In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC).

• Docu ( talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Docu ( talk · contribs · logs) refuses to follow the WP:SIGNATURE guideline and include a link to either his user page or talk page in his signature, and he almost never includes the timestamp (I haven't viewed every one of his contribs, so it's possible he may have done so at one time). He has been asked multiple times over a more than a year to adjust his signature to comply with the guideline, but he either completely ignores the requests or dismisses them as unimportant or not worth his time. In every instance I could find, he "archives" them by deleting the requests from his talk page.

This is disruptive, and therefore a breach of the civility policy on Wikipedia. Docu has been an editor here for a long time, and an admin for a large percentage of that time, so he must realize how important it is for editors to act in a civil and non-disruptive manner (even more so if you are an admin).

Desired outcome

The desired outcome is Docu consistently using a normal signature with a link to either his user page or his talk page (or both), and with the timestamp as well. Nothing more, nothing less. He knows how to correctly use a signature as evidenced here.

Addendum: As a couple people have brought this up (through various comments and views), I thought I'd address it. This RFC is not seeking to block or desysop Docu (though there are some outside views which have stated that as a potential consequence they would like to see). The desired outcome is stated very clearly and concisely above, so please keep that in mind when offering an opinion here. Thank you.

Description

See above as there's no need to restate it here.

Evidence of disputed behavior

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]
5. [5]
6. [6] (though he manually added the date to two of his responses here)
7. [7] (with manually-added date)
8. [8]
9. [9]
10. [10]
11. [11]
12. [12]
13. [13]
14. [14] (with manually added date)
15. [15] (with full timestamp, but no links)
16. [16] (with manually added date)
17. [17]
18. [18]
19. [19]
20. [20]

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:SIGNATURE guideline (N.B. was simplified somewhat after this RFC was filed)
2. WP:DISRUPT guideline
3. WP:CIVIL policy
4. Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct regarding "failure to commmunicate"

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

1. from Rarelibra (12 March 2008)
2. from Gary King (26 July 2008) (rest of conversation: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26])
3. from Quiddity (6 September 2008) (also [27] and [28])
4. from Exploding Boy (9 September 2008) (also [29])
5. from Adambro (16 September 2008)
6. from Adambro (17 September 2008) (also [30], [31], [32])
7. from RFBailey (17 September 2008) (also [33])
8. from Tbsdy lives (21 September 2008)
9. from JzG (27 September 2008)
10. from TenOfAllTrades (30 September 2008) (also [34], [35])
11. from Reedy (2 April 2009)
12. from Aervanath (3 April 2009) (also [36], [37])
13. from Stifle (20 May 2009)
14. from Edison (20 May 2009)
15. from Treasury Tag (27 May 2009)
16. from Hipocrite (28 May 2009)
17. from Cirt (2 June 2009)
18. from Jayron32 (3 June 2009)
19. from Nihonjoe (17 June 2009)
20. from Libstar (17 June 2009) [38]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

1. "Archiving" without responding to Hipocrite and TreasuryTag
2. Comment stating he didn't think Quiddity had any problem finding his user page
3. Ignoring inquiry regarding signature (also [39])
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive477#User:Docu's signature (September 2008)
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive194#User:Docu's signature violates WP:SIGNATURE (June 2009)
6. "Archiving" without giving a real response to TenOfAllTrades (also [40])
7. "Archiving" without responding to Nihonjoe

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

1. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Cirt ( talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Adambro ( talk) 22:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Edison ( talk) 22:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Exploding Boy ( talk) 02:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. ╟─ Treasury Tag► prorogation─╢ 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Noting that Docu has, by adding {{ NoAutosign}} to his userpage, actively avoided having his comments signed properly. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

9. I was waiting to jump on the bandwagon here until I saw Docu's response. Now that he's responded, and yet again has dodged the question, I feel justified certifying.-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. LibStar ( talk) 00:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Per User:Aervanath. This is a wiki, though, so I've attempted to solve the problem. Hipocrite ( talk) 06:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Well, attempted that is, but failed. Docu's userpage is protected (for 3+ years), in violation of WP:PROT/ WP:USER ("Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate"), so I couldn't tell the bot to autosign his comment, and thus, with his violation of both policy and guideline, I certify. Hipocrite ( talk) 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Yup. -- Dweller ( talk) 18:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Other users who endorse this summary

1. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 22:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Tarc ( talk) 22:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. This is appalling behavior from an admin. Skinwalker ( talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Nakon 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. LibStar ( talk) 23:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC) fully endorse, I also recently tried to ask Docu about this with no response [41] reply
6. I am sad that Docu doesn't want to work together. Sadly I have to endorse this. Basket of Puppies 00:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. If WP:NVC weren't a lie this would have been taken care of long ago. Anomie ⚔ 00:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. I too have asked. The lack of a time stamp is particularly trying. It is also dismissive for an admin to say 'see the history' instead of archiving his talk page (unless he is trying to hide the evidence of the multitude of editors who have queried his signature). It will probably take me some minutes to find the diff in the history as 'what links here' will not work ... Occuli ( talk) 01:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) — User:Tbsdy lives (20 Sept 08) [42], TenOfAllTrades [43], Andy Mabbett [44], Adambro [45], Guy [46], Occuli (27 Sept 08) [47]. QED. His replies are also unsatisfactory. Occuli ( talk) 01:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Unconscionable behavior in an admin. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. seicer | talk | contribs 03:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. So Why 09:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. -- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. ╟─ Treasury Tag► belonger─╢ 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. Viridae ^Talk 22:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. -- Blue Squadron Raven 22:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) (Note proper signature.) reply
19. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 08:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC) A 500-word response that has no content what-so-ever? Completely unacceptable. reply
20. Majorly talk 09:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
21. Talk page archives (which using cut-paste archiving lack the history Docu intimates acts as an adequate replacement for timestamps) are hard enough to follow without editors who should know better opting out of the universally-followed community norms on signatures for less than compelling reasons. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
22. I agree, the reasons for being contrary do not seem to be in the benefit of the project, nor any overarcing personal reason - but to limit those who want to approach him. Judging by his talk page archives, it seems he is frequently contacted by people who disagree with his actions - and removing the link to his talkpage only furthers the assumption this is his reason. Sherurcij ^{( speaker for the dead)} 16:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
23. Davewild ( talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
24. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
25. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
26. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
27. Four tildes, one link, no trouble- what's so hard? —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
28.  HWV258  10:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
29. It is not merely contacting Docu or viewing his user page which is hampered by a missing signature; it is keeping track of everything he does. Consider a user engaged in dubious or rulebreaking activities, who does not use their signature; these activities might individually pass without notice, as most such activities undoubtedly do, until they mount up into a record that others notice. Remove the original trace, and consequently the mental note of the user name of the rulebreaker, and you remove the trail of evidence completely, insomuch as the rulebreaking is never acted upon. I am mildly surprised that this issue hasn't come up before with the more subtle vandals. Perhaps it has. I won't be very surprised if we see it in the future, if an admin is given the go-ahead to hide his name. This isn't merely a Thin End of the Wedge argument; a vandal seeing one of Docu's unsigned contributions and realizing its implications is only a click away. Docu is not only more visible as an admin, and given an abstract 'responsibility to act responsibly', which then can be debated back and forth, but in practical terms, he is seen by normal users as an authority figure. Rulebreakers thrive on even the appearance of hypocrisy by authority. Here, if you are not familiar with it, is the rulebreakers' reasoning: 'if the priviledged elite take upon themselves special powers, or allow themselves special leniency, not only should we be allowed to do it, but we should do it just to teach the elite a lesson.' They don't even have to set aside society's concept of the right course of action anymore; they have a new one, and justification to back it up. The issue of the keyboard is a good one, not because it is a good reason to not sign, but because it shows the slippery path to an entrenched position that is untenable, good reasons given all the way, all of which become obstacles to leaving. It's easier this way...What difference would it make...What's these people's problem... And yet the path out of that position is one good decision away. Anarchangel ( talk) 09:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
30. Endorse. Sarah 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

1. I attempt to keep my comments on talk pages consistently formatted, indented and in sequence, add relevant links and date/time when necessary. 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).
2. Yesterday I left three notes on 日本穣's talk page. Each time, this gives 日本穣 a link "(last change)". With this link 日本穣 sees who made the comment and when. I don't see how 日本穣 would need an additional link to identify who made the comment.
   日本穣 added a link to my user page before his first comment.
   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. It's not clear how there could be any additional problem. Obviously 日本穣 doesn't have to discuss his TfD closing any further, but if 日本穣 was really interested in discussion as seems to signal his warning, he should do so. Yet, 日本穣 even requested on my talk page that I return to fix the signature [48] (BTW 日本穣 = User:Nihonjoe)
3. Following the comments last September, I made an attempt to discuss WP:SIG at its talk page. This was so thoroughly disrupted by another editor that I had to withdraw from the discussion. I don't recall that this lead to any consequences for the other editor though.
4. I have some problems to respond to LibStar's comments and I don't think I can provide him with any user specific guidance or intervention. I would probably have a COI if I would do so in the future.
   While I initially thought that he made interesting points, e.g. on #List of ambassadors, subsequently I came across his comments elsewhere (also mentioned there) which looks to me as if he would be arguing two opposing points of view at the same time.
   Rather than attempting to discuss the underlying issues, he seems drawn to flood my talk page with his comments (unfortunately initially I did respond to some of this, but subsequently ask him to mention each point just once). He even continues after he presented an excuse (which I accepted) and starts all over.
   He seems to use a similar approach with other people who happen to disagree with him on some question at one point of a time.
   Personally, I don't think a comment like the one I mention here is acceptable and he shouldn't really expect any additional answers from me. Still, he continues to flood my talk page (and numerous other people's talk pages).
5. Personally, I think a signature where the link "talk" leads to any other page than the user's talk page is misleading. This doesn't seem to draw any comments on users' talk pages though. It's even being used by administrators that try to provide others guidance on signatures.
6. LiquidThreads should bring everyone a standardized comment format for talk pages.

• Docu ( talk · message · contribs · global contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · user creation · block user · block log · count · total · logs · summary · email | lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · spi · socks | rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp | current rights · rights log (local) · rights log (global/meta) | rights · renames · blocks · protects · deletions · rollback · admin · logs | UHx · AfD · UtHx · UtE)
• Date: June 18, 2009
• Time: 08:30
• verify

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I endorse point 5. of this summary. Drawn Some ( talk) 19:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I am adding endorsement of point 1. as well as point 6. after research. LiquidThreads will render this whole discussion completely irrelevant. However, I do not know when or if it is going to be implemented. Drawn Some ( talk) 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1. I also endorse point 5 (only) of this summary. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Specifically, point 1 right on. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
3. This summary appears to be entirely reasonable. Unless Docu is mistaken on the facts (and I don't see anybody has denied them), his position seems valid. Leave well enough alone, and don't hassle people, established or newbie, over unimportant details. Docu uses the four characters Docu instead of the four characters ~~~~. So what? His edits are verifiable; they are traceable with minimal difficulty; and they don't even produce the minor problem (of eating up lines and lines of edit space) that led to the guideline in the first place. Guidelines should be applied with common sense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Viridae

This is what I wrote last time it came up on ANI. I stand by it now, (though without the blocking bit yet - let the RfC run its course)

Screw it, I'm sick of these threads. Before anyone says the lack of a proper signature isn't a problem, it undoubtedly IS a problem if so many people are complaining about it. And it will continue to be a problem until it is changed (and this endless cycle of complaints about it will continue) Lack of a link to the user or talk pages and lack of a time stamp is downright inconvenient for everyone who wishes to contact him, and given that he is an admin, it should be relatively easy for all users, not just experienced ones, to find his talk page without having to navigae there the hard way. He has never given any explanation whatsoever for the lack of a link and timestamp - and honestly a suitable explanation hasn't been apparent to anyone commenting on the issue before. One pigheaded admin shouldn't be the source of so many issues over something so bloody trivial. We wouldn't tolerate that from any non-admin. Either he changes it or he is blocked until it is changed. Simple answer. ViridaeTalk 09:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Viridae ^Talk 23:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Cirt ( talk) 23:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. ^Leave Sleaves 23:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Agree, block him until he complies. Admins are expected to display exemplary behavior, so it doesn't matter that it's just a guideline. Cla68 ( talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Exploding Boy ( talk) 23:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Not sure about the blocking part, but this really is getting ridiculous. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Except with respect to Docu's not having offered an explanation; as UncleG observed in the most recent AN/I thread, Docu, if long ago and only once, did address the issue directly. The explanation, though, is utterly unsatisfactory, and so I join fully in the final analysis here. Joe 23:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. EdJohnston ( talk) 00:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I didn't want my email account linked with Wikipedia, but I'm an admin, so I have to. Which is as it should be. Admins should be helpful and easily contactable. There's no reason that I can see for him to have his sig this way other than making a point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Any "newbie" insisting on this behavior would have been blocked as disruptive long ago. Anomie ⚔ 00:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 00:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. not sure about blocking, but his behaviour is really incorrect and stubborn. Enric Naval ( talk) 01:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. kotra ( talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. LibStar ( talk) 01:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. Occuli ( talk) 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. seicer | talk | contribs 02:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
19. Enough is enough. Tarc ( talk) 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
20. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 02:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
21. If even a few people say they have trouble communicating with someone, it is, prima facie, true, or the issue would not be raised. It is any editor's responsibility to address this. — Gavia immer ( talk) 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
22. This is basically signature trolling at this point. Times change. Get with the program.-- chaser ( talk) 04:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
23.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
24. JPG-GR ( talk) 06:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
25. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
26. Daniel ( talk) 07:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
27. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
28. Noting that I find the lack of a timestamp even more disruptive than the lack of a user page link. The user page can be found manually, though with a few unnecessary keystrokes, but if for instance you want to cite the diff for somebody's talk contribution, or reconstruct in what sequence certain posts were made, having to parse the page history for the right diff without knowing where to look is really aggravating. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
29. Adambro ( talk) 09:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
30. Orderinchaos 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
31. feydey ( talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
32. There is no call for any user to be this disruptive. Guideline or policy or whatever, with so many editors complaining over the years . . .well, it's easy enough for 1 user to cease being nuisance -that he/she does not, is telling. Also, FPaS makes a good point above about the timestamp. When this RfC has run its course (if the editor has not rectified the situation) they should be blocked until a satisfactory user sig is in place. R. Baley ( talk) 13:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
33. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi ( talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
34. From a new user, okay, they don't know the guidelines, etc. Not okay from an admin. MacMed ^talk _stalk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
35. I am actually most concerned about: (1) The missing timestamps. (2) Docu's lack of openness about his reasons: He is being asked about this about once a month. He generally reacts defensively. He has not put a response to this FAQ on his user or talk page. Even here we can only speculate about his possible motivations: Is it because of a Swiss keyboard or because he doesn't like the look of normal signatures? Docu even refers to an example of his defensiveness in item 3 of his response, as if he had been wronged. -- Hans Adler 14:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
36. Endorse in substance, although not exactly how I'd have phrased it.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
37. Reso lute 14:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
38. It makes life difficult for other users and I don't believe there is any reasonable justification or technical reason why a signature can't be added to every post. I am signing this post by clicking on the signature icon on the toolbar. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
39. Agree, 'nuff said. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
40. Regretfully. Basket of Puppies 15:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
41. Being intentionally annoying or unhelpful is not compatible with participation in a collaborative project. No number of lame excuses of "but he does some other thing well" can change that. Docu- either be more sensible, or go away. History has shown time and time again that nothing good can come from retaining such antisocial editors. Friday (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
42. He's causing trouble. Not helpful. ╟─ Treasury Tag► inspectorate─╢ 15:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
43. This wiki isn't exactly newbie-friendly from a navigational perspective. For an admin to make it more difficult for newbies and everyone else to contact him for no good reason is clearly disruptive. Auntie E ( talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
44. Except for the blocking part; I don't think that's realistic.-- Aervanath ( talk) 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
45. I'm unconvinced and unimpressed by Docu's response to this issue. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

    I said it below, I probably would not care if Docu wasn't an admin, but as an admin I expect more. While I would never expect a block for this, I could see asking him to relinquish his bit if he insists on signing the way he does.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) While I agree with the sentament above, I am opposed to blocking Docu over something that is so trivial (reliquish the bit yes, block no.) If the supports here are going to be used as justification for a block, then I'm pulling my support.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

46. Amalthea 18:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
47. The biggest part of the admin job, as far as I'm concerned, is being helpful to others who are working on the project. It is helpful to use a signature that allows people - including very new people who haven't figured out about namespaces and page histories - to contact you conveniently. If one is not willing to do the little things to be helpful, then I don't know why one would want to be an administrator. It's not a matter of it being a rule or not (this isn't a court), it's a matter of it being a Good Idea. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
48. Mr. Z-man 19:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
49. Absolutely. Intentional disruption is not something I'm inclined to look kindly on. As an alternative, we could tag every unsigned post with {{ unsigned}}, just as we would for any other sig from a newcomer that abysmally fails to comply with community practice as documented by WP:SIG. I see no reason why Docu wouldn't change their sig, and I personally am disheartened to see a fellow administrator acting in a fashion I can only think to compare with "teenage rebellion". – Luna Santin ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
50. Skinwalker ( talk) 23:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
51. I'm surprised that it needs to be explained why signing your posts is necessary. I'm stunned that an administrator could be this obstinate about such a simple matter. Enigma ^msg 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
52. This has been addressed far too many times, and Docu's answer is not compelling. The missing date stamps are also frustrating when trying to follow a discussion. Horologium (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
53. It appears as if he is deliberately making difficult the fulfilling of his basic responsibilities as an administrator while retaining all the authority and abilities: this is simply unacceptable, and if he is unwilling to take responsibility then the admin bit should be revoked. CalendarWatcher ( talk) 09:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
54. Majorly talk 09:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
55. Response doesn't address the problem. I used to sign my name *before* my posts because it seemed sensible (ah those were the days) but eventally had to fall in line with the world; not doing so is just disruptive William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
56. Davewild ( talk) 17:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
57. Blue Squadron Raven 22:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
58. Them From Space 01:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
59. Sans block at this time. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
60. Endorse. Would support a block.  HWV258  10:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
61. Algebraist 13:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
62. Vicenarian ^{( T · C)} 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
63. →  ROUX  ₪  08:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
64. Endorse. Sarah 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
65. I regret that it has come to this, but it has. GreenGourd ( talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
66. Wikipedia is about consensual collaborative working. This obstinate refusal to follow a reasonable and simple request is uncollaborative. -- Dweller ( talk) 18:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

The operative word is Guideline. If you want to make a signature a requirement, make it a Rule. As long as it remains only a Guideline, pushing this issue amounts to harassment. Is it annoying? Yes. But you can always go to the history and click on his talk page. Two keystrokes. Big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- M ^ask? 23:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Absolutely. We don't need a rule for this.— S Marshall ^Talk/ _Cont 23:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Pzrmd ( talk) 00:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Agreed. This RFC has the stink of a witchhunt. I notice several of the editors who endorsed this RFC were recently in disputes with User:Docu over several so-called "bilateral relations" articles at AFD.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. It would be good if this much effort was put into dealing with the abusive admins. Acalamari 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Certainly annoying, but seriously... – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I agree, the problem here is those that are pushing this issue, not Docu. GRBerry 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. How many times, when replying to someone at a talk page or noticeboard, do you actually want to reply at that user's talk page? It's quite infrequent for me. The vast majority of times, I'll want to reply to them where they posted. Which I can easily do if they have a link to their user/talk page or not. Hell, even newbies can do that without difficulty. And if you really want to get to his talk page, it's only one extra mouse click than the majority of people. Now that I think of it, it takes you the same amount of clicks to get to my talk page as it does to Docu's, and I'm fully compliant with SIG. -- Kbdank71 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Agree. There is no need to create more issues to be dealt with, and in this case Docu is not breaking a policy; furthermore any inconvenience is at a minor and trivial level. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 18:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Agreed. And with popups, even fewer clicks... -- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Agreed. This is a lot of hullabaloo over a guideline. Sher eth 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Yap. Issue was blown way out of proportion. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 21:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Endorsing this as a direct opposite of the view by Xeno below. There should not be any issue of enforcing the signature guideline. Brown-shirt enforcement of style guides on talk pages, Puh-leeze. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
16. Totally agree.. it's not policy, it's guideline. I went through this when I included a very small image in my signature at one time over a year ago. I pointed out how WP:SIG is a guideline, not a policy.. but I was talking to brick walls and was eventually threatened with blocks because if I didn't adhere to this "guideline", I was somehow destroying the Wikipedia. - ALLST✰R▼ ^echo _{wuz here} 04:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. I completely agree. Killiondude ( talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. agree -- WP ought not be so concerned with minutiae. Collect ( talk) 19:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC) reply
19. Agree. Not only that, but the "Guideline" says it's good practice; not mandatory practice. There is no case here. Nfitz ( talk) 01:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC) reply
20. Agreed. See my endorsement of Docu's position above. If anyone should be blocked, it is the useless petty bullies calling for a block over this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Xeno

Docu is a talented, hardworking, & helpful administrator. However, his non-standard sig use makes it difficult to enforce the signature guideline as users point to his signature use and complain that we don't enforce it consistently. As such, I urge him to begin using a signature with at least one link and a timestamp when posting on pages other than his talk page.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. – xeno ^talk 23:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Also endorse this one. Not using a sig is petulant and contrarian, as well as dickish, but seriously, we need to stop beating a dead horse here. Yes, it's wrong, no, its not worth all this drama. - M ^ask? 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Exploding Boy ( talk) 23:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Vicenarian ^{( T · C)} 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Good idea. The easiest way out of this drama is a simple sig change; that's all. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. It's a guideline. Not a rule. But guidelines make people's lives easier. If Docu continues to dare to be different, that should be the end of it. Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Enric Naval ( talk) 01:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Occuli ( talk) 01:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. — Carl ( CBM ·  talk) 02:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12.  Sandstein  05:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. IMO people shouldn't be making such a big deal out of this, but Docu could easily resolve much of the dispute by simply linking to his userpage. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Fine with me. As long as his current sig does not disrupt the process by impersonating someone else or inserting spam, as long as it identifies this and only this user, I would not really care. But he should listen to the majority too. NVO ( talk) 05:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. Orderinchaos 09:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. Agree. It's not a matter of how hard it is to find out that information or page but how it looks to people if we exempt admins from such guidelines. Regards 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Droll ( talk • contribs)
18. We should not block an editor for a nondisruptive edit, and lack of a signature with a convenient link would not rise to the level of blockable disruption. However, it's also clear that Docu is massively ignoring community input, which in itself creates disruption, and has given no reason for this. I must suspect a POINT violation. If this continues at this level, blocking wouldn't be the remedy, it would be overkill, but desysopping would certainly be on the table. Docu could make all the flap at this RfC moot, and quickly and easily. I see no support at all for his position. (what position? -- I couldn't tell, beyond something like "I've done nothing wrong, all of you are mistaken." When I see the community commenting like this about me, I stop. Dead. Period. No matter how right I think I am, and then if there is an issue, I raise it in the appropriate forum.) -- Abd ( talk) 13:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
19. This is certainly counterproductive behaviour from an admin, and detracts from the helpfulness of Docu's other contributions. I am signing this post using the tilde key. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
20. -- Aervanath ( talk) 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
21. Yep. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
22. Agree. Greg L ( talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
23. All the talk about "rules" is nonsense for lawyers to lawyer about. It doesn't matter about rules, what matters is being a team player. It clearly is very convenient to use a signature with the standard features, and new users will be inconvenienced if they haven't figured out about reading the history page of talk pages, which is hardly an intuitive way to navigate a conversation. I'm disappointed whenever I see an admin failing to do something small that would be an added convenience to the rest of the community. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
24. Recognizing that failing to comply with this request is not subject to any kind of sanction or penalty (much less blocking), yeah, I'll sign up to requesting that Docu use a standard signature with links. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
25. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
26.  HWV258  10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
27. Blue Squadron Raven 21:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by wangi

Lets not forget that WP:SIGNATURE is a guideline and that user preferences allow a great many different format signatures to be used. Many of those are in fact even more confusing to determine the actual link to the user and talk pages. In many cases a simple "bare bones" signature is much more helpful and less disruptive to the flow of discussions. The page history contains a link to the user's details. Also I would disagree with the implication that blanking ones own talk page is disruptive - it is an indication that the comment has been read and also an optimal way to archive.

If it is desirable to have a link to talk and user pages on each talk page comment, then it should be considered to make this a policy and remove the configuration options which can lead to confusing signatures being used by many.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. wangi ( talk) 23:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Although I don't agree about the possible policy. Pzrmd ( talk) 04:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
5. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Libstar

Whilst I agree with Xeno about Docu being hardworking, I do not regard him as helpful as I would expect from an admin. See these 2 exchanges regarding his non identification of being an admin [49], [50]. This strongly relates to his attitude to not allow easy communication with users as reflected in his signature. Everyone should refer to the policy Wikipedia:ADMIN#Administrator_conduct regarding "failure to commmunicate".

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LibStar ( talk) 23:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. I was involved with the second exchange above. The difficult communication and refusal to answer when asked if he is an administrator is more concerning to me than the signature issue. Drawn Some ( talk) 00:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Cirt ( talk) 00:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 00:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. kotra ( talk) 01:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. I would've signed on for xeno's, but "helpful" is just impossible to swallow. Tarc ( talk) 02:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8.  Sandstein  05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 06:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Stifle ( talk) 08:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Adambro ( talk) 09:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. And the admin policy goes further than requiring good communication with other users. It states that admins should:

    lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others; ^[1]

    strive to set an example of appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another; ^[2]

    not seriously or repeatedly act in a problematic manner; ^[3]; and

    have the trust and confidence of the community. ^[4]

    Docu seems to be failing on the first three counts, and becoming wobbly on the fourth. Docu, please back down and we'll all think the better of you. Tony (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

13. Majorly talk 09:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Blue Squadron Raven 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Docu's exchange with Libstar is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen on the project. GreenGourd ( talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
16. Shows unwillingness to communicate. Edison ( talk) 01:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Pzrmd

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. Pzrmd ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pzrmd ( talk) 00:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. An indefinite block or a desysop over his signature seems excessive. I find the really flashly signatures more annoying. Acalamari 01:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. If they've got an issue with the user's fitness as an admin, then they should make the issue about that; not about "breaking" a non-existent rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Fully agreed. It is annoying, but it's not a big deal. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. GRBerry 16:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Mostly agreed.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Given this is something of an old and recurring discussion, I'd not characterize it as being brought on "suddenly by a trendy clique" but otherwise agree. Sher eth 20:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Mandatory style conformation with the in-crowd is not a Wikipedia policy. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
10. Yes, "absurd" about sums this up. This may not be a new trendy clique; it is true that some of these fools have been campaigning for equally petty causes for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Xymmax

1. The editor's chosen means of signing complies with the primary purpose of WP:SIGNATURE - others are able to determine the account to which the edit should be attributed.

2. Information such as time and date is recorded by the software for those who are interested. Nothing requires an editor to advertise such information with every edit made.

3. It appears that when the editor has chosen to link his/her signature, it has been done by manually typing the wiki links. (Has anyone noticed an edit in which this user even used a tilde? Is it possible his/her keyboard varies from the one commonly used in western countries?)

4. None of the diffs provided reflect an instance in which it is claimed that an unlinked signature stopped anyone from actually contacting this user.

5. Despite all the talk about links, I can't help but think that there is only one for which this discussion is destined. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done}
2. Agree with 1-4 (though re #2, timestamps make threads easier to follow). And yes, re #3, Docu has commented elsewhere that they have a non-standard keyboard that takes some combination keystroke. – xeno ^talk 02:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Ya. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. I don't see anything in the signature guideline that requires a linked signature. And the point about wikilawyering, made by a user below, is deliciously ironic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Agreed. Docu makes clear when they're making a statement; demanding links and timestamps is unproductive. As there is no policy requiring this, this RFC is a witch hunt and definitely needs to be enshrined at WP:LAME. To get to Docu's user page you just type User:Docu into the search box... Fences& Windows 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Pzrmd ( talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Endorse all, particularly #5.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Number 5 is something of an understatement .. Sher eth 20:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. This RfC should really go on to WP:LAME OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 21:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. The RfC smacks of wikilawyering; WP:SIG is not policy, there is no community consensus for it to be policy, unless the signature or lack thereof is highly disruptive to the discussion and intentionally so, then WP:CIVIL is not really being violated. Docu's not creating a substantial disruption (other than the contrived disruption created by things like this RfC), and his signature does accomplish the essential objective of a signature (You can find his user page, if through no other means, then dragging and dropping the text into a search box).. In my estimation his overall contribution to Wikipedia is positive, and blocking Docu would do more harm to Wikipedia than the perceived good of a minor inconvenience eliminated (rather than seeing a comment signed with User:Docu, you'd rather not see any comment from him at all.. owch..). -- Mysidia ( talk)
11. Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
13. Indeed, it smacks not only of wikilawyering, but of ignorance as to what policies and guidelines are. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Seicer

I'm tired of these threads regarding an administrator whose RFA gives no confidence towards his administrating abilities. Quite frankly, the signature issue is one bit of the problem. There are greater issues to deal with as well, such as a repeated pattern of rude, disconcerting and anti-social behavior that is unbecoming of an administrator, and a refusal to answer reasonable questions. He has also been found through consensus, to have abused his administrative powers in an impartial matter where he had a conflict of interest, and has closed numerous AFDs in a biased manner.

His signature leaves me little desire to actually contact Docu or have any form of communication. If he chooses to make himself unavailable, then we -- as a community -- have the right to ignore any of his unsigned statements as nonsense. seicer | talk | contribs 02:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Cirt ( talk) 02:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Edison ( talk) 03:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. LibStar ( talk) 05:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. I am encouraged by seeing this kind of a reaction from a peer of Docu. Greg L ( talk) 17:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- M ^ask? 01:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. The admin tool abuse is much more problematic than the disruptive signature. Majorly talk 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Juliancolton

Is this RfC about Docu's method of signing his posts? If so, this RfC is unjustified in my opinion. Yes, it's annoying, but it's hardly "appalling" or "disruptive". Other involved editors are blowing this way out of proportion, and I agree with Baseball Bugs in that this is bordering on harassment. We have plenty of abusive admins; Docu is hardly one of them. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 05:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. But I don't want to say it's annoying; it would weaken my case. Pzrmd ( talk) 06:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse. If there are other issues, then don't make it about the weakest point in your case.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. There is no way that Docu should be banned for this. Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
5. llywrch 06:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside view by LeaveSleaves

I see a simple problem here: There is no signature. And that's what makes this more than a WP:SIG issue. Had there been a signature, there would have been a timestamp at the least and we could argue if this is acceptable under the guideline. I can understand a person's tendency to find a way around a rule (or a guideline for the matter), but to simply ignore it for no valid reason is completely inappropriate and unbecoming of a respected user, admin or otherwise. And I also can't understand the arguments other users are making that you can check the page history and see who made the comment. If that's so, then why am I signing this post and why are you signing your posts? I'll tell you why: because we consider that as our responsibility, as any other user should. And shirking it for no apparent reason should not be accepted. ^Leave Sleaves 06:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. LibStar ( talk) 06:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) well said reply
2. Cirt ( talk) 07:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4.  Sandstein  08:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Adambro ( talk) 09:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. feydey ( talk) 10:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 14:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I am signing this post by clicking four times on the tilde, which is the first character appearing in the "Symbols" category in the drop-down list under the "Save page" button. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. I signed this by clicking once on the "sign your posts on talk pages" link that appears directly below the edit window. Exploding Boy ( talk) 15:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Same as Exploding Boy-- Aervanath ( talk) 16:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 17:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. kotra ( talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Enigma ^msg 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. Majorly talk 10:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. Horologium (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 01:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by DRoll

This discussion is misdirected. The issue is broader than what Docu does or does not do. If a SIG is required it should be automatic. Since it is not automatic it can be assumed that it is optional. Those who think that a SIG should be required should work towards a project wide policy or implementation. I suggest this discussion be closed without prejudice and a new discussion should begin at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). -- droll  [chat] 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree in principle. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 18:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Agreed. Until it's policy for editors, or at least admins, to sign every single time with a link to their talk page, this is a non-issue. If people want a policy changed, then an RFC/U is the wrong place to do it.-- SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Good call. Attempts to ban Docu for this are an ex post facto violation. There is no such policy.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 04:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by SoWhy

It's seldom that this happens but I have to disagree with Juliancolton. It's not only annoying, it's more than that. Admins, more so than many other editors, are expected and have to deal with new users and unexperienced editors very often. We regard it as natural to simply type "User:Docu" into the search field and find the userpage or to check the history of a page to find the time the comment was made. But we sometimes forget that those are not skills that new editors possess. They do not know about User:-namespace or page histories and as such, when seeing such a signature amongst all those with links and timestamps, they might be lost. Let's say Docu comments somewhere and a new editor wants to contact him about it. They might be here long enough to have figured out that they can usually click a name to do so. But they might (and some certainly will) not possess the necessary skills yet to figure out how to find his userpage or when he made an edit without the signature. An admin should not make it harder than absolutely necessary for new or inexperienced users to contact them or find out when they made a certain comment and Docu is no exception to this rule. It's not about whether WP:SIG is a guideline or a rule or anything but simply about the fact that admins, out of all experienced users, should not make using this site harder than absolutely necessary - for anyone.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. So Why 09:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Exactly. It doesn't matter whether it is required by a policy or not. Docu shouldn't make it harder for people, especially considering he's never really justified doing so. Adambro ( talk) 09:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. ^Leave Sleaves 09:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Docu's lengthy response does not address this and other issues raised by this RfC.  Sandstein  11:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. LibStar ( talk) 11:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC) agree with SoWhy and Sandstein reply
7. I for one wouldn't appreciate having to dig through hundreds of edits on a busy talk page trying to find the diff for someone's comment, even though I know how to do it. Anomie ⚔ 11:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. -- Cube lurker ( talk) 14:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cirt ( talk) 14:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. I'm signing this by holding down the Alt key and pressing 1, then 2, then 6, then releasing the Alt key, four times. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. I agree except I think spokes are good things for wheels to have. Drawn Some ( talk) 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. An essential point. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's a problem—I just think there are bigger issues to worry about. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 15:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Agree... I might not care as much about the sig if Docu wasn't an admin, but as such, he needs to make it A) accessible and B) time relevant.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. -- Aervanath ( talk) 16:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. Well said. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. An excellent point. Dabomb87 ( talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
19. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
20. Yep, and please see my comments above under Libstar's section. Tony (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
21. Plain & simple. Yes. Greg L ( talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
22. Quite so; and I note that everyone on this page has a live signature from which I can go directly to a wide variety of pages without leaving this one, and I can tell at once when their every comment was made. Having to refer 10 times to history to determine the timing and sequence of 10 comments is well beyond a minor inconvenience. Occuli ( talk) 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
23. ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 17:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
24. kotra ( talk) 17:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
25. Well said. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 18:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
26. Yes. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
27. I find the "its not policy" arguments rather unconvincing. We shouldn't need to codify common courtesy before people will use it or before people will expect it. Mr. Z-man 19:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
28. As per Z-man - it shouldn't have to be policy. Viridae ^Talk 22:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
29. Sums it up pretty well. – Luna Santin ( talk) 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
30. Nakon 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
31. Enigma ^msg 00:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
32. Majorly talk 10:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
33. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 17:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
34. Davewild ( talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
35. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
36. Horologium (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
37. Blue Squadron Raven 22:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
38.  HWV258  10:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
39. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
40. Very well said. ~ mazca ^talk 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
41. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
42. Vicenarian ^{( T · C)} 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply
43. Bingo. →  ROUX  ₪  08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
44. Sarah 18:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
45. Edison ( talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Greg L

I wish admins would be tougher on their own. Organizations like physicians and dentists have a chronic propensity to give wrist-slaps to poor performing members of their professions. But when someone comes along that publicly casts them in an embarrassing light, they kick them out in a New York second. Reading the complaint and motion, I am struck by the amount of drama that can be generated on Wikipedia. But I am also struck by how someone who is charged with enforcing conduct so willingly flouts those very rules with an imperious, dismissive style. This breeds resentment amongst long-time regular editors who perceive a severe double standard. And that foments an undercurrent of desire for wholesale reform of Wikipedia’s governance. My advise to the admin and ‘Crat community would be to realize that they govern with the consent of the governed here on Wikipedia. Consensus as to our processes for choosing and retaining admins can change. Reading the complaint, I had an epiphany of just what Docu is all about. I encourage you to simply strip Docu of his adminship and require that he go through the entire process of earning adminship again. Of course, he would never get it, would he? The admins need to rapidly weed out the embarrassments from its ranks. Greg L ( talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Well… I wrote it and wholeheartedly agree with myself. ;-) Greg L ( talk) 17:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Endorse somewhat, although I would advocate a re-confirmation RfA, along the lines of LessHeard vanU's "2nd RfA", rather than an outright de-sysop. Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Partial endorse, except strongly disagree with the implication that admins and crats represent Wikipedia's 'governance'. - kotra ( talk) 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Endorse, and I do believe that admins are part of the governance structure. May I emphasise that the best outcome is for Docu to give way to community opinion and for us all to move on. No one wants to see a hard-working admin in this kind of situation. Let's hope for win–win. Tony (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Partial endorse. He really should be setting an example. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 18:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Endorse. For crying-out-loud: how hard is it to put ~~~~ after a post, and to have a signature that links back to the user in question? Yes, admins should set an example.  HWV258  23:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. I have seen very worthy editors fail in their request for adminship and told to go back and work on certain areas before re-requesting...same should apply to Docu. I agree the signature is one of many issues of Docu, but it is the one that is most easily rectified, being stubborn on this shows his unwillingness to change. LibStar ( talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. Cirt ( talk) 06:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. I'm not endorsing all the wikiphilosophy about "govern with the consent of the governed" (we are not a democracy) but with respect to the case at hand, admins are required to lead by example with respect to adherence to conduct policies and common courtesy, and I think that Docu should either agree to sign all his talk page posts properly or to undergo a reconfirmation RfA.  Sandstein  08:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Though passing adminship is hardly a sign that the person is a good admin. Majorly talk 10:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Blue Squadron Raven 21:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. I disagree with the part about admins governing the site (admins are more like janitors with some enforcement authority), but I agree with the rest. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Comment from Anonymous Dissident

If Docu could go to the trouble of detailing his objection to signing properly, perhaps it would lead to more productive discussion. I for one don't have a problem with the way Docu signs, but a lot of wasted time could be averted if he could rationalise his decision intelligently and reasonably. One thing that is problematic is his lack of consistency when it comes to embedding the time and date. The idea of dating comments has a clear purpose – it allows for chronological sequencing and analysis, and clarifies the way a discussion has moved forward over time. In addition, it is an indicator of the stagnancy of a conversation and is, in this way, of archival advantage. By no means should action be taken against Docu if he refuses to sign properly, but the whole affair seems utterly inane if the user in question is unable to rationalise his tendencies. Therefore, a question directly to Docu: why do you refuse to date your comments on a regular basis, and why do you dislike the prospect of a signature linking to your user and/or user talk pages? — Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 04:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

1. -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Sk8er5000

Clearly, the issue here is that we have a user who wants to disrupt the normal workings of Wikipedia. The default signiture contains the users name and the date. Furthermore, it would be a heap easier to sign pages with ~~~~ than "User:Docu", the former only taking 4 keypresses, compared to nine. Further to that, the user in question is a admininstrator, who is expected to show civillity in all discussions. Telling other users to pretty much nick off is quite clearly not I, for one, would expect from such users. Therefore, we have a issue with a editor, who the community has chosen to bestow with the mop and bucket, telling us to (effectivaly) nick off, when we have asked a simple question; and refusing to use a signiture that almost every editor on this wiki uses. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Endorse as writer -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 11:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. ╟─ Treasury Tag► senator─╢ 12:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. I think you should add the link where he said "nick off" to your statement--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 13:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Sorry, I put those commas to say he effectivally said 'nick off'. I'm sorry for the confusion. -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 08:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

4. Majorly talk 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Davewild ( talk) 17:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Cirt ( talk) 20:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. LibStar ( talk) 08:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 14:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. -- Aervanath ( talk) 17:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Blue Squadron Raven 21:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Greg L ( talk) 03:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Stifle ( talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Edison ( talk) 02:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Addition to statement by Sk8er5000

Since I posted my original statement, Docu has started asking questions about my above statement to my editor review ( [51] [52] [53]), possibly as wiki-stalking. The first question, asking about a mistake I made ( and fixed), was fair enough. The next two, about my views on signitures, I feel is just wikihounding a editor about why they said something at RfC. If Docu asked these questions in good faith ( which he could have), then fair enough. However, given roux's statement, then I have reason to believe that Docu is acting more in bad faith. Thanks -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who agree with this statement:

1. as creator -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 08:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Seriously bad judgement here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Seems relatively clear that Docu is being deliberately disruptive about the sig, and pointy about the question. →  ROUX  ₪  10:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by MuZemike

Per [54] (only a couple of hours after this posting), Docu is starting to use a more standard signature with visibility. If this stays, then I see no point in this RFC to continue any further. MuZemike 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Agreed. It is less ambiguous also: when I first encountered Docu I thought his username was "User:Docu" instead of just "Docu". Drawn Some ( talk) 14:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   Majorly talk 14:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   It seems to me somewhat graceless of Docu to silently start using an acceptable signature. A simple post here saying "OK, I'm doing it" would avoid confusion and we could terminate this RFC successfully and immeadiately. It would appear that other peoples time has no value to him William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

   But I would like to see a commitment from him to continue to do so long term. If he does that, I endorse closing fully.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Based upon his most recent talk page edits, [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] all but one of which was made today, I think it may be premature to close this based upon one dif where he did add a date. Again if he comes and makes a statement that he'll try to use or actually does tart using it, then I'm in favor of closing.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

2. Indeed. We're only here because this has wasted too much of people's time already; the sooner we can get this over with the better. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. Close and trouts all around. Unomi ( talk) 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Addendum

Since I was shown wrong above and made to look like a schmuck, I'll add to my above statement (but not take away what I have said above). The current wording in the WP:SIGN behavioral guideline states Signatures must include at least one internal link to one of your user page, user talk page, or contributions page to allow other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The word "must" indicates imperativeness. There were two ways I can see that this could have been handled. The first was to discuss the current wording of the guideline at WT:SIGN and/or possibly start on RFC on that if needed. The second was to request comment on Docu's not abiding by this guideline. The community seems to, for the most part unambiguously, have sided towards the latter. While, at any other time, this RFC/U may have been justifiable, I cannot fail but not notice that the timing for this RFC/U is outright horrible and that I do agree with some of the others in that there might be other motivations behind this RFC/U. MuZemike 19:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by SchmuckyTheCat

No cops.

Wikipedia does not need user cops who find problems where there aren't any. I dare any of the accusers and harpies here who thought this was a valuable use of anyone's time to try and go mediate some of the intractable issues in the actual, you know, project. We have rampant nationalist POV warriors, paid corporate shills, quack medical and fringe theory pushers abundant all over the project and this issue is about someone's signature line? Give me a break. This is why RFA is broken, because the fear of controversy self-selects an admin (and wanna-be) corp who are too chickenshit to go after the real problems on the project and spend their time in morale crushing, ineffectual, internecine witch hunts. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Pzrmd ( talk) 20:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Big Bird

At its core, Wikipedia is a collaborative project that would have never lasted this long if the editors involved worked on a principle of anything other than mutual co-operation because not one single editor on this project is capable of building an encyclopedia by themselves. If a number of editors had spent years trying to tell me that a most insignificant and minor change in the way I edit Wikipedia would make their lives a hell of a lot easier and presented me with a minimum logical reasoning of why this would help better the encyclopedia (the sole reason why any of us should even be registered users on this website), then I would have no issue accomodating such a request because my minor inconvenience is well worth the benefit of the project and the convenience of countless editors who help build it. In such a case, it would make no difference whatsoever whether WP:SIG is a guideline or a policy or, for that matter, whether official documents on this even exist. It's the most fundamental element of good faith editing that I should edit in such a way that I improve Wikipedia rather than to maintain or improve my own position as an editor. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Exploding Boy ( talk) 16:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Adambro ( talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. ^Leave Sleaves 17:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Joe 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5.  Sandstein  17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Davewild ( talk) 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Vicenarian ^{( T · C)} 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Cube lurker ( talk) 18:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. That's very well said. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 18:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Indeed. The ruleslawyering nonsense from people who should know better is very disappointing. Friday (talk) 19:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. Thank you for putting this so well. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 19:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Very well said. Basket of Puppies 19:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. Cirt ( talk) 20:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
16. Majorly talk 21:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC) reply
17. ╟─ Treasury Tag► prorogation─╢ 07:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
18. Well said. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
19. well said, it's the essence of why we help each other. LibStar ( talk) 14:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
20. Eloquently put.-- Aervanath ( talk) 17:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
21. Absolutely. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 19:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
22. Viridae ^Talk 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
23. Here, here! Blue Squadron Raven 21:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
24. — Gavia immer ( talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
25. Very nice. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
26. Seraphim ♥ 22:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
27. I’ll add my four tildes to this one; ain’t too much work. Let’s see… (*holding my tongue in the corner of my mouth*) Greg L ( talk) 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
28. Can we upgrade this statement to a policy? Unomi ( talk) 05:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
29. Stifle ( talk) 08:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
30. Well said. Edison ( talk) 02:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Query by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I've not seen an explanation of why Docu refuses to sign his posts. Surely it's not because he enjoys inconveniencing other users. I'm genuinely curious: Docu, why do you steadfastly refuse this simple act of courtesy?

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 20:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. Me too William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. —/ Mendaliv/ ^2¢/ _Δ's/ 22:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Cirt ( talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Not so much endorsing the query as attempting to answer it; Docu did offer, in 2003 (and perhaps once in a while thereafter), that he uses a Swiss keyboard, obliging him to press Ctrl-Alt-^ to form a tilde. What is regrettable, though, is that that piece of information had to be supplied at the most recent AN/I discussion by UncleG, Docu's having elected not to engage constructively with the community, and that, as Hans Adler notes in his endorsement (#35) of Viridae's outside view supra, Docu has inexplicably refused (at least AFAICT) to restate his reason(s) clearly, even when asked by good-faith users who speak sincerely and civilly of the problems that follow from the non-time-stamped, linkless manual sig. Joe 23:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. I'm asking this, too. I also use a Swiss German keyboard, and I find it no trouble at all pressing Ctrl-Alt-^ to type a tilde.  Sandstein  07:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. T'Shael, Lord of the Vulcans 22:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. LibStar ( talk) 00:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Dabomb87 ( talk) 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Greg L ( talk) 03:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Blue Squadron Raven 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
13. I view the lack of a conforming sig as a problem, but would like to understand Docu's motivation before endorsing the other views. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 04:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
14. Endorse this, because the only reason I've certified this is because I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation. If I had seen one, I wouldn't have certified this RFC.-- Aervanath ( talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC) reply
15. The only explanation ever provided has been a transparently lame excuse. Edison ( talk) 02:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Inside view by Allstarecho

Turn out the lights and put this baby to bed. Ridiculousness is what this is. - ALLST✰R▼ ^echo _{wuz here} 05:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
2. Pzrmd ( talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Blurpeace

This entire Request for Comments has drama written all over it. I urge Docu to begin using the signature button at the top of his edit bar (so he doesn't have to type the four tildes if it bothers him) and as ASE has stated above me, this RfC be closed. If he refused to do so, what would be the end result here? De-adminship? A block for disruptiveness? That seems like the only conclusion that would happen here if he were to adamantly refuse changing it (consistently). ^blurred _peace ☮ 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. That would certainly satisfy me.-- Aervanath ( talk) 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. kotra ( talk) 17:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by Bwilkins

I am going to try hard to stay away from drama and cliques. I will not discuss Docu's long tenure, or skills as an admin as they are not imperative to the point. From a truly outside perspective, the first time I saw Docu's "sig", I said "what the f...?" There are four primary issues with the sig as per the last time I saw it:

• it appears to be merely a copy/paste of some original post
• it requires "work" to therefore verify if they actually did post
• it requires "work" to actually track the user and contact them
• as some editors actually look up to Admins, Docu is setting an example that going against guidelines is quite ok. Admins must to uphold the rules, policies and guidelines, and set positive examples

Perhaps at some point, the programmers-that-be will need to allow admins to disable the checkmark that allows us to bypass the default signature, and it could be used in cases like this. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 15:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
2. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 15:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
3. ··· 日本穣 ^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
4. Blue Squadron Raven 18:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
5. Cirt ( talk) 19:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Again, if he weren't an admin, I would find it rude and discourteous, as an admin I find it problematic.--- Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply
7. -- Aervanath ( talk) 19:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC) reply
8. LibStar ( talk) 02:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Dabomb87 ( talk) 15:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Sarah 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
11. Good points, esp re copy/paste appearance. Orderinchaos 04:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
12.  Sandstein  08:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by roux

Per the diffs provided by Majorly here ( [60], [61], [62], [63]), it is apparent that Docu is attempting to make some sort of point and/or is indulging in deliberate disruption. Signing is the same on both sites, so it is not actually possible for it to be harder here than it is there. This is in addition to the diffs provided above of absolute refusal to answer simple yes/no questions or respond to simple inquiries.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. →  ROUX  ₪  08:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
2. It certainly seems that Docu is being purposely evasive or disruptive. GreenGourd ( talk) 19:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC) reply
3. See my addition to my statement. -- Sk8er5000 ( talk) 08:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
4. ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
5. ╟─ Treasury Tag► without portfolio─╢ 10:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
6. Blue Squadron Raven 14:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
7. Yes, it does seem pointy, especially considering the unwillingness to explain the underlying reasons. Big Bird ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC) reply
8. The links give a very interesting perspective to this issue and it does certainly give the appearance that something deliberately pointy is going on. Sarah 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
9. Cirt ( talk) 13:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply
10. Edison ( talk) 02:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply
11.  Sandstein  08:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply
12. Enigma ^msg 19:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Outside view by 67.117.147.249 ( talk)

Suggestion: have someone from BAG launch a modified SineBot to monitor Docu's contribs and fix the damn sigs. Then, WP:DENY. Problem solved? 67.117.147.249 ( talk) 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by

Users who endorse this summary:

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.