Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Meta:Requests for adminship/Abigor 2

< Meta:Requests for adminship
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Abigor

edit

Dear Meta community i would like to renominate Abigor for adminship on meta .he had an RFA here before which he withdraw , so i think after this time we can have better knowledge over his abilities for adminship . he has admin flag on some other projects such as commons and He is trusted --Mardetanha talk 18:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Questions

edit
  • For the sake of the archives, I think the section link should mirror the title, regardless of the candidate's nicknames. I've changed it accordingly. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: why do you sign as Huib? I think that's confusing. Majorly talk 15:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Majorly,
    I will try to answer. I started using Abigor on IRC and on-wiki but recently joined a photography club, this club also use the Freenode network and there I am registered as Huib, So I started to use Huib more and more on IRC. After a few weeks I noticed that is was confusing for people when I help them on IRC as Huib and sign messages on their talkpage as Abigor, so I changed my sig. I hoped that by changing my signature it would be less confusing because I help people on IRC as Huib and sign my message also as Huib.
    But if you have a good idea that can make it less confusing I would be happy to hear it.. It is not my intention to be confusing. Huib talk 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you prefer to use Huib, you could usurp that account as it has no edits to any Wikimedia projects. SUL 21:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think SUL's idea is best. A signature that doesn't seem to have any logical connection is just too confusing for me. Majorly talk 21:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for your input. This week I will think about changing my name globally or change my sign. But I will make the promise that it will change in a way. Huib talk 11:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You know that a global name change is only possible wiki-by-wiki? You'd have to request it on all and each wikis separately... --Thogo (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and a lot of renames will be done by a steward.. So I think I will change my sign but I don't know how I will do that so I need to design a nice sign. 175 renames isn't going to make people happy. ;-) Huib talk 11:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cbrown in that it's something I've certainly seen before. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 04:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, I look for "Huib" in the contributions list. I dunno, it's just a bit pointless to have a sig that has nothing to do with your username. Perhaps if it was his real name, or a shorter version of his username, but it doesn't seem to be either. Majorly talk 10:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am affraid that my real name is Huibertus but that is kind of long so I use Huib as my real name for almost 16 years :). My userpage does have a message about the fact that I sign with my real name. The LiCom page does also mention Huib as my real name :) Huib talk 10:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the signature directly links to the userpage, there is absolutely no reason why it needs to contain the username, too. What is much more disturbing is any change in color or font type. But since it seems to be allowed on some projects (on dewiki it's absolutely disliked and people are dissuaded from using styled signatures), there is also no reason to prohibit it here. --თოგო (D) 12:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood the attraction of having a customised signature, whether it be a different name or some fancy arrangement of colours. It just seems very pointless and unhelpful to others. When others are reading through a talk page they shouldn't have to start messing about to figure out who said what nor should talk pages be bloated by HTML to style signatures. It is just a distraction. Adambro 13:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's something to be discussed off this RFA, but as someone who has always had a customised sig, I have to disagree. Feel free to continue discussing this on my talk page if you wish :) Majorly talk 13:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an interesting argument. Myself? I often find that signatures make it easier to read a discussion, as certain font colors and families become identifiable with particular editors. If we all had the default font, I imagine this advantage would be lost. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. Majorly talk 18:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Requests_for_adminship/Abigor_2&oldid=2608640"