Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Time for a proposal?

I think it would be worth starting a proposal here to get consensus in a more offical way, dont know how to go about it tho. If somone else thinks they can start one, please do. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a formal proposal is needed. Surely we should just expect people who do things that confuse some other people, but are very little effort to change, to change so as not to cause such confusion? This is simple human courtesy, something that a significant number of Wikipedia editors seem to lack.

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:CIVIL issues that need to be handled as well.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I suppose you're right. It's just a pity that something that would be so easy for William to fix should have to become the subject of a formal proposal. Why are some people so stubborn over such trivialities as changing a signature?

Phil Bridger (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, because people don't like to change, and according to his talk page, "He likes it" LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 17:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand that. I meant my question more as a rhetorical cri de coeur than something that needed an answer.

Phil Bridger (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger, o LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Any chance at compromise? Perhaps William is concerned that he needs to get rid of the roof part. I haven't carefully read everyone's input, so I apologize if I've missed the obvious (again...), but it seems the main complaint is that it is hard to tell the signature apart from the discussion. What if we merely requested that he change either the font (to something readable, please) or the color. Bold and forest green would be nice. Then the substance of the signature would be kept, but it would stand out. Signed, Pollyanna. otherwise known as... 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:06, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal

Per

Joel B. Lewis, this a proposal then? If so, can you move it to a section/subsection/whatever under an appropriate name? Just to keep things neat. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support: This sig is disrutptive, and the user refusing to change it desptie knowing AND admiting that it is a bad sig is just not okay at all. He has cleraly made some great contributions and it's sad that they would get blocked over this, but the sig can't stay how it is. Ivanvector Sums it up well as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've also been baffled by WilliamJE's non-signature signature in the past, but have never been concerned enough to raise an issue. It meets the basic requirements, and personally I don't much care if editors have eclectic signatures, so long as they don't break things. However, it has been identified as disruptive by others on multiple occasions, and their "I know there's a problem and I don't care" attitude is incompatible with Wikipedia; it's
  WP:NOTHERE. Many users have quotations in their signature but they are still rendered as obvious signatures, and there are some reasonable compromise suggestions above. I've pinged WilliamJE again because they have not edited this page since a tirade of personal attacks three days ago, and may not be aware they may be facing sanctions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Ivanvector, I left a note on their talk page as well. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 18:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per their message at the top of their talk page "I'm aware that my signature is confusing, and I don't care. I like it." Blocking is the only way to get them to change it.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think William should change his signature and that William is often uncivil. Nonetheless, I don't think William should be forced to change his signature, given our confusing guidelines, policy, quasi-policy, nor do I think he should be blocked for incivility, given our complete lack of consistency in enforcing civility, or even defining incivility.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry

  WP:CIVIL because CIVIL is not consistently enforced" made me giggle. Levivich (inane chatter) 21:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support regretfully, noting that WilliamJE last engaged on this thread on 15 and has since been ignoring this thread despite several proposals/requests. I do hope WilliamJE fixes his signature and this unnecessary block does not get imposed. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I don't agree with
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support While Bbb23’s point about confused guidelines, capricious enforcement, and unclear definition are all obviously true, this is a straightforward case of someone doing something that makes the system work worse. Qwirkle (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To block somebody because of their signature is such a total case of stupidity. You really can't read a sentence without thinking? Are any of you really here to build an encyclopedia or just dole out moronic sentences on people who have created 140 or so articles here and established the best golf recordkeeping there is anywhere? I guess it is the later if you really support this shit because that isn't helping WP but instead to satisfy some sick cravings some of you have. Someone explain how a block helps WP and not hurts? How does my signature disrupt anything? How does a block go against the policy that says they aren't to be punitive? Is my signature a violation of standing WP policy? We know what the answers to all of these are. This is a lynch mob (And lynch mobs need to be attacked to prevent their injustice, not passively resisted) and all of you should be ashamed of yourselves....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow I don't think your inflammatory rhetoric is going to help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't resist a lynch mob with nice words. What you have to do is make them squirm and become disgusted with what they are about ready to do. I will be surprised if anyone answers those questions I posed. Just like it is sure as anything that why even this started is act of retaliation for me starting this[5]? Xray continues to harass editors[6] and I get blocked for signing pages. What is wrong with that picture?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Starship.paint&type=revision&diff=941341480&oldid=941253630&diffmode=source ...... LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, calling everyone here a lynch mob is not helping at all. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Any block would be preventative, not punitive, in that it would be lifted as soon as you change your signature to something that doesn't confuse people. Why are you being so fucking stubborn about such a trivial issue?
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Why are you so upset about one sentence? How is my sentence harmful? Please tell me. As I pointed out below, with the example of Deepfriedokra, some of you are practicing a double standard around here. I bit my tongue above not to use the f word right back at you. I have never used it at my talk page ever. Check my talk page archives....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WilliamJE, we are telling you... thats what this whole thread is about. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William, (I haven't pinged you because you are probably getting too many pings from this discussion) this discussion is about your signature. If someone raises

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• WilliamJE, this entire thread is filled with people saying why it is disruptive... Your personal attack are also a problem as well. 4/4 (if I am counting right, another editor is free to tell me if I miss counted, my math is always bad) of your posts to this thread contain Personal attacks. I would advice you read what Ivanvector said. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would this help wikipedia, WilliamJE?

By making it straightforward for others to communicate with you, instead of hiding your talk page.

By making it clear what is text, and what is signature. Your signature often looks like the last line in an unsigned post.

Qwirkle (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page isn't hidden. It is linked to. IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A misrepresentation -links can be hidden by mislabeling; an attempt to point the finger elsewhere; and a false dichotomy, all rolled into a personal attack? There oughta be some kinda barnstar for that. Qwirkle (talk) 19:44, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your hypocrisy is showing unless you answer the question- IF that's your basis for a block, why aren't you proposing it for Deepfriedokra whose talk page is hidden too. Because they are an administrator or are you practicing some form of double standard/hypocrisy? You painted yourself into a corner....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. What is showing, in vivid technicolor, is that you appear to be unable to make sense of things except as dichotomies or insults. (Or both.) There are a nearly infinite number of reasons why someone might not propose blocking User:Deepfriedokra; you appear to be incapable of envisioning more than two, both meant to be insulting.

Of course, out of all this surfeit, this veritable pleonasm of possible explanations about why I, or anyone, for that matter, don’t block User:Deepfriedokra for having a sig that doesnt look like a sig the most likely and straightforward is that their sig does look like a sig. Look at it, gentle reader, on their talkpage. Looks like a sig, not a run-on from the body of text, don’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qwirkle, just put a middle finger on a star, pointing at some random medical quack. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue as others have framed it,

non-sequitur

, and I do know of at least one editor who was indeffed because of injecting irrelevant lyrical works throughout serious discussions. But occasionally your signature coincidentally forms a coherent thought, as it has in your last comment here about Deepfriedokra's signature. A user not familiar with your signature could very easily read your last comment as an anonymous user expressing bewilderment at the supposed special treatment for Deepfriedokra as well as anger at the inconvenient location for filing complaints. I get that it might not look that way to you, but there are a whole bunch of users here who think it does, and they're (mostly kindly) asking you to correct it. That's all.

Oh, and that user I mentioned above who liked writing their poetry into deletion discussions was really indeffed because of their defensive personal attacks whenever someone expressed an issue with it. You're about to meet the same fate if you don't knock it the hell off. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, someone actually did that? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to gravedance, but yeah, true story. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's never been the case that
  Iridescent 19:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per my previous remarks^^^; If there's any general takeaway from this, it's that—as so, so often—it's not the original issue that encourages the community to act, but the subsequent behavior. ——SN54129 20:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per what I said above.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was not notified that I was being discussed here. I had received complaints about my signature under my former user name, and I always immediately (if grudgingly, I am human) addressed the issues. If you mouse over the "fried," it shows the link to my talk, just as mouse overing "Deep" shows the link to my user page, and the same over "okra" shows the link to my user rights status. (I think adminness is important in one's signature.) Each section is color-coded. It this arrangement, never before raised to me as a problem that I recollect, is a problem, please let me know on my talk page. I will change it to something more drab and more functional. Good day. -- Deepfriedokra 21:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And, if I may be so bold, the signature of ——SN54129, two comments above mine, follows a similar pattern. Neither has a long string of superfluous text in the signature.-- Deepfriedokra 21:39, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William, you have just pissed me off.-- Deepfriedokra 21:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised. Nowhere has there been any suggestion that you would not change your signature (which I personally don't see a problem with) if asked to do so in good faith.

Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Deepfriedokra, what is pissing you off about the page? or is it just in general? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the whole, "why don't you block DFO" nonsense. Plus the irresistible impulse to put a sentence after "wiliiam". The page? No, maybe the lack of a page/ping/semaphore. In general? I'm laughing at least one body part off that needs reduction anyway. Cheers, -- Deepfriedokra 22:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, ah, lol. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 22:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• On further reflection just change the (censored) thing. My sig follows a format used in Wikipedia:Signature tutorial. Alas, (censored) William, yours does not.-- Deepfriedokra 22:50, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as it stands, there are 10 support votes(assuming Deepfriedokra's vote is a support) and 1 oppose. William, this is not looking good for you, we all want this to be over, I doubt anyone wants you blocked over something that is so easy to fix. Many people have given you suggestions on what you can do, I would advise you consider them.LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 23:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can everyone just calm the **** down? I assure you, William is feeling very threatened right now. We need to find a way to give him an out of this situation with dignity. Due to his stubbornness, William could very well be facing the end of his Wikipedia editing career, over something as trivial as his signature. Let me tell you, from personal experience, that the indefinite block will hurt. We prevent harm and resentment with reasoning, not threats. To the blocking admin - please impose a one-week block first, and see if we can solve the situation in that time. starship.paint (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, that is what we are trying to do, hes not taking it. He has been given THREE ideas, he has not taken any of them, nor is he offering his own, I don't want him to be blocked, but he is being both uncivil when being asked nicely MANY times and is refusing to take any of the ideas on bord or offer his own. If you can get him to give his own suggestions, please, by all means do, just means this will be over quicker. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 01:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LakesideMiners: - [7] - I just have. For God's sake, admins, don't block first. starship.paint (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

​The editor has accused me of sockpuppeting and responded aggressively to editors who have asked him to change his signature. As I noted above, there is a WP:CIVIL issue with this editor, what's the "dignity" problem with changing a signature? I would change my signature in real life if people find it confusing. It's for the benefit of him and us. No body wants to block him but it's seems the only way to change his signature. If it was me, I would have changed it as soon as someone tells me that my confusing signature is confusing him. This editor is deliberately confusing us with his signature and he says at the top of his talk page that he doesn't care.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 04:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SharabSalam: - I have put the WP:CIVIL issue aside at the moment because I'm trying to put out the biggest fire which is the signature first. I understand why you, and others, are aggrieved. I ask that you also understand what I'm trying to do. starship.paint (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note as I said above, the comma next to his username is what makes most of this problem because it gives the impression that he is responding to someone called William. Please make sure that the comma problem be fixed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @SharabSalam: - in the five examples I gave William, [8] there is no comma in the first example, and all the rest of the examples do not feature a plaintext William. I trust that that should avert the confusion. starship.paint (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I wish William would handle this better, but I also wish people would take time to step back and acknowledge that it shouldn't be so difficult to figure out that a sentence that 1) contains wikilinks to a user page and a user talk page 2) does not logically flow with the preceding paragraph), and 3) is followed by a timestamp... is a signature.
  Lepricavark (talk) 05:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (ec)Oppose The basis for this proposal is based on a sig that was functionally disrupting bots and whatnot. This sig is about annoyance. This really isn't about his signature anymore anyway, and this has spiraled wildly out of control. If someone want to make a proposal to block based on attitude, civility, battleground, gaming the system, etc., them make it. But I can't support a block over a dumb sig that isn't even in the top 50 of dumb sigs. Rgrds. --
  talk) 05:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose, I agree there is a problem, but this is not a way of handling it that is going to reflect well on the participants. Give peace a chance. Let Starship.paint see if they can work something out. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, what Bison X said. Not only one person is being a jerk here.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pbsouthwood, who is the other one?--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those who are treating others unfairly, or in a way that they would justifiably resent if it was being done to themselves. It is not complicated. To identify whether you are being a jerk, read your comments as if they were addressed to yourself by the other person. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Pbsouthwood, yah, I think we all could do to tone it down a bit. Im hoping starship paints thing will resolve this all, WilliamJE, please read what others are telling you, we all want this to be over and resolved. LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose WilliamJE's signature hardly rises to the level of disruption that would justify a block. (See also my !v under a different heading above) —
  talk, contribs) 05:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Not gonna predict the outcome of this proposal. It's just too bad that WilliamJE has chosen the stance he has. Anyways, ya'll can deal with the situation as ya'll see fit. GoodDay (talk) 05:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Mountain/molehill. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wikipedia's conventional system of posting and signatures is generally confusing – that's why
  WP:FLOW has been developed. William's signature doesn't seem significantly worse than many other users. For example, the OP has a solid triangle (▼) in their signature. This is not part of their user name and it's not clear why it's there or whether it has some function. I wasn't sure what William meant by his signature but I now observe that, on his user page, he explains it as a saying of his grandfather. As the phrase has sentimental value, it is natural that William would wish to keep it. If some bots have trouble with it then that's ok because they have no feelings. Just improve the bots' parsers. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Andrew Davidson, we don't use flow on en.wiki? LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 13:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The imperative to improve talk pages still exists. The major anomaly is that, while the Visual Editor now works reasonably well for articles, it doesn't work at all on talk pages. This is a significant obstacle for new users and those who train them, such as myself. The WMF still wants to address this and the last major milestone seems to have been

  Old Spanish customs". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose. Using a bazooka at a buzzing bee. William could have a better signature, but this is hardly an indef block offence.--Eostrix (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This refusal to chose a signature that is easy to identify as such is just an example of William's battleground attitude. When I first came across his signature I couldn't find how to contact him at first and oddly sometimes the "on the roof" bit is not clickable as can be seen from his talk page but this may just be because I am already on his talk page. Just as a reminder he has been blocked 10 times since he has been on wikipedia for incivility, edit warring, hounding, disruption etc. I had a run-in with him about his behaviour at deletion sorting as did others who took it to AN and it took intervention by 2 admins to get him to agree to abide by the decision and new guidelines for sorting. I believe that due to the number of editors that have asked him to change his signature to make it easier to identify as per
  WP:CONSENSUS and sadly a block seems to be the only path to go down. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - I am not moved by the protestations that this particular signature is difficult to interpret, or otherwise not clearly a signature. It has links to userpage, user talk page and UTC formatted time. As is standard. There is a particular encroachment of entitlement here. I suspect that this isn't so much about the signature, as much as the refusal to submit. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with
  uncivil behaviour. They are unwilling to cooperate in even such a minor way as to modify their signature so it is clear that it is a signature. This is not a new development: they have behaved this way for a long time. The signature is confusing, and even with its length could easily be fixed, but they not only don't accomodate others, they deliberately brag about the problem they cause. The good of the encyclopedia needs to come in front of an editor's vanity, and that requires collaboration.Jacona (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose overly reactive. Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Are we really considering blocking and perhaps losing an editor who has been here for 13 years over a signature? It is not a standard signature but I'm baffled that the otherwise intelligent folks posting here are having such a hard time understanding it when it contains a) his name, b) a link to his user page and c) a link to his talk page. There are certainly more confusing signatures than his and I'm with Rhododendrites and Bbb23 who observed that the project has an uneven policy of addressing unusual signatures. Are we going to start seeing regular posts here about every signature that, say, contains emojis, nonstandard characters or anything different?