It would provide a chance to weed out the ones who seemed OK at the start and then descended into the kind of thing I've described here. An admin who says "F.U." to a user should be IMMEDIATELY de-sysopped, as it is clear he lacks the temperament for the job. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree [edited to add: with Nihonjoe's comment above; Roux's comment was posted after mine], and without commenting on that specific case, since I haven't read all the relevant posts, I would add that even if it were true that one admin had declared the civility policy irrelevant -- which they didn't; as I understand it from skimming that section, they only decided nothing would be accomplished by further discussion on AN/I and directed the editor to the dispute process -- it takes more than one editor to determine that a policy is no longer in force. With all your apparent concern for civility and following the rules, it's mystifying that you are so insistent that guidelines don't need to be followed, and so dogged in your defence of Docu's signature, despite the community's clear disapproval of same. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much sums it up. Your steadfast defense of behaviour community consensus condemns would be laughable were it not for your smear tactics. Give it up with what dignity you have left. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dignity is in good shape. Not so much, those who persist in this petty signature business while affirming that it's perfectly OK for an admin to hurl obscenities at an editor. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please let us know which editors participating in this RfC have affirmed that it's 'perfectly OK' – for an admin, or any editor – to hurl obscenities at other editors. Otherwise, please stop it with this tiresome business of presuming that we cannot disagree with more than one editor's discourtesy at a time. Perhaps you should file your own RfC on an editor whose conduct you feel is not being addressed by the community, rather than whinging at us for ignoring your pet issue? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I raise the issue here and the above editors say I'm wrong about it, so there's the start of a list. The signature thing is a petty issue, a minor annoyance, being pushed by a few conformists. The obscenities issue is 100 times worse, an affront to basic wikipedia principles, and no one seems to care. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I didn't say you were wrong; rather, I said you were "oversimplifying that discussion" (the one you linked to), and that "you mischaracterized this one in your comment there". I agree with you that "hurling" obscenities is not acceptable behavior, but that doesn't excuse Docu's behavior (which is the subject of this RFC/U). You keep trying to deflect attention elsewhere during these discussions rather than focusing on the issue at hand here. As far as this RFC/U is concerned, none of those other issues have anything to do with this, and are irrelevant to this discussion. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't raise any issue here. You said "By virtue of closing [the ANI thread you linked] . . . the civility policy has been officially declared to be irrelevant, and the argument about Docu 'setting a bad example' is officially bogus." Speaking for myself, my response was to refute your claim that the civility policy had been declared irrelevant by virtue of someone closing a thread with the advice to seek dispute resolution; In fact, I specifically wrote that I wasn't commenting on the ANI issue you mentioned because I wasn't fully informed about it. But of course, we've gone over this issue before on this page when you've insisted that supporting this RFC is tantamount to making a statement that other forms of disruption are less important; you're the only one who seems to think that, while everyone else seems to be capable of disliking both this form of disruption and other forms of disruption. I'm also surprised by your appeal to "basic Wikipedia principles" above, when elsewhere you argue passionately for ignoring guidelines. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Bugs, I think you've got a potentially legitimate point, but I also think that you're shooting yourself in the foot with the hyperbole. In the section above (I assume you're referring to #Arbitrary subsection) what I don't see is people saying that hurling obscenities is 'perfectly OK' or otherwise appropriate conduct for any editor. Instead I see editors making much more nuanced statements. Exploding Boy's comment explicitly stated that the use of obscenities directed at another editor was "unacceptable", but also noted that saying something rude in the heat of the moment could be "understandable". To my mind, that isn't a free pass; it's an acknowledgement that the situation bears monitoring and further examination, but not necessarily a reflexive off-with-his-head. Similarly, while I noted that this RfC wasn't the appropriate venue for dealing with concerns about a different admin's conduct, I also noted that I would be willing to participate in an RfC that presented evidence that the other admin's conduct was part of an ongoing pattern of abusive behaviour. I made that post two weeks ago, and you still haven't gotten back to me.
Looking at this thread, I again don't see any move to condone the use of profanity directed at other editors. Instead, I see several editors who are telling you that that behaviour isn't acceptable, but also that this RfC isn't the correct forum for you to try to resolve the issue. I also acknowledge that some of the participants are showing some frustration at what they see as a persistent mischaracterization of their opinions by you. You're not being told to shut up and put up with obscenity; you're being told that you need to deal with persistently rude admins through proper channels. There are likely scads of people here who quite strongly agree with you that the use of obscenity – particularly when directed at other editors – is inappropriate and that we need to be able to respond to it much more firmly and systematically than we do now. However, your abrasive approach on this talk page and in this RfC has, frankly, made it uncomfortable for other editors to support you (even if they wanted to carry on the discussion in an inappropriate venue). Respect is a two-way street; your dismissive tone (not to mention the namecalling) leaves other editors cold. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, just today we have an admin blocking an ordinary editor who made a similar comment, with the statement "there is no circumstance..." [41] Unless that circumstance is an angry admin, apparently. But as long as the admin uses a proper signature, apparently he can say whatever he wants. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for this, Bugs. Please stop hijacking this RFC/U for your own grandstanding on other issues. Please take it elsewhere. Thank you. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Stay on topic or stay quiet. --BlueSquadronRaven 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Burns: Sir, I think the Chinese have captured Major Houlihan

Col. Potter: I see. So naturally, you shot Captain Hunnicutt.

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love M*A*S*H. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stay on topic, hypocrite. Pzrmd 08:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Note: I had removed the above as an attack, Pzrmd reverted it. I am disinclined to get in an editwar over it. → ROUX ₪ 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I would certainly be prepared to edit-war over it. Pzrmd 08:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
For this, I have blocked Pzrmd for 12 hours.  Sandstein  09:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, entirely on topic, Pzrmd has also apparently started emulating Docu's signature style which culminated in this RFC/U. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that too. Fascinating coming from a user who claimed they wanted a 'fresh start' under a new username, particularly combined with other behaviour. I suspect 'fresh start' means 'clean block log'. → ROUX ₪ 10:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have suspected THAT for a long time. If he continues to sign like that, block him for disruption. ViridaeTalk 14:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has indicated that using the non-sig is specifically because of this RFC/U. Blergh. → ROUX ₪ 20:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My old account had a completely clean block log. Pzrmd 21:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Spoiled that record then, eh? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although I have been autoblocked. Pzrmd 21:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Please sign your comments properly, per the guideline which states that you must link your user, talk, or contributions pages in your signature. You have already been asked once by a crat, you are now being asked by another editor. → ROUX ₪ 22:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left Pzrmd a friendly reminder which he has chosen to revert, signaling his reading and understanding of it. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close[edit]

This RFC was started over 30 days ago now -- today is day 35. I'm therefore inviting an uninvolved admin to close it. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse closure. –xenotalk 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A request has been made at the Admin noticeboard. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And apparently thirded since I was posting my request at about the same time as Exploding Boy. Great minds think alike, I guess. :p ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So how did you come up with it :P ---Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you see...hey! ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
π'd. → ROUX ₪ 20:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3.2ed, per Roux. Vicenarian (T · C) 23:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Pzrmd (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about winning or losing. Forgive me, but I think that's the wrong attitude to have around here. We're about collaboration, not competition. Vicenarian (T · C) 23:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was waiting for some drone to say that. So laughably predictable. Pzrmd (talk) 23:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We had an RfC on a recalcitrant admin who refused to sign his posts. Following this RfC, he now (mostly) signs his posts. You have been one of the more belligerent and vocal of the Docu-cheerleaders, Pzrmd...not to mentioned thr eDrama generated by hiding your past identity here...but one would hope that you could put down your pom-poms for a moment and see that this process did bring about a result. Tarc (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good…I'm glad you're satisfied and probably won't harass Docu anymore. Pzrmd (talk) 00:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was never any harassing in the first place, so you can drop the hysterics. What this does is, if it happens again, provide a base from which to proceed with further sanctions. Ta-ta. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More