Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Docu

2009-06-21T17:44:42Z

Test Script: /* Solution */ Test

==Moved to talk page==
===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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 23:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
#[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
*Moved here since it doesn't relate to the subject of the RFC. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*:Endorse move. ;) ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 01:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*If I'm not mistaken, [[User:SineBot|SineBot]] already ''would'' be automatically signing Docu's posts (with an appropriate link to his user page, and a datestamp) — except that Docu has applied the opt-out template {{tl|NoAutosign}} to his userpage. Docu's posts would all have a perfectly acceptable signature if he hadn't deliberately disabled the automatic signing of his posts. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 12:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*:SineBot only operates on users with fewer than 800 edits. Docu would have to explicitly opt-in by using {{tl|YesAutosign}} if he wanted Sinebot to follow him around. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*::Well, that's trivially easy to fix. If Docu could be bothered to add the opt-out template (necessary or not; I'm fairly certain that SineBot didn't originally have that edit count constraint), he can easily change the {NoAutosign} to {YesAutosign}. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

*:::I don't think that 800 edits limit is true. Once in a blue moon I'll forget to sign, and sinebot is right there, soon afterward, posting my signature and timestamp. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 04:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
*::::Well, perhaps you can explain why this comment isn't signed then.

==Regarding comment by Pzrmd==
For convenience sake:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>

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). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 02:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:This is relevant: [http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?VestedContributor Meatball: Vested Contributor] [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:: And [[Wikipedia:No vested contributors]], which is not really followed in practice. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::(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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 01:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
<blockquote>
# 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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 02:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
#:[[#Outside_view_by_Viridae|Currently 20]] (or 18, minus Nihonjoe and Enric Naval) endorse "Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed." -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 03:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
</blockquote>
:(Nihonjoe) You are purposefully misunderstanding my argument. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 10:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::No, I'm taking it at face value. If you want to expand on the apparent meaning of your argument, please do. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 16:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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 [[WP:DISRUPT|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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 03:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 04:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::I'm not trying to expand the scope; this is all described in the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Docu#Statement_of_the_dispute|original statement]]. The issue as described there is [[WP:DISRUPT|disruption]] and [[WP:CIVIL|civility]]; [[WP:SIG]] noncompliance is merely the catalyst. My objection is to those who seek to reduce the issue to just [[WP:SIG]] noncompliance. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 04:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::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). ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 04:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:"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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 04:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::Where did you get this idea, that disruptive non-adherence to guidelines can't be enforced by block? –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (again, not saying that Docu's signature is as such, but in general)
::::So you ARE proposing to block him, then? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Have you read the view by Viridae? — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 05:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 05:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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". [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Not everyone is so immature that they require sanctions to play nice with others. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 05:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::{{ec}} 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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 05:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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). [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:(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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 05:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::What "disruption"? Having to make two extra keystrokes to get to his page? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Apparently, he does not consider it to be an issue. Not for him. For you, maybe, but not for him. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 05:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Nope, there's two. He changes it without being forced. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Good luck. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:Well, we can give it a chance before escalating prematurely. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 05:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::If you don't threaten an indef block, there is no reason for him to change. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 05:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:This isn't helpful Bugs. Let Docu speak for himself. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 05:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

: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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 05:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=297037217&oldid=297023733]). 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? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 06:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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.—[[User:S Marshall|'''S Marshall''']] [[User talk:S Marshall|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|Cont]] 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, S Marshall. Stifle's current signature ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Simon_Dodd&diff=prev&oldid=297143144]) looks fine to me:
::[[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 11:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 15:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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.—[[User:S Marshall|'''S Marshall''']] [[User talk:S Marshall|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|Cont]] 16:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 16:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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". [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

[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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 17:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Please don't mischaracterize the situation. It was a requirement before today. It said "must". It still says must. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 18:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
*For the record, the intent of my message wizard is to ensure that users' messages are directed to the place where they will get an answer most quickly, especially if I'm offline. For example, someone looking for a page to be unprotected is directed to [[WP:RFPU]], someone looking for general admin assistance is directed to [[WP:AN]], and so on. This means that they get their problem solved by an available admin, and don't have to wait for me to come online. Frequently-asked questions also have their own entries. There have been some issues raised with the system, and I'm looking at changing it from a wizard page to an FAQ-type system. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 10:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
**I agree w/ Bugs that the "Wizard" is confusing and weird. The best case scenario is, I click on a link that says talk, and then what I expect to happen, happens. Anything that deviates with expectations is confusing. If everyone's talk page works the ''same way'', that's Good. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

== Docu's explanation ==

I do not consider [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=2018535&oldid=2009130 Docu's 2003 explanation] a valid explanation anymore. The signature button has been part of the edit toolbar since [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Edit_toolbar&oldid=29163266 at least 2005]. -[[User:Kotra|kotra]] ([[User talk:Kotra|talk]]) 03:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Not all talk page edits should be signed ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Stifle&diff=297036787&oldid=297015402 example]) and not all non-talk page edits should not be signed. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 08:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm sure that the situations you describe could be accommodated through proper coding. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 08:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Or you can use two keystrokes to get to his page if you need to... assuming ''that's'' not too difficult. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::As Fut. Perf. pointed out in one of his comments, the time is far more tiresome than the lack of a link. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Where's the rule requiring it? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 09:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::There is no policy requiring ANY kind of signature. You can't string somebody up for "breaking" a rule that doesn't exist. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Guidelines are rules too and I wish you would stop trying to posit that they aren't. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 10:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:You should raise this at VPP and determine if community consensus exists for expanding SineBot's scope beyond users with >800 edits. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::I've been informed that the signature bot actually would do this for Docu except that he has expressly "opted out"[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Baseball_Bugs&diff=297152600&oldid=297044593] - which now makes me suspect that he's doing this just to be annoying. However, he's still within the rules. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::You've been misinformed, SineBot won't operate on users with more than 800 edits. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Why is that? And what's the purpose of the "opt out"? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::a) I don't know, I asked slakr. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Slakr&diff=prev&oldid=297153950] b) Most bots have opt-outs, for various reasons. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned at the last AN discussion about this, pressing {{keypress|[[AltGr]]|^}} is neither difficult nor inconvenient. All of de-wiki manage a {{keypress|AltGr|+}}, and all of fr-wiki manage a {{keypress|AltGr|2}}, I'd think that Docu could, too – if he just wanted to. [[User talk:Amalthea|Amalthea]] 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:And there is a nice button in the toolbar and scripts like [[Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/qSig|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 '''[[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]]''' 18:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

===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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=2018535&oldid=2009130] and December 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=next&oldid=241756914], Docu's reason for not using a proper signature seems to have changed significantly. --[[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

==Signatures==
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 [[WP:USER|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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 08:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 09:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Show me where, in that guideline, that a linked signature is required. Maybe I missed it. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Your Wikilawyering is becoming very tiresome. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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.'' [http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-February/039329.html]
:::--[[User:Hans Adler|Hans Adler]] ([[User talk:Hans Adler|talk]]) 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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]]. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:Here is the relevant instruction:
:::''At least one of those pages must be linked from your signature''.
:Is that not clear enough? [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Conformity? ==

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. --[[User:Droll|'''droll''']] [[User talk:Droll|'''[chat]''']] 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Show us where the guideline requires a linked signature. Maybe I missed it. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

==Clarification of Docu's comment regarding me==
Docu wrote in his response the following:
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>
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 [[User talk:Nihonjoe#TfD closure|here]]. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 09:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:I should also note that he even [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANihonjoe&diff=297013298&oldid=297011441 thanked me] for the clarification of why I closed the discussion the way I did. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 09:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::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. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::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 <s>flaunt</s> 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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 12:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::Are you being intentionally obtuse? –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::What part of ''guidelines are rules'' don't you understand? –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Guidelines ARE NOT rules. The bases being 90 feet apart is a rule. The locations of the grass lines around the infield are guidelines. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::It's "flout," not "flaunt." [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 12:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::My Engrish iz gud. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::I actuallly typed "flaut" rather than "flout" initially, but that is a musical instrument. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Side comment ==

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). [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 09:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:There's also [[Wikipedia:List of administrators]]. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::Is there a rule requiring an admin to post that fact on his page? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 10:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: 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" [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 11:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: 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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 11:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not even know listusers even exists till now. and I've been editing a while. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: 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. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

==Response to Cdogsimmons comment==
''' 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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 03:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:I find it best to ignore Cdogsimmons' [[argumentum ad hominem|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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

==Note on Pzrmd==
Interesting that Pzrmd also has copied Docu and signed the same way, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=prev&oldid=296845202] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=prev&oldid=296860364]. So of course s/he sees no problem in Docu's signature especially when s/he learnt it off Docu. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 07:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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). [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Well it seems Viridae considers any unconventional way of making a point a POINT violation. But what point was I even making Viridae? [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 20:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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? [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 01:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

== Question for Baseball Bugs ==

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. [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 11:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::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. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Also the fact that we're expecting new/inexperienced editors to know all of that. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 13:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::It already was, but you were just being intentionally difficult. Now I've [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Signatures&diff=297161725&oldid=296811874 tightened up the sentence], so please drop this unproductive line of argument. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::No, he did not. It was a requirement already, as was clear to everyone except you. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 14:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::"It is common practice to include a link..." is not a requirement. "Signatures must..." is a requirement. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

::::(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. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::: You took my reply right out of my mouth, TenOfAllTrades! [[User:Anomie|Anomie]][[User talk:Anomie|⚔]] 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 16:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 17:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. – [[User:Luna Santin|'''Luna Santin''']] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]]) 01:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::Sometimes I feel the need to speak out, especially when I see the lemming mentality setting in. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 02:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 02:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Community norms that allow for the occasional exception, right? --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 03:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Nobody has proposed a viable explanation for why there should be an exception in this case. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::"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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::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? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 03:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

::::::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::::::::::::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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
:::::::::::::You seem to disbelieve the 800-edit-limit. Do you actually suppose that [[User:Slakr|Slakr]] is [[User:SineBot#What it looks for|''deliberately lying'']] about the operation of his bot? [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 13:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

==Docu's response and comment on Libstar==
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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:I agree that it's somewhat bizarre. For me, the biggest issue is the lack of timestamp and link to his talk page.--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 18:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 01:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 04:25, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: 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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 04:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That would be the simplest explanation. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 05:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: 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. -- [[User:Llywrch|llywrch]] ([[User talk:Llywrch|talk]]) 06:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

==It's all about forgeries==
:''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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't really think that's a problem unique to Docu. ---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 19:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDocu&diff=297221563&oldid=297215910 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).'''[[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]]''' 20:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::See the time stamp clearly gives the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FDocu&diff=297226539&oldid=297226339 forgery away].---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 20:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Fences and windows|Fences]]&[[User talk:Fences and windows|Windows]] 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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 ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 03:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 17:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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 [[User:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] here) -- [[User:ClearlyNotARealNickname|ClearlyNotARealNickname]] 10:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

== Spokes, wheels, sticks and spanners ==

''Moved from main page''

# I agree except I think spokes are good things for wheels to have. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
#:I just researched and apparently that was a [[British English|BE]] phrase. I replaced it with one I hope everyone understands :-) Regards '''[[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]]''' 15:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
#::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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Docu&diff=297174591&oldid=297173933 new phrase] is even less comprehensible!) –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 15:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
#:::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 (website)|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 '''[[User:SoWhy|So]][[User talk:SoWhy|Why]]''' 15:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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! [[User:Ale_jrb|Ale_Jrb]][[User_talk:Ale_jrb|talk]] 15:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::What's a spanner? Wrench in the gears, maybe. =) –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 15:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Beat me to it, if you say "Spanner in the works" in the U.S. people will think you mean "spammer". [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk: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]]''. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:Yea, I know,... I was just being facetious... I learned of spanners from my engineering days in the [[World of Warcraft|sunny land of Azeroth]]. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 16:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::but of course!, It's called spanner because "it is a specialized wrench with a series of pins or tabs around the circumference." ;p –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 16:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 16:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yes, the meaning goes back to pre-history with an Indo-European root. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 17:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Probably from the time they used to write in the sand, hence the term Sandskrit. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

== Comments on Greg L's view ==

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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 18:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
:"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. [[User:Fences and windows|Fences]]&[[User talk:Fences and windows|Windows]] 01:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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."---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 13:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

==There is no general call for blocking==
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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 04:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 04:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 04:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::the other issue is lack of date and time stamp. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 04:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 04:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 05:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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? [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 05:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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? – [[User:Luna Santin|'''Luna Santin''']] ([[User talk:Luna Santin|talk]]) 05:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Other users have been RFCd and blocked over their signatures. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 06:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::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. :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 06:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

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? [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 05:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]])
::::::::::::The three characters literally mean "Japan" (the first two) and "prosperity". The last one also happens to be my name. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::That's why I corrected the way I spelled his name, in the earlier post. Yutaka Japan, I'll take-a Hong Kong. :) [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

: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-( [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 05:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Sorry your screen can't handle my sig. I modified it slightly; is that a bit better? ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 13:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::If you can find me a high paying job, I'll be happy to buy you any notebook you want. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 19:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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''. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 06:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Adding the contribs would improve it. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 06:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Just be careful not to push the one that makes the universe implode into a singularity. That one could spell trouble. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::What, the one with the skull and crossbones? [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 06:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::No, it's the one that's invisible except unless you hover over it. So be vewwwy, vewwwy careful. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 06:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:(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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::I've asked questions to Docu like at least 10 others about the signature. If it is harassment then report it. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::(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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 06:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::then report it for harassment, otherwise it's an empty claim from you. end of story. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 06:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
you are claiming that editors have engaged in harassment, please follow steps to follow up your claim as per [[Wikipedia:HARASS#Dealing_with_harassment]]. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 06:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:You're not serious and we both know it. And you seem to be avoiding my questions. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 07:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:: 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]]. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Heh, you're the only one who has ever brought it up. Do you honestly believe I would report it in this situation? [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 07:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::to accuse someone of harassment is something serious in wikipedia. you should be careful when using such words. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 07:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Stop pretending. You're avoiding the argument. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 07:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 07:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::I'm sorry, he was hassled[[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 07:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::But LibStar knows what I meant. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 07:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
===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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 14:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Actually, if the [[WP:CON|consensus]] is that he should be blocked, then [[WP:IAR|he should be blocked]]. Not saying that the consensus ''does'' say that, but just that, "not a blockable offence," doesn't hold water. ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|Speaker]]─╢ 14:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

: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? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 14:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Just wanted to point out (again) that users have been blocked before over signatures the community considered disruptive. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::Then that needs to stop. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The community has not expressed that signatures are disruptive. The rest is hypothetical. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])
::::::::But it has, as I've already explained. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 16:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::If there is community consensus that a particular signature, or lack of, is disruptive, how would you propose we deal with the problem? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 16:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::"''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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 16:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::Yes. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 16:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu should ask whether witches float or sink before he gets thrown in the water. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 16:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:[[California Uber Alles|Wikifornia Über Alles!]] [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk:SchmuckyTheCat|talk]])

'''Comment''': Of course he can be blocked. Viridae's statement as endorsed by 56 editors (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Docu&oldid=297379293 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. [[User:R. Baley|R. Baley]] ([[User talk:R. Baley|talk]]) 17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 20:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::Please try to be [[WP:CIVIL|civil]] towards other contributors. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 20:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::That statement was completely uncalled for. Please stop. [[User:Enigmaman|'''Enigma''']][[User talk:Enigmaman|''msg'']] 04:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[WP:NPA|Comment on the issue, not on other contributors]]. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 20:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Being rude doesn't help the encyclopedia, either. [[User:Vicenarian|Vicenarian]] ([[User talk:Vicenarian|T]] · [[Special:Contributions/Vicenarian|C]]) 20:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 20:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Ok, that may have been a little harsh, but their comments about Docu were loathsome and more offensive than what I said, but I shouldn't stoop to that level. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::However I do not retract what I said. Friday (and others) has essentially said the same about Docu, which is absolutely vile. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 09:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

== Greg L's comment ==

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. [[User:Stifle|Stifle]] ([[User talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 09:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 13:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:That is true. Passing an RfA today is much, much more difficult than it was a few years ago. [[User:Enigmaman|'''Enigma''']][[User talk:Enigmaman|''msg'']] 04:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

== Couple of things ==

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 [[WP:Point|point]].

Secondly, I noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=297323700&oldid=297317270 this] earlier today. I informed the concerned editor Hipocrite about it and waited until someone responded to it. [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention&diff=297342479&oldid=297340346 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. ''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]'''''[[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]]''' 13:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. –[[user:xeno|'''xeno''']][[user talk:xeno|talk]] 14:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:Manually typed signatures are fine with me. — Carl ([[User:CBM|CBM]] · [[User talk:CBM|talk]]) 14:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

: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. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 14:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 14:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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 [[File:Signature button.png]] cannot be used. Has he ever given an explanation for that? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 14:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::I would kind of hope he's changed keyboards since 2003, also. I think I have at least twice in that time. [[User talk:Orderinchaos|Orderinchaos]] 10:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

<< 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. ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|hemicycle]]─╢ 14:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: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:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Belgians&diff=prev&oldid=4409534], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)/Archive_3&diff=prev&oldid=716374], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_topics_lists&diff=prev&oldid=16066818], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people_by_nationality&diff=prev&oldid=703675], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_prizes,_medals,_and_awards&diff=prev&oldid=3031372], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Contents/List_of_reference_tables&diff=prev&oldid=681653], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=680301], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=678562], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=675913], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=675913], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=675870], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_people&diff=prev&oldid=675831], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_metropolitan_areas_by_population&diff=prev&oldid=897459], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regions_of_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=2258559], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Regions_of_New_Zealand&diff=prev&oldid=673330], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prefectures_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=672053], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prefectures_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=671472], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prefectures_of_Japan&diff=prev&oldid=670842], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Counties_of_Sweden&diff=prev&oldid=705011], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Docu&diff=prev&oldid=674481], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Author&diff=prev&oldid=8518043]. Then he switched to omitting the date [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_non-fiction_writers&diff=prev&oldid=16091759],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_non-fiction_writers&diff=prev&oldid=16091759] or just typing the signature, like the practice many have objected to:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_musicians_by_genre&diff=prev&oldid=961443]. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 16:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::You scare me...---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 16:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Drawn Some|Drawn Some]] ([[User talk:Drawn Some|talk]]) 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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 [[Wikipedia talk:Signatures/Archive 6#Guideline Review|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. ''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]'''''[[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]]''' 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::He's also a frequent signature user at Commons, which requires the use of tildes. [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 02:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

==RE: Outside view by SchmuckyTheCat==

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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 17:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 17:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 18:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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? -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 19:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:Thank you for putting that so eloquently, Exploding Boy. ···[[User:Nihonjoe|日本穣]][[Help:Japanese|?]] · [[User talk:Nihonjoe|Talk to Nihonjoe]] 19:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:::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. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 19:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::(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. [[User:Big Bird|Big Bird]] ([[User talk:Big Bird|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Big Bird|contribs]]) 19:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::(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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 19:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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. [[User:SheffieldSteel|SHEFFIELDSTEEL]][[User_talk:SheffieldSteel|TALK]] 19:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

: 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? [[user:thumperward|Chris Cunningham (not at work)]] - [[user talk:thumperward|talk]] 12:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::You understand the difference between the project, what readers read, and talk pages, right? [[User:SchmuckyTheCat|SchmuckyTheCat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 14:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

== "Users who oppose this summary" ==

Is this commonly done on User Conduct RFCs? I had thought not... '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Not as far as I know. –'''[[User:Juliancolton|Juliancolton]]''' | [[User_talk:Juliancolton|''Talk'']] 20:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

:People usually put objections to specific outside views on the talk page. [[User:Friday|Friday]] [[User talk:Friday|(talk)]] 20:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::So this should be removed from the active RFC main page (and/or perhaps moved to the talk page)? '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 20:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 21:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

''(moved from main page))''
Users who oppose this summary:
# 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 [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
It was reverted [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Docu&diff=297431753&oldid=297430777] '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 21:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
: Yes [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:"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. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 22:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:: (e/c) You don't mean counter-productive. You mean irrelevant [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::*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. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 22:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::…? William, I meant counterproductive. Why you argue with that is beyond me. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 22:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::: 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" [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] ([[User talk:William M. Connolley|talk]]) 22:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well that would be a good argument as well. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 22:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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.---'''[[User:Balloonman|Balloonman]]''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|NO! I'm Spartacus!]]'' 17:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

== There's really no excuse. ==

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 [[template:uw-tilde|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). --[[User:BlueSquadronRaven|'''Blue''']][[User talk:BlueSquadronRaven|'''Squadron''']][[Special:Contributions/BlueSquadronRaven|'''Raven''']] 22:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:Which he has not seen enough of? So we should harass him ad nauseam with a template. Good idea. [[User:Pzrmd|Pzrmd]] ([[User talk:Pzrmd|talk]]) 22:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
::A good idea would be for Docu to provide a proper signature like the vast majority do without much difficulty. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 01:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::::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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 08:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::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? [[User:HWV258| HWV258 ]] 09:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

== Commons ==

I happened to notice Docu edited the village pump over on Commons - he seemed perfectly capable of signing over there [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=prev&oldid=22544799], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Gadgets-definition&diff=prev&oldid=22545094], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Geocoding&diff=prev&oldid=22544976], [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Geocoding&diff=prev&oldid=22525521]. 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. '''[[User:Majorly|Majorly]]''' [[User talk:Majorly#t|talk]] 12:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
:And Majorly hits the nail right on the head and down into the spinal cord...--[[User:Aervanath|Aervanath]] ([[User talk:Aervanath|talk]]) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
::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? [[User:Seicer|seicer]] | [[User_talk:Seicer|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Seicer|contribs]] 02:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::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. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 02:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::If Docu gets de-sysopped over this trivial matter, then something has gone seriously wrong on wikipedia. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::If it was only about the refusal to sign correctly, yes I would agree. However other issues such as communication have been brought up. [[User:Viridae|Viridae]][[User talk:Viridae|Talk]] 03:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::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. ''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]'''''[[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]]''' 04:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 05:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::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. ''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]'''''[[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]]''' 06:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 11:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Speaking of "model behavior", this is the guy who should have been de-sysopped immediately: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WQA#Can_a_Admin_call_a_user_a_asshole.3F] 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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 12:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::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. ''[[Special:Contributions/LeaveSleaves|Leave]]'''''[[User:LeaveSleaves|Sleaves]]''' 14:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs it is purely your opinion that admin referred to in wikiquette is "100 times worse". Wikipedia is [[WP:NOTDEMOCRACY|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. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 14:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
: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. [[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] ''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]'' [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]] 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::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. [[User:Exploding Boy|Exploding Boy]] ([[User talk:Exploding Boy|talk]]) 15:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

::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. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 16:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

== Solution ==

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:User Docu|User Docu]] ([[User talk:User Docu|talk]]) 13:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
: will you add a signature to all talk pages not just the 92 editors? [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
: 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. [[User:Chaoticfluffy|keɪɑtɪk flʌfi]] ([[User talk:Chaoticfluffy|talk]]) 13:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:What's the go with this User: User Docu? —[[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]][[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|Talk]] 13:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::No problem, the script is easy to modify. All Talk pages, correct? [[User:User Docu|User Docu]] ([[User talk:User Docu|talk]]) 13:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::Yes, you should know that by now. [[User:LibStar|LibStar]] ([[User talk:LibStar|talk]]) 13:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::::Adambro has blocked User: User Docu. Who was he, does anyone know? Docu, can you confirm this was you? —[[User:Anonymous Dissident|Anonymous Dissident]][[User_talk:Anonymous Dissident|Talk]] 14:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:::::See also {{User|Test Script}}. 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. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 14:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:What was the point of this idea, which appears to be (thankfully) aborted? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 14:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::OK the script should be working now! [[User:Test Script|Test Script]] ([[User talk:Test Script|talk]]) 17:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:User Docu

2009-06-21T17:42:22Z

Test Script: Tr

User talk:Adambro

2009-06-21T14:11:48Z

Test Script: /* Script */ attempt to resolve RFC

{{administrator}}
<div class="usermessage" style="background-color:#fffff3; border-color: #ffc9c9;"><div class="plainlinks">

'''Welcome to my talk page'''

*If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
*If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there.
*Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) at the end.
*'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:adambro&action=edit&section=new Leave me a message]'''</div></div>
{{Archive box|image=[[Image:Vista-file-manager.png|50px]]|[[/Archive 1|December 2006]] [[/Archive 2|January 2007]] [[/Archive 3|February 2007]] [[/Archive 4|March 2007]] [[/Archive 5|April 2007]] [[/Archive 6|May 2007]] [[/Archive 7|June 2007]] [[/Archive 8|July - November 2007]] [[/Archive 9|December - April 2008]] [[/Archive 10|May - September 2008]]}}

==Accident scene==
You said: "(cur) (last) 22:18, 20 August 2008 Adambro (Talk | contribs | block) (4,203 bytes) (remove unfree image, no reason why a free image of the scene can't be found) (undo)" - that's not how it works. You assume there is no free image UNTIL you encounter a free image of an accident scene. We do this with images of dead people, for instance; as long as we do not know of a free image, you are allowed to upload a non-free image. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 15:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:Could you tell me to what page this relates such that I can make a more informed comment please? Thanks. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 15:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

:Looking at your recent contributions I assume this is [[TACA Flight 390]], give me a minute to respond. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 15:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it is!
[[Wikipedia:Nonfree#Images]] says:
* "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia."
* Acceptable uses: "8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary."

The thing with accident wreckage is that it does not stay that way forever; once the wreckage is dismantled it is impossible to get a photo of it, and it is impossible to recreate a plane accident scene.

I could look at Flickr to see if anyone there took a photo of the accident scene and is willing to relicense photos to a level that is free. Once we get our hands on a free photo, then we can remove the nonfree photo. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
* The only picture I found on Flickr regarding TACA 390 was a copyright violation: http://www.flickr.com/photos/costaricasurfing/2537401761/ - Unless we can find a free photo of the wreck (and the wreck has probably been dismantled) we should assume that there is no free photo and use rationale 8, iconic status. [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|talk]]) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

::I am unconvinced that the criteria you highlight is valid in this case since it isn't the image that is being discussed, it is the subject of the image. I also don't agree that simply not being able to find a free photo on Google/Flickr etc for something which does no longer exist is justification to use a non-free image. This just serves to devalue the hard work of contributors who go to great lengths to take photographs of such situations. Why would anyone bother if they could simply sit at home, wait for things to be cleared up, then find a random photo on the net and claim fair use. I fail to see the compelling need to even use a photo of the crash scene which can justify the use of an unfree image. However, considering the edit to my userpage I'm just about to make, announcing my retirement for the time being from Wikipedia due to other commitments, I won't be making any further comment on this nor will I be removing the image again. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

== WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - October 2008 ==
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 2px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #CCCCFF; border: 2px #007FFF solid; -moz-border-radius:20px;text-align: center;" |'''The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire|Yorkshire WikiProject]] Newsletter'''
|-
| style="border: solid 1px grey;"|
{| style="width: 100%; border: 1px gray solid; background-color:#CCCCFF;"
| valign="middle" style="width: 55%; border: 0px; background-color:#CCCCFF; padding: 1em" |
[[Image:Yorkshire rose.png|100px|left]] <big>
'''The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire|WikiProject Yorkshire]] Newsletter'''</big> Issue 6 - October 2008 
| valign="middle" align="right" style="width: 45%; border: 0px; background-color:#CCCCFF; padding: 1em;" |
[[Image:Fairytale left.png|30px]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Newsletter/September 2008|September issue]]
 <center>Got any suggestions? — ''Add them [[WT:YORKS|here]]'' 
|-
| valign="top" style="border: 2px #007FFF solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color:#CCCCFF;" |
; Project News
* Welcome to the sixth [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire|WikiProject Yorkshire]] monthly newsletter.

* WP:YORKS is a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 4005 last month to 4085 on September 27th). [[WP:GM]] has the lead in FAs at 28 out of a total number of 1678 articles. In the area of GAs, at 21, WP:YORKS also falls behind [[WP:GM]] with 28.

'''Priorities''' are not set in stone and if you would like to discuss changes, please join in at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire]]

{{FA-star}}Currently there are thirteen Yorkshire featured articles:

[[Sheffield]] • [[History of Sheffield]] • [[Sheffield Wednesday F.C.]] • [[York City F.C.]] • [[M62 motorway]] • [[Henry Moore]] • [[George Calvert, 1st Baron Baltimore]] • [[Stocksbridge Park Steels F.C.]] • [[Valley Parade]] • [[Caedmon]] • [[William Wilberforce]] • [[History of Bradford City A.F.C.]] • [[Last of the Summer Wine]]

{{FA-star}} There are also eight featured lists:

[[List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year]] • [[List of York City F.C. managers]] • [[List of York City F.C. players]] • [[York City F.C. seasons]] • [[Bradford City A.F.C. seasons]] • [[List of York City F.C. statistics and records]] • [[Leeds United A.F.C. seasons]] • [[Scarborough F.C. seasons]]

'''Thank you and well done''' to all those who contributed.

; Article Activity

{{FA-star}} [[Last of the Summer Wine]] was promoted to FA Status on '''September 9th''' 
[[Image:GA candidate.svg|20px]] [[Curtis Woodhouse]] was nominated for GA Status on '''September 18th''' 
{{FA-star}} [[Henry Moore]] retained its FA Status after FAR on '''September 25th'''

; Member News

There are now 51 members of WikiProject Yorkshire! A warm welcome to the new members that has joined us since the September newsletter:

*{{User|Marcopolomaya}}
*{{User|Nr9krw}}
*{{User|Langliffe}}

;Thanks

* There has been a number of suggestions on the ToDo list at [[Portal:Yorkshire|Yorkshire Portal]] and this has been kept up to date too.

* The football and rugby editors have to be admired for keeping abreast of most, if not all, of the top clubs.

* WikiProkject Yorkshire editors have been busy on vandal patrol at [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yorkshire/watchlist|watchlist]]. Thanks.

* A big "'''thank you'''" to all the editors who help make this WikiProject what it is; no edit goes unnoticed.

;'''Priority Articles'''

The '''top priority articles''' that have been identified to date are as follows -

* [[Bradford]] • [[East Riding of Yorkshire]] • [[Henry Moore]] • [[Kingston upon Hull]] • [[Leeds]] • [[North Yorkshire]] • [[Ripon]] • [[Sheffield]] • [[South Yorkshire]] • [[Wakefield]] • [[West Yorkshire]] • [[William Wilberforce]] • [[York]] • [[Yorkshire]] • [[Yorkshire and the Humber]]

The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.

<div style="float: center; margin-left: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; ">{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Yorkshire articles by quality statistics}}</div>

----
Written by [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] • Template by [[User:Jza84|Jza84]] | '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Newsletter/October 2008|Single-Page View]]'''</div>
----
'''Would you like to write the next newsletter for [[WP:YORKS]]?? Please nominate yourself at [[WT:YORKS]]! New editors are always welcome!'''
----
| valign="top" style="border: 2px #007FFF solid; padding: 1em; width: 45%; background-color:#CCCCFF;" |

; New Aims

After discussion at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Yorkshire]] in April 2008.

'''Specific aims''' for the project are:-

*To complete tagging and assessment of all Yorkshire related articles (See below)
*To recruit more active editors (See Member News above)
*To bring our top level article [[Yorkshire]] up to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|Featured article]] status
*To bring all other top priority articles (currently 15 with 2 at FA) to at least [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good article]] status
*To set up a weekly or monthly selected article improvement drive
*To produce a regular news letter for circulation to members

;'''Wikipedia DVD version 0.7'''

Wikipedia DVD Version 0.7 aims to be a collection of around 30,000 articles taken from the English version of Wikipedia.
The process of producing the list of articles for the DVD is currently under way and 43 of the project's articles are being
considered for inclusion. The list of selected Yorkshire articles can be seen [http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Yorkshire.s0.html here].

The selection has been done using a [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot|scoring system]] depending on the project's assessment, the number of incoming links to the article, the number of interwiki
links the article has and the number of times the article has been viewed.

The process of selecting clean versions for each of the selected articles is also being undertaken so that vandalised versions are not put on the DVD.
Some of the articles also have clean-up tags attached to them which need to be dealt with before a version can be used on the DVD. It would be good if members
could address any tags in the selected articles and fix the problem identified. Those articles that are tagged by multiple projects should get a visit by each of the projects involved
so the articles will probably get a lot of activity in the next few days.

The cut-off date for this work is '''October 20th''', but changes to articles following version selection may not be incorporated as there may not be time to reassess them.

; '''Please remember...'''

[[Image:Ambox style.png]]The project is now subscribed to a [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Cleanup listing|'''clean-up listing''']] which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.

*''Monitor'' Use the [[Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Yorkshire/watchlist|watchlist]] to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.

*''Infoboxes'' Many of our articles would benefit from the addition of an appropriate infobox.

*''Assessment'' [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Yorkshire/Assessment|Assess and review]] Assessment of Yorkshire related articles has been revised recently due to new classes being added by the [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team]] The changes are: 
**The '''new C-Class''' represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
**The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/B-Class_criteria|a rubric]], and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
**A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as [[Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria|described here]].

*''References'' Please remember that the [[:Category:Stub-Class Yorkshire articles|list of stubs needing expansion]] is always in need of attention. Please take a look and see if you can help. One small edit, such as adding a reference section and reference, to an article each session would make a big difference.

*''Moves'' Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR.
|}
|}
<center>Delivered October 2008 by [[User:ENewsBot|'''ENewsBot''']]. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.</center>
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page. → This newsletter/release was delivered by '''[[User:ENewsBot|ENewsBot]]''' · 10:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

== Regarding IP Address [[Special:Contributions/216.49.231.250|216.49.231.250]] ==

I went to the article [[Typewriter]] and found vandalism there made by this IP address. I gave this person a {{tl|uw-generic4}} because I found out the history of this IP's actions. So I want to let you notify other for me before this person strikes again, and I would appreciate that IP address be banned again. Thank you! --[[User:Gh87|Gh87]] ([[User talk:Gh87|talk]]) 04:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

==Thanks==

Thanks for your action with the Georgina Baillie article in my user space. It seems really bizarre - I just had a bit of spare time today and wanted to read more about the girl. I can't see what the fuss is, she is already famous and just be the look of her, she's hot hot hot and unless she's got a voice like a parrot she's going far. [[User:Isonomia|Bugsy]] ([[User talk:Isonomia|talk]]) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've apologized to Insomnia for the undue haste of that deletion. Cheers, [[User:Dlohcierekim| Dloh]][[User_talk:Dlohcierekim|cierekim''' ]] 21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

== Wikimedia UK v2.0 ==
Hello! Thanks for showing an interest in [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0|Wikimedia UK v2.0]]. Formation of the company is currently underway under the official name "Wiki UK Limited", and we are hoping to start accepting membership in the near future. We have been drawing up a set of [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Membership|membership guidelines]], determining what membership levels we'll have (we plan on starting off with just standard Membership, formerly known as Guarantor Membership, with supporting membership / friends scheme coming later), who can apply for membership (everyone), what information we'll collect on the application form, why applications may be rejected, and data retention. Your input on all of this would be appreciated. We're especially after the community's thoughts on what the membership fee should be. Please [[:m:Talk:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Membership#Membership_fee|leave a message on the talk page]] with your thoughts.

Also, we're currently setting up a monthly [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Newsletter|newsletter]] to keep everyone informed about the to-be-Chapter's progress. If you would like to receive this newsletter, please put your username down on [[:m:Wikimedia UK v2.0/Newsletter/Subscribers|this page]].

Thanks again. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC) (Membership Secretary, Wikimedia UK [Proposed])

== Northern Rail ==

I have found the citation you required for class 180's on Northern.
I added the information after speaking to the Managing director of Northern Rail but couldn't find any citation in the media, but finally have.
You may need a whole review though as there are MANY MANY statements with no citation on many pages, good job we are not all as picky as you. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.69.246.61|84.69.246.61]] ([[User talk:84.69.246.61|talk]]) 10:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 

:You are indeed correct that there are a great many unsourced statements in articles which I fully support the removal of if no source can be cited. However, obviously I can't deal with everything. It is a great shame that "we are not all as picky as you", since Wikipedia policy requires information is cited. I am very worried about rumours from rail forums ending up on Wikipedia article with no citations and will continue to fight this. Class 180s to Northern has developed like this but I am pleased if finally something resembling a reliable source can be cited although it is a shame that in this case, since I don't have a copy of 'Rail' I can't confirm the exact details. This is useful because as has been shown by your recent edit to [[British Rail Class 150]], the source doesn't always support what is being stated. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 11:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

== Wiki UK Ltd Membership applications now invited! ==
Hello,

It gives me great pleasure to announce that Wiki UK Limited is now inviting membership applications! You can download the application form in PDF format from [[:meta:Image:Wiki_UK_Ltd_membership_application_form.pdf]]

Information is given on the form about membership fees (£12/year standard, £6 for concessions); these need to be paid by cheque initially, although we hope to accept other forms of payment in the future. Applications should be submitted to me at the address given on the form. If you have any queries about the application process, please let me know.

We will formally start accepting members once we have a bank account, as we cannot process membership fees until that time. We will be submitting our application for a bank account in the very near future, and we hope to have this set up by the end of December at the latest.

Thank you for your support so far; I look forward to receiving your membership application.

[[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 21:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Membership Secretary, Wiki UK Limited

P.S. if you haven't already, please subscribe to our newsletter! See [[:meta:Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Newsletter]] for more information and to subscribe.

Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

==Wikiproject Electronics collaboration==

Hi, I am writing to you because you have listed yourself as a member of the Electronics WikiProject. Sadly, this project is pretty dead, but I propose to resuscitate it with a collaboration. The idea is to have a concerted effort on improving one article per month, hopefully to GA or FA status and nominate the very best of them for the front page. I have prepared a page to control this process at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Collaboration]] (actually, I mostly shamelessly stole it from [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals]] where a collaboration of this sort was succesfully run). There you can make nominations for articles for collaboration or comment on the nominations of others.

If you want to take part you might like to place this template <code><nowiki>{{WikiProject Electronics Collaboration}}</nowiki></code> on your userpage which will give you a link to the current collaboration. If you are no longer interested in Wikiproject Electronics, please remove yourself from the members list, which is now at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Members]]

Thanks for listening, [[User:Spinningspark|'''SpinningSpark''']] 15:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free media (Image:1066DC dvd.GIF)==
[[Image:Ambox warning blue.svg|25px]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:Image:1066DC dvd.GIF]]'''. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, it is currently [[Wikipedia:Orphan|orphaned]], meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. [[WP:BOLD|You may add it back]] if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "[[Special:Contributions/{{PAGENAME}}|my contributions]]" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described on [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Images.2FMedia|criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. [[User:BJBot|BJBot]] ([[User talk:BJBot|talk]]) 05:02, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

== British Rail Class 150 ==

Hi Adam. I undid your removal of the Fleet Details on [[British Rail Class 150]] as I think it would be better to tag them as unreferenced and give people a chance to reference them. This information must have come from somewhere so I think there is a good chance that it can be referenced properly. If nobody does anything with it within a week or two then please take it out again. I won't object this time. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 00:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps you're more optimistic than me but this is a problem that persists in UK rail articles generally and previous attempts to find [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] for similar information has proved impossible. Too many rail enthusiasts unfortunately don't appreciate that they can't just add content because it is accurate, we can only add content that can be appropriately referenced. I think {{user|Year1989}}'s comment in restoring this content that "there is a lot of useful info there that IS CORRECT. Also other pages contain similar information so why can't this one?" is indicative of this problem, there seems to be a lack of concern about [[WP:V|verifiability]].

:Whilst I appreciate your intention of leaving this a bit longer in the hope that references can be found, I fear all this will achieve is for this unreferenced material to be available under our name for longer. I would rather this information not be in the article until such time as it can be referenced and just as this, and your comment on the talk page will hopefully draw attention to this issue, it is equally possible that we can encourage editors to try to source this without it being in the article in the meantime.

:I've tagged this article as lacking refs on 5 December 2008, I've raised this general problem with the appropriate Wikiproject, and individually with Year1989. None of this has resolved these issues.

:I won't remove the information immediately again, I'll give it a week or two, but I'll continue to try to address this problem in other articles and, whilst trying to get references added, won't spend an excessive amount of time in doing so before removing content. It is more important that readers are presented with referenced content than it is to keep unreferenced content in articles. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 12:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

== RE ==

Hi, unfortunately the email was written in a too informal way to be posted on OTRS. Cheers, --[[User:Eurocopter tigre|Eurocopter]] ([[User talk:Eurocopter tigre|talk]]) 19:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

== My DRV ==

Thank you for all you have done to help me with this DRV. I thought you should know that I have managed to find and upload three original images [http://www.megaupload.com/?d=AS893QGI]--[[Special:Contributions/98.213.141.241|98.213.141.241]] ([[User talk:98.213.141.241|talk]]) 21:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

== Couplings ==

I've replied to your message on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ansbaradigeidfran#Couplings my own talk page]. [[User:Ansbaradigeidfran|Ansbaradigeidfran]] ([[User talk:Ansbaradigeidfran|talk]]) 16:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image (File:NX-East-Anglia.gif)==
You've uploaded '''[[:File:NX-East-Anglia.gif]]''', and indicated that it's used under [[WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's rules for non-free images]]. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image (File:NX-East-Coast.gif)==
You've uploaded '''[[:File:NX-East-Coast.gif]]''', and indicated that it's used under [[WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's rules for non-free images]]. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

==Orphaned non-free image (File:SOTALOGO.gif)==
You've uploaded '''[[:File:SOTALOGO.gif]]''', and indicated that it's used under [[WP:NFCC|Wikipedia's rules for non-free images]]. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by [[User:FairuseBot|FairuseBot]]. For assistance on the image use policy, see [[Wikipedia:Media copyright questions]]. 17:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

== RE: Cross Country Class 221 ==

Hi,

Class 221 total numer of sets: 44

Virgin Trains operate 21 of them (I work for them)

Therefore CrossCountry operate the remaining 23.

HTH

Cheers. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Fiestaman87|Fiestaman87]] ([[User talk:Fiestaman87|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Fiestaman87|contribs]]) 19:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC) 

:Ahh, I see, the figures I have are slightly out of date. It appears 221114–221118 got transferred to Virgin on the December TT change. Thanks for your help. Just trying to find a reliable source for this now. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 19:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

== Request for opinion ==

Hi, I and my fellow editors are facing a deadlock on a issue of removing/toning down [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Blue_Star&diff=260624756&oldid=260606555 few lines] on 'Allegations of Human Rights violation against the Indian Army' under 'criticism of the operation' section in [[Operation Blue Star]] article, concerns include [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:SOAP]] & [[WP:V]], the summary of dispute can be found at [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Operation_Blue_Star#Removing_cited_information]. I would request you to kindly go through the article and please let us know your views/opinion at the talk page of the article so that npov, balance and undue weight concerns may be looked into and a consensual solution may be found. Thanks [[User:Legaleagle86|LegalEagle]] ([[User talk:Legaleagle86|talk]]) 05:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

== [[WP:DFTT]] at [[Talk:Project Chanology]] ==

I appreciate your sound response with sources, but really [[WP:RBI]] is the best way to go with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&diff=266970806&oldid=265499777 this]. For some reason {{user|DavidYork71}} has been a source of chronic abuse on this article and its talk page. See also [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&diff=214821670&oldid=214780557] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Project_Chanology&diff=215133126&oldid=215012361]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

==Article sections==

Points noted - I will be more careful in formatting sections in future. Thanks.[[Special:Contributions/87.102.43.12|87.102.43.12]] ([[User talk:87.102.43.12|talk]]) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[[User:FengRail|FengRail]] ([[User talk:FengRail|talk]]) 18:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

===fires?===
Also re [[British Rail Class 220]] - thanks for adding an external link for the fire -(from the link):<blockquote>It is believed to have started after a bird got wedged in part of a Cross Country train and caused the brakes to overheat</blockquote>
I'm not sure if this has been reported correctly ??

From [[Banbury_railway_station]] "..a CrossCountry Voyager forming a service from Bournemouth to Derby caught fire whilst standing on platform 2. The fire was located in the air conditioning vents..."
:This seems different from the bird/brakes explanation?

I've left message at [[Talk:British_Rail_Class_220#Banbury_fire]] regarding this - notably I can't prove it was a 220 and not a 221/222.

===Other fires===
From http://www.virgintrains.co.uk/img/aboutus/downloads/CrossCountry%20News%20April%2006.pdf
<blockquote>The only main line Voyager failure of significance has been the exhaust fire at
Congleton on 19.01.06. As with two earlier similar fires, at Starcross and Newcastle,
the cause was a wrongly-fitted component during a recent engine overhaul by
Cummins, the engines manufacturer.</blockquote>[[User:FengRail|FengRail]] ([[User talk:FengRail|talk]]) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll add the above to the article though it doesn't seem to directly relate to the banbury fire.

[[User:FengRail|FengRail]] ([[User talk:FengRail|talk]]) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

== Photograph of 365530 at Cambridge ==

This applies to the webpage Networker (train) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Networker_(train)>

Someone thinks that the photograph of the Class 365 'Networker Express' No. 365530 at Cambridge is also a Class 165 Network Turbo - this is incorrect and the photograph should be removed.
The Networker Express Class 365 are dual voltage four carriage EMUs, whilst the Networker Turbo Class 165 are diesel two and tree car DMUs.

--[[User:Peter Skuce|Peter Skuce]] ([[User talk:Peter Skuce|talk]]) 00:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

== needs to be dramatic. its a company take over! ==

needs to be dramatic. its a company take over! —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/90.209.117.68|90.209.117.68]] ([[User talk:90.209.117.68|talk]]) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 

==[[Singa goody]]==
Some people tried to vandisied my page , Singa goody and It is not an advertising page. Olivertwisted and several other admin helped me when the page before. I don't understand why the recent need for deletion.. Please assist me. Thanks a lot..

[[User:Dreams20|Dreams20]] ([[User talk:Dreams20|talk]]) 12:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
:I've made my comments about this at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singa goody]]. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 12:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

== Michael Martin ==

Hi Adam - this news is currently on the "Breaking News" ticker on Sky News - it's now just been added to the SN website - so I've updated to include this [[User:WCR4 6|WCR4 6]] ([[User talk:WCR4 6|talk]]) 14:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. I think I might have been confusing this with something else since the BBC article also mentions it and my understanding is that it is procedure for them to take up a seat in the House of Lords instead. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::On your edit to the Speaker's election page... you are in fact incorrect, MPs have to be specifically nominated, and the vote takes place on a ballot-paper listing those who have been put forward, as you'll see from the BBC reference at the bottom of that page. Perhaps you could undo your edit? Thanks! ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 17:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I think it remains accurate. Potential Speakers have to be nominated by other MPs but the indivual who is being nominated doesn't have to agree to it. Therefore, an MP cannot choose to be a candidate just as they can't choose to not be one. All MPs are potentially candidates, it's just some may choose to make their feelings known as to whether they would be prepared to accept the role. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 17:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Under ''[http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmstords/2/2.pdf House of Commons Standing Order 1B(3)(b)]'', "Each nomination shall consist of a signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election accompanied by the signatures of not fewer than twelve..." - what you have added is inaccurate. I'm loth to remove it personally because of [[WP:3RR|3RR concerns]], but I will do if you're unhappy about doing it yourself. ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::::Of course, under your perception of the system, where MPs can't decline to be candidates, the ballot-paper would have to list every single Member, including government ministers and Opposition spokespeople. Common sense must say that such a system is clunky and impractical! ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 17:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::Please bear with me for a few minutes. I was just reading the relevant Standing Orders when I received your message at 17:19 and will continue reading through to ensure I understand before commenting or reverting myself. I'm not yet fully convinced that my wording is inaccurate so wouldn't like to see it reverted just yet. Give me a few minutes and I'll then be in a better position to comment. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 17:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my second message wasn't intended to barrack or hurry you; it was simply an afterthought. While reading through the Standing Orders is fascinating, the quote I have given you (which I [[WP:AGF|promise is genuine]]!) makes quite clear that candidate consent is required with a nomination. While your wording isn't strictly inaccurate, it gives less clear information than the original phraseology, which made clear that MPs choose specifically to stand and throw themselves forward, rather than just mention that they'd quite like to have the job. ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 17:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:Having read the Standing Orders, which I would accept I probably should have done so before, I recognise that my comment that "the individual who is being nominated doesn't have to agree to it" is incorrect, a "signed statement made by the candidate declaring his willingness to stand for election" is required. I come to the conclusion that my [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Speaker_of_the_UK_House_of_Commons_election%2C_2009&diff=290979580&oldid=290974127 edit summary] was definitely incorrect but, as you note, the wording of the edit perhaps isn't strictly inaccurate. I suppose what I was trying to achieve was to make a distinction between someone simply wanting the job, and someone actually being nominated which can be perhaps compared to the process of local parties selecting a candidate. Their selection doesn't become an MP, they've just received backing to stand and still need to be voted in. I wonder if you might be able to suggest how this can be better explained because I don't think the previous revision makes this clear; an MP can't just decide to stand, they need support to be considered. These individuals are putting themselves forward to be nominated to become Speaker rather than to become Speaker if you can spot the minor difference. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 17:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::Well, you changed two "clumps" of wording, one of which was along the lines of ''Joe Bloggs has announced his intention to stand'' - I think that that is accurate. It covers the fact that they may not ultimately receive 12 other Members' support and get nominated, but that they want the job. It seems to be a fair compromise? ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 17:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm happy to accept any rewording you propose and recognise that my rewording was made primarily on the basis of a misunderstanding of the process even if the resulting text wasn't necessarily completely incorrect. I would note that of the two clumps of wording I changed, one was just the hidden comment to editors and I don't think either contradict the other. "Joe Bloggs has announced his intention to stand" is probably better than saying "Joe Bloggs has announced he will be standing" which I felt was what was being said. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 18:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
::::{{done}} > what do you think? ╟─[[User:TreasuryTag|Treasury]][[User talk:TreasuryTag|Tag]]►[[Special:Contributions/TreasuryTag|contribs]]─╢ 18:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
:::::No objections from me. Thank you for helping to clarify this. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 18:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

== Ongoing? ==

Please, please, before posting these new ''Ongoing?'' subsections every week or month or so at [[Talk:Project Chanology]], stop to consider that these are all socks of abusive user and indefintely community banned user {{userlinks|DavidYork71}}. Take a moment to look at [[:Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DavidYork71]] - he's used well over 200 accounts abusively for vandalism and disruption of this project. Per [[WP:BAN]], we should not be indulging, validating, or considering these edits as anything other than vandalism from an abusive sockpupetteer. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
:In order to [[WP:DFTT]], the best thing to do is [[WP:RBI]] when it comes to socks of {{userlinks|DavidYork71}}. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 19:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

== Edits to Dave Vitty Page ==

noticed that my account had been used to deface the page "Dave Vitty" (of the chris moyles breakfast show team). i suspect it was a friend taking advantage of my account set to auto sign in. apologies —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Dom991|Dom991]] ([[User talk:Dom991|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dom991|contribs]]) 01:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC) 

== Page moves ==

Why do you seem to often move pages only to undo your change? [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro|talk]]) 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
::Simply because, when I often read pages, or articles on Wikipedia, the authors have often pasted links which are not built yet. However, if it's a fairly well-known subject, there may be an article on that topic already; or the writers may have used a slightly colloquial, or inaccurate wording in their link.

::I don't see what harm there is in creating a link to an existing article. It's certainly not vandalising an article, as I'm not attempting to permanently rename any of them. It's simply quicker than building a link from scratch in many cases. ([[User:Berk|Berk]] ([[User talk:Berk|talk]]) 22:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC))
:::If you wish to create a new redirect then please follow the red link and create the page with '''<nowiki>#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]</nowiki>'''. It is quick, less disruptive and less confusing for other editors. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 10:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

== Barry Hunau talk page ==

Hi Adambro, I wonder, if it would be OK with you, if your and my posts about notability would be permamently removod from the article talk page? I just think that because the article was kept, maybe there is no reason to keep this discussion on the talk page of the article? Thank you for your time.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 17:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think that would be appropriate. Comments are only really removed from talk pages when they get too long and are archived. Additionally, the concerns I've raised there still remain and I do feel some of my concerns were never addressed on the talk page or on the deletion request. I cannot understand why you would want to remove our comments anyway.
:I would note that the article wasn't kept because there was a compelling argument to do so, it was kept simply because not enough people took part to properly form a consensus either way. I maintain that it should be deleted and am likely to raise this issue again in future.
:The article isn't properly referenced and it fails to demonstrate that this individual is notable in accordance with the notability criteria. Of the two references, one is a very trivial mention and the other isn't independent of the subject.
:Of the reasons given to oppose the deletion, your observation that there are other articles with similar problems is not a reason to keep this one, and the reasons Dream Focus gave, that "His work is found in multiple newspapers, and he has won notable awards for it", the first does perhaps have some merit but isn't supported by any reliable sources in the article, and the second, that "he has won notable awards for" his work is clearly incorrect. The two "notable awards", "Best Editorial Cartoons of The Year" and "The Best Editorial Cartoons of Campaign 2008", are neither awards, nor is there any real evidence that they should be considered notable. In fact nothing really turns up in a Google search for the latter. I remain unconvinced that this article complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and so maintain that it should be deleted. As such I am likely to raise this issue again in the future and so any comments about this issue could be helpful to other editors so shouldn't be removed. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you, Adam, for taking your time to respond my message.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 18:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

== Retired? ==

Not by the looks of your last 500 edits! lol. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
:I perhaps like to pretend I'm not addicted to editing... [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
::Just when you thought you were out.... lol. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 20:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

==AF447==

Hi, it was [[:File:Air France A330-200 F-GZCN cropped.jpg]], but wrongly identified as 'CP by an editor. I'm not going to change my !vote again though. An identical photo of 'CP from that angle would be almost exactly the same. BTW, you did add it to the correct section, but as I state at the top of the page, if unsure add to the bottom. [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 12:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, thanks for clarifying. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 13:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

== Hi Adam, ==

Yes, it was me, who voted and commented on the deletion request. I thought nobody would doubt it was me. The thing is I cannot login to Commons. By a pure accident I enforced my break until the year 10000 [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Mbz1/monobook.js here] :). I was really ashamed to ask somebody to undo this thing for me (only admins have the power to undo it), but you told me to login, so I thought maybe I'll ask you to undo my monobook edit. I know we have had many sharp disagreements, and more than once you wanted to block me and to block me indefinetely from editing Commons, so it is entirely up to, if you let me in or you will not :), but even if are willing to let me in, may I please ask you to wait for few minutes because I am going to write someting about you in that deletion request. Maybe after reading this you'd rather block me indefinetely instead of letting me in :) In any case thank you for your time.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 20:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
:No problem Mila, I've removed it now. I would certainly prefer that you can log in if you wish to make comments. Hopefully by the year 10000 peace will have come to the region which is a the centre of some of the recent disputes. In the meantime though, we can continue to try to improve Commons, even if we do disagree on how exactly that is achieved. I have made failed attempts to use the Wikibreak enforcer in the past but having a reasonable knowledge of computing, I found it far to easy to get around. I won't spoil it for you by explaining how I did this though, not because I don't want you to comment on Commons, but because I appreciate how hard it can be to not allow editing the various WMF to distract you. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 20:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you, Adam! It was really kind and nice of you. it was also brave to remove the break even before you even knew what I was going to say :). I will login now and sign my comment. Best wishes.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 20:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

==Geograph==

Hey! Just spotted your improvements. I never knew it would be as easy as that! [[User:Mjroots|Mjroots]] ([[User talk:Mjroots|talk]]) 16:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

== Commons matters ==

:Hi Adam, may I please ask you to help me on Commons, if you're feeling comfrobale to do it for me. I am talking about two deletion requests:
:[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Synodus_%27ulae.jpg Here's one] As you see I nominated my own image to be deleted, nobody voted to keep it, so I believe it could be safely deleted.
:[http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Gilad_Shalit_on_Hamas_poster.jpg This deletion request] has been oppened since Juanuary 22. I believe it is about
:time to close it down. How it is clossed down is up to you. I care no more.
:Thank you for your time.--[[User:Mbz1|Mbz1]] ([[User talk:Mbz1|talk]]) 00:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

== You are mentioned in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct ==

You are mentioned in a [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct]]. The Request for Comment page is [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu|here]]. '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 22:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

== Script ==

Please unblock User Docu. The script will not work if the account is blocked. If it doesn't work you can delete/block the user account as you see fit. Originally, I was going to list only the users that had an issue with [[User:Docu]]'s signature (>90). The script is much easier now that it will add a signature to all Talk page edits by him. I should have it finished in under an hour, but in order to be tested and as a result function, we need the account unblocked. Thanks. [[User:Test Script|Test Script]] ([[User talk:Test Script|talk]]) 13:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
:The issue I raised as to the identity of the user operating {{User|User Docu}} and now {{User|Test Script}} hasn't been addressed and so I won't be unblocking the account. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] ([[User talk:Adambro#top|talk]]) 14:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
::Well, I'm not going to wheel war from my main account. The purpose for the legitimate use of the additional account was to put this matter to rest. If you decide to unblock the account, leave a note on the talk page and I will test and install the script. You are welcome to assist if you wish. It should be relatively transparent. Most users would not even realize that it was being scripted. It would however resolve the RFC issue. The alternative is to let the RFC run its course. [[User:Test Script|Test Script]] ([[User talk:Test Script|talk]]) 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Adambro

2009-06-21T13:54:43Z

Test Script: /* Script */ new section