Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ

Σ

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (77/5/3); Scheduled to end 01:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination

Σ (talk · contribs) – At the end of a quiet September, I thought I would present to you, the excellent editor, Σ. Σ has been around for quite a while now, getting started in March last year. I bumped into him quite early on, and given the rate that he edits, I'm sure you have too. I will fully admit that my first impressions of him were not as positive as they could be, but the amount I've seen him grow is exceptional. In that time, he's racked up a fantastic 42,000 edits, most impressively a CSD log with over 6,500 edits. Feel free to have a look, it's a very high accuracy ratio too. He runs a number of bots, all the User:Lowercase sigmabots, which have thousands upon thousands of useful edits.

Anyone who does know Σ though will link him to Coal ball, an article I firmly believe he will take to featured one day. On top of that, there's loads of positive edits to AIV, RFPP and UAA. Put simply, give him the tools and he'll help with the backlogs - what more could you ask? Worm^TT(talk) 20:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Legoktm - Having first encountered Σ at WP:BON, I was extremely confused how anyone could be so obsessed with Coal balls. After learning about how he came upon it at WP:HOT and the amount of research he has done to improve the article and bring it up to a GA, I came to the conclusion that Σ is here for one purpose, and that was to create an encyclopedia. This is furthered by over 600 edits to AIV and 6600+ CSD taggings. I believe that not only will Σ benefit by having the tools, the whole encyclopedia will. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:19, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Co-nomination by Kudpung - My experience with Σ began with a few run ins but once we had settled our differences he has gone from strength to strength, religiously taken every snippet of of advice I have given him, and he has now learned so fast that even I ask him for advice and opinions occasionally. Sometimes he questions my admin actions, but always in a most polite and positive manner through a blend of curiosity and hope that I wasn't wrong after all. Not only has he learned well from his early mistakes - he's learned a lot from some of mine too! He's not an expert in all areas and there are some that he has not ventured into, but based on where he has been already and become a specialist, and how he has learned to do it and interact with others, I'm fully convinced that what he doesn't know now, he will learn on the job as most of us admins did, and learn it well. I'm rarely to be found at this top end of the RfA page, but now that I'm here for Σ, I hope the community will share my confidence. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination by Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs): I had initially written a full nomination, the essence of which I jotted down about four months ago when I initially took a serious look into nominating Sigma for adminship. However, I logged on this morning and was pleasantly surprised to find that Sigma has already accumulated a nomination and a couple co-nominations! I won't repeat what others have said, but I have found Sigma to be ready to learn from his mistakes (those I found primarily concerned CSD minutia and only occurred when he was first getting started), a trait highly desirable in an admin. Sigma avoids drama—another excellent trait in an admin. Additionally, unlike many of the nominations for anti-vandal admins that we see here, Sigma has demonstrated that he knows what the encyclopedia is about: namely, to produce quality content. Accordingly, he has written the article coal ball from scratch, demonstrating a knowledge of the content policies WP:RS, WP:C, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:MOS on his trip to getting coal ball listed as a good article. Spotchecks on the article revealed no copyright infringement or close paraphrasing. As Worm said, his accuracy on tagging articles for speedy deletion is significantly above 99%, showing that Sigma is both thoughtful and careful when marking others' work for deletion, and also giving me confidence that if he were to ever branch out of the anti-vandal areas in which he intends to start working, he will do so thoughtfully and carefully too. Additionally, Sigma is never BITEy to new editors who complain about the {{db}} tags that he was forced to add to their articles. All these character traits, in conjunction with the items mentioned above my nomination, convinced me that Sigma will make an excellent admin. Thanks and good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: Thank you, I accept this nomination. →Σσς. 01:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I intend to work in areas that interest me. The majority of my work has been in CSD tagging and vandal reporting, so I would help out in CSD, AIV, RPP, and UAA. These areas are sometimes backlogged, occasionally having entries over a day old. Because of Wikipedia's position as a major source of both news and information, it is important that we are not leaving inappropriate material online for longer than necessary. Attack pages, for instance, may defame people who are totally innocent of poorly backed allegations, or affect a vulnerable child because of the actions of classmates who may not understand the possible consequences of what they imagine to be a harmless joke. But it's not just attack pages - copyright violations are best removed right at the start, and likewise with many other pages. I have been doing my best to tag these problem pages as quickly as possible, for over a year now.

I also plan on extending my work to other areas that are in need of attention, as I gain experience in them.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've always considered myself a gnome contributor. I fix what's broken, answer questions, and write bot­s that free people from having to do repetitive tasks, allowing them to focus on articles.

In mainspace, I have created 49 articles and obtained 6 DYKs. Of them, I am most proud of my work on coal ball, carrying it from its creation to DYK to GA, and hopefully FA in the future. Writing has never come naturally to me, but this has been a labor of love - a topic that I'm still fascinated with, and an article that I will continue to improve.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I have never been in a conflict I would call stressful, and believe I have done well avoiding unnecessary tense situations. The technical aspects of Wikipedia interest me more than any personal or agenda-based conflict ever could.

If I ever were to get into a stressful conflict, I would seek a neutral opinion - something I consider essential to dispute resolution, as it allows you to ensure that you are not being unreasonable.

Additional question from Go Phightins!

4. You said that you find technical aspects of Wikipedia more interesting than personal-related aspects. Does this mean that you would not be likely to participate in or close many AFD or ANI (or carry out the results of in this case) discussions?

A: Yes, I will avoid closing contentious discussions if I can avoid them. However, there is always a need for uninvolved admins. I have no doubt that at some point, someone will approach me in search of someone to close a discussion or enforce a decision reached by a discussion. I will never hold my opinion as inherently higher, and always respect the opinions of my peers.

Additional question from Diannaa

5. (a) Please tell me what you think about this image. (b) Please tell me what you think about this article. Thanks.

A:

(a) At a first glance, it seems to be fine. A closer look at the history shows that its public domain status was previously challenged.

According to Moore Hall, County Mayo, the house was burned down on 1 February 1923. This means that unless the house had a sudden surge in popularity between January and February, the majority of pictures of it should be public domain. The file on Wikipedia is not the same as the one found on the source specified by the image template here, but both appear to be parts of the same image. The source also states that the picture was taken in 1890, and as such, Ideally it should be tagged with {{move to commons}}.

Obviously the photo was taken prior to the building burning down in 1923, but according to Wikipedia:Public domain#Artworks, the onus is on the uploader to prove that the image was published before 1923 to prove that it is now public domain. We have not been presented with any evidence that the image was published anywhere prior to the upload (much less published prior to 1923), as the wayback machine does not have an archive of the site we were given as a source. The source was added a year and a half after the upload. Here Stefan2 gives additional information of how this works. -- Dianna (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a superb question on a number of fronts. Not only is there the published/unpublished issue, there's ambiguity in the date of the photograph. In the summary, there is a claim the image was taken in 1890 (more than 120 years ago), but in the comment area the claim is ca 1900. No evidence of when the image was taken is offered. Glrx (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

So let's re-frame the question for the candidate. Here we have a photograph taken in Ireland. The website given as a source claims the photo was taken in 1890. We do not know who took the photo or what year they died, and we do not know if the photo was ever published before its appearance on the website provided as a source. Is the image public domain? If so, what template would be the right one to use? -- Dianna (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

(b) My immediate comment is that the subject is UK-centric, and as such, I am unfamiliar with the radio stations and places etc. concerned. I also noticed that there is undesirable material present, such as "In this hour, every day of the week, Russ plays music from the 1980s".

From what I see is claimed in the text, I think he's notable. What the article needs, now, is reliable sourcing that backs it up.

Additional questions from Goodvac

6. What, if anything, did you learn from and what, if anything, would you change about the following exchanges in which your responses were suboptimal: User talk:Σ/Archive/2011/May#Nonsense RfA votes, User talk:Σ/Archive/2011/June#Regarding CSD tagged article, and User talk:Σ/Archive/2011/October#Speedy deletion contested: Longchamps (chain of restaurants)?

A: "Suboptimal" is an understatement. Now that I look back and see every word of what I wrote, I would say I handled those exchanges terribly.

For the first one, that was completely my fault. I should have never made those votes. They were not appropriate for the collegiate atmosphere Wikipedia tries to ensure. If the same situation came to my talkpage today, I would have apologized for making such a vote, and struck it myself.

For the second issue, I should have referred the editor to the help desk or the admin who deleted their article when I lost patience. My sarcasm did not help the situation, and in fact only lengthened it. I think I have learned from that situation from the help I am able to give at the ref desk (mostly in the computing; [1] and [2]), as well as general advice in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect.

And for the third, I think that experience showed me that different editors have different interpretations of the CSD criteria, and that some articles can be in the guidelines subject to interpretation. When my tag was removed, I should have accepted my colleague's opinion - CSD should only be used when the deletion is uncontroversial, and if anyone disagrees, it means the deletion is not uncontroversial. I think my reviewing skills have gotten better because of it, my March 2012+ CSD log showing all A1 articles having been deleted.

I'm not proud of what I actually did in those situations, but overall I feel I have matured since then and have been a productive member of the collegiate environment Wikipedia strives to uphold.

7. At your editor review one year ago, you wrote, "Being a new page patroller and vandal fighter, it's nearly impossible for me to avoid a dispute of some sort." What are some recent conflicts of yours that resulted from NPP and how did you tactfully handle the situation? (I found your answer to Q3 inconsistent with your statement in your editor review. If you are unable to find recent examples, please use examples from one year ago that prompted you to make that statement.)

A: When I wrote that for my editor review, the disputes I referred to were mostly quibbles with new page creators who thought their article should have been retained, although policy favoured deletion. Over time, I have been involved in conflicts that were not related to NPP, here, for example. None of these disputes have caused me stress, though, like I said in my answer to q3.

As for the perceived inconsistency, my editor review was well over a year ago. Times changed, and experience was gained.

Additional question from Leaky

8. Let us assume that you had been an Admin. when this recent ANI issue cropped up [3] (eventually resolved elsewhere). If you had seen this developing at ANI what, if any, contribution would you have made and why?

A:

Additional questions from Thine Antique Pen

9. You notice a file that is being used under the CC-BY-ND license. What would you do with this file? What action would you take?

A:

10. You also come across a file being used under the CC-BY-NC license. What action would you take to this file?

A:

Additional question from Carrite

11. Sorry that you're getting shelled with so many questions. Here's an easy one: have you ever edited Wikipedia under any other user name? If so, what name or names would those be?

A:

Additional question from Bagumba

12. You are closing an AfD that has six participants and an equal headcount of !votes to keep and delete. Both sides have supporting arguments based on policies and guidelines. After reading the disucssion, you find yourself agreeing with one side. How do you handle this AfD? Withdraw question and replace. You can revert to the old one if you were already formulating an answer. What is your response to arguments, such as the ones in the "oppose" section, that you should change your username, Σ?

A:

Additional question from Keepscases

13. As part of a new "hazing" ritual, Wikipedia bureaucracy agrees to grant you adminship, but only if you watch this video in its entirety. Should you do so, you will immediately become a full-fledged admin. Should you attempt and fail, you shall be banned from Wikipedia. Would you accept the (entirely theoretical) challenge? Keepscases (talk) 03:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from RegentsPark

13. I've been trying not to ask this question, but what the heck! I notice that around 15% of all your edits (including deleted ones) are to the detailed CSD log that you maintain. Why do you keep this log and what else do you think is worth logging?

A:

General comments

• Links for Σ: Σ (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Σ can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit stats are on the talk page. →Σσς. 01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Support

1. Support as co-nom. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong support: Sigma easy to work with, he has a high knowledge of policies, guidelines and how things work around here. Sigma also has experience with AfD closure's, low use of automated tools, 99 major and minor edit summary usage, and everything that is also mentioned above. This user can definitely be trusted with the mop! -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Anyone who is willing to take an article from as it was when they started it to GA and is still willing to get it to FA obvously has the patience to deal with the tasks they said that they would do! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 02:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - yes, finally. Trustworthy, competent, efficient. — Earwig ^talk 02:17, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Support About fucking time. I told you I'd co-nom you. Apparently I wasn't good enough.--v/r - TP 02:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Support don't see any issues. --Rschen7754 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
7. Support I'm glad to see this RfA! I think you'll make a great administrator. ☮Soap☮ 02:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Support - Good sound editor, net positive. Off to see what the hell is Coal balls Mlpearc (powwow) 03:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
9. Support. The technical expertise is definitely helpful, even if not using automated tools.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong Support - There were no RFAs in the last month and now, here is a wonderful candidate standing in the beginning of October. They are one of the best CSDrs around (have beat me up couple of times). On the content side, their work at Coal ball is remarkable. For me they are a perfect candidate and I've no doubt in my mind about their abilities. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
11. Support I've seen the candidate around a lot and they will make a fine admin. Monty₈₄₅ 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - In before the "please change your signature" oppose! But seriously, This was too long in coming. Easily meets my RfA criteria. Trusilver 04:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Much needed for NP Patrol. Secret ^account 04:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
14. Support As far as I'm aware, I've had no contact with this user. However, I'm impressed with what I read above, and I'll trust WTT any day of the week. Go to the main RfA talk page, and you can see all the discussion about the slowed pace of RfA noms. I'm glad to see something is finally happening. AutomaticStrikeout 04:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
15. Support; I gotta be honest, for a while I got an odd feeling about Σ when I first saw him around with some frequency. It took me a while to pinpoint it, but I eventually figured out that it had to do with the hanging around RfA (which Br'er Rabbit has covered below) and rehashing of stuff on WT:CSD that initially struck me as an attempt at point-scoring. If it were 6-8 months ago, I'd probably oppose based on those. However, upon thinking about it more I realized that the RfA joke comments weren't doing anything actively harmful and not everyone has the inclination to go back and check every single rejected criterion, and then upon looking further I found no other serious issues. Great user, no worries from me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
16. Support. Looks good to me. Spencer^T♦C 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Strong Support I haven't encountered this user personally, but his work is impressive and he seems to know the policies very well. So, I don't see any issues with this candidate. I think he'll be a great admin. --Webclient101 (talk) 04:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - In my experience with Sigma on the world of IRC, he has proven himself to have the desire of the encyclopedia at heart and will be a valuable asset. ~ty^(talk) 04:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
19. Support Σ, I thought you were an admin already. No issues, good luck. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
20. Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. Yep, I've seen Σ around the place quite a bit, and I echo the con-nominators' statements. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Support looks good to me! BO | Talk 07:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Support. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Support as co-nom. A year ago, I would have opposed due to his attitude and maturity. Today, I'm nominating him. There are very few people who can turn things around as much as Σ has. My biggest hope is that he'll get so involved in admin activities that I won't have to hear about coal balls again! Having said that, I'm just as bad - pint of Doom Bar anyone? Worm^TT(talk) 07:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Support ~ A big fan of Σ's work, obviously support is granted. Good luck! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
26. Support - Fantastic editor who will make a great admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
27. Support. Barely had to look at the stuff above to see that he'll make a good admin. Nice one, good luck. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. I've seen Σ's work in new-page patrolling, and I have no concerns at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
29. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
30. Support. —stay (sic)! 09:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
31. Obvious support is obvious. Absolutely no reason to think Sigma will abuse the tools. Give him the damn mop already. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
32. Support. He is definitely ready to use mop. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
33. Support The strength of the nom's and supports speaks volumes. The only serious error in judgement I've seen was opposing me at my RfA, but no one is perfect. ;-) Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
34. No alarm bells here. I declined one speedy nomination, but it was borderline, and later deleted at AfD, so no problem there. GedUK  11:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Support with this many nominations from users I know, I'm not even going to bother looking for faults that may drive me to oppose.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent(Now using HTML5) 11:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
36. Support - net positive. Plus, when the author of one of the definitive essays on RfA nominates, you know it's something special. Theopolisme 11:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
37. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
38. Support No problems for me. Seen around a lot, doing good work. Good knowledge. Peridon (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Looks like Sigma will be helpful in the protecting, deleting and vandal-fighting side. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 12:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Assumed this would be coming for a while, pleasantly surprised to see how well it's going at the moment (thought there might be more opposes along the lines of Jack's). When I first saw this guy I thought he'd be one who rushes to RfA far too quickly and he displayed a fair bit of immaturity. Nice to see how he's grown since then and I think he'll make a good admin. Jenks24 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
41. Support per Kudpung. This user also has an excellent user and talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
42. Support Intothatdarkness 14:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
43. Support. Σ will clearly make an excellent admin. Zac  14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
44. Support This is an easy one. All the best in your mopping activities. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
45. Strongest Possible Support: Σ will clearly be an excellent admin. With thousands of edits to their CSD log, along with over 600 to AIV, they are clearly ready for the tools. I've seen him around a lot, and he does excellent work. No problems what-so-ever. I also concur with all of the nominators. Again, Σ will be an excellent administrator. :) Thine Antique Pen (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
46. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
47. Support: both their article and vandal-fighting work is encouraging, and I do not see any arguments presented in the Oppose section that would make me oppose. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 15:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Support as there is no evidence they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
49. Support - Everything I've seen from this account has been good (though we haven't interacted directly yet). I'm surprised by the answer to Q3 (no stressful conflicts) but going for a second opinion is definitely a "right" answer if you ever do get into a conflict that causes you stress. This is a very strong nomination (although I hope 4 nominators doesn't become the new norm) and I can't see any reason to oppose. And how the heck did you hide your user page so well? It took me 10 minutes to find the sub-sub page, and I cheated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
50. Support - Should do fine Kansan (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
51. Support - nothing that troubles me enough to oppose. GiantSnowman 17:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
52. Support - Perhaps some maturity issues, but a clean block log and no indications of assholery. Borderline adequate tenure, more than adequate contribution count. I was taken aback by the relatively massive percentage of edits to UserTalk, but upon further review find that most of this are notification messages to vandals, etc. As such, is an anti-vandalism worker with need for the buttons. A Kudpung co-nomination is golden in my book. I'd also like to express my agreement with the view below in the Opposes that usernames on En-WP should consist of letters of the Latin alphabet or numerals. This is just a policy disagreement that I have rather than any particular transgression of the nominee. Carrite (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
53. Yup. -Scottywong| prattle _ 18:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
54. Support great new page and vandalism patroller. -- Luke (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
55. Slightly weaker than normal support per question 4, but I still don't question Σ's judgment. I'd just like to see more willingness to keep those processes moving along. Great CSD work though! We need more administrators, and I have no doubt he'll be a good one--Go Phightins! (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
56. For some odd reason I thought you'd run before? Obviously not. Anyway I had a shufty at work earlier and all looked fine. Active on NPP and main space and clued up nominators looks a good mix to me. Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
57. Everything I've seen indicates support. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
58. Support Trusted user, no reason to think he would abuse the bit. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
59. Support — Up until recently, I thought "Sigma" had already been granted adminship several years ago (although I suspect I may have confused him with this highly active administrator). This is exactly the sort of class act we ought to be nominating as a means of ending the longest RfA drought in the project's history. The only negative I can see is that his name is difficult to enter into the Wikipedia search bar, so people might have a harder time getting in touch with him than they should. Nevertheless, an excellent candidate. Let's hope we can find more prospective administrators of this user's calibre. =) Kurtis (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
60. Support Well-rounded user with significant content creation, anti-vandalism efforts/new page patrolling (his CSD log is certainly one of the cleanest I've ever seen), and bot work. HueSatLum 22:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
61. Support. Thanks for stepping forward. Your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
62. Support. Every time I've seen this user, he/she has been very helpful. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
63. Yeah. Typical "per above". Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
64. Support As per everybody who came before me. But, at the risk of sounding dumb, how do you pronounce your name? And Adoil Descended (talk) 02:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    I was going to ask the same question. Also, how do you write it using the basic keyboard? Go Phightins! (talk) 02:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    It should be Sigma, on a standard keyboard the Alt code code is alt+228 for Σ. Monty₈₄₅ 03:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    I spell it "cmd-c, cmd-v" (or "ctrl-c, ctrl-v") -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    What an odd way of spelling... I tend spell his name using drag-to-highlight, right click, right click. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    Ah, I guess you use a different dictionary to me ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    OK, glad I'm not alone, just curious if there was a direct spelling. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:07, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

65. Support: Thoughtful editor who does good content work which provides a perspective on how to deal with editors during content disputes because they can relate to content editing issues. --LauraHale (talk) 04:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
66. It's about time.  7  05:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
67. Satisfied with what I see. Concerns raised by the opposers do not sway me. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
68. I'm beyond impressed with this user's CSD log. Besides patrolling Special: Newpages, he also patrols CAT:CSD and contests inappropriate speedy deletions, which shows that he doesn't just know how to tag for speedy deletion, but he also knows when to decline and when to delete. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
69. Support wholeheartedly. Ironholds (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
70. Support: I too had concern re speedy deletions. More effort to welcome or assist new editors is needed. Also the creation of bananaa is weird but this editor is a net positive. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
71. Why aren't they already! I have "run into" this edior a few times, and I feel he is a perfect admin candidate. Mdann52 (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
72. Support A sensible editor who will do well as an administrator. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
73. Support, you're one of those "I thought you were already" people. Username shouldn't be an issue; people who know what a sigma is won't have problems, and people who don't will think that it's a form of "E". Nyttend (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    While I don't see it as a dealbreaker, it is a bit of a pain. The only way I can figure out how to type that username (as in User:Σ/CSDlog) is by finding a sigma and cutting and pasting it in. --regentspark (comment) 17:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    All I can say is that Peridon makes a good point down below about Brown-haired Girl's username. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

74. Support to offset the ridiculousness of most of the oppose comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
75. Support, no reservations, based largely on previous observations of the editor. Σxemplary CSD log. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
76. Support, can't find anything wrong. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
77. Support - Just getting a nom from this respected admin is enough !  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Immaturity: diff of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Drmies. It was stricken, but was never funny. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Not meaning to badger, but that was well over a year ago. AutomaticStrikeout 04:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, cheer up mate. — Hex (❝?!❞) 08:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   This must be the one oppose for this RfA then... Peridon (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose As an Admin. you must be accessible to all users from whatever platform they wish to use, including users with accessibility issues and limited expertise. Your username will make that difficult therefore I oppose you until you do something about it. Leaky Caldron 12:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Just out of curiosity (and not intended as a Meles meles assault), how is the username "Σ" a specific problem for users with accessibility issues and limited expertise? I'd have thought all they'd need to do, just like the rest of us, is click on the username link? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC) (Ah, I understand the point now, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC))

   It isn't - you are correct and my sloppy explanation needs to be corrected. Sigma may need to be referred to in talk page discussions by such users. Leaky Caldron 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   This was a point that I did bring up with Sigma before nominating him, it was always going to be a possible issue. However, there are many mitigations, User:Sigma has a link to him, as does User:Lowercase Sigma and all the bots Σ manages. User:SigmaWP is a doppelganger, based on his IRC username. Similarly, on Σ's user talk page, he's written a nifty script which allows the insertion of a Σ just by pressing the button in the edit notice (go ahead, give it a try). User:Sigma has too many edits (globally) to usurp, so unless he completely changes his username, I don't think there's any more he could have done. Worm^TT(talk) 12:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   All the worse for them that they appear to have disregarded your concerns. In often hurried discussions - for example referring to or even complaining about an Admin action (which happens from time to time) - this candidate's user name will make effective communication more awkward and off-putting than is acceptable for an Admin. Leaky Caldron 12:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   And what is with usernames using Japanese character-set? Really, only because it is a Greek symbol... How about somebody using his/her real name containing a Ø because being from Sweden? Is that also unacceptable? I though this is a global encyclopedia... mabdul 13:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Harumph! "Ø" is used in Danish and Norwegian, the benighted heathens across the Sound use "Ö". Favonian (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Σ certainly does not have too many edits globally to change username. For example, とある白い猫 was renamed just fine with about twice the global edit count. That said, there's of course nothing in our username policy preventing Greek letters. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   No, I meant User:Sigma, who doesn't edit any more, can't have his account usurped by User:Σ, as a doppelganger. Worm^TT(talk) 14:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I usually copy and paste usernames and article titles - not through laziness but to get the spelling correct. How difficult is it to do that with a Σ? (Just did it there - aren't I clever?) Peridon (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Wow, I've been keeping track of this thread and that didn't occur to me once (not being sarcastic). You are a smart smart man, Mr. Peridon.--v/r - TP 14:29, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, I see. You did say that User:Sigma had too many edits, guess I just misread that. Jafeluv (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I would argue that all users, not just admin, need to be equally accessible for conversations or debates (whether it be links to their pages or mentioning them by name in a conversation). From that perspective if the username is fine for a user it's fine for an admin (and IMHO it's fine for both). How many users do we have who would 1) be referring to somebody in a talk page conversation, but simulatenously 2) not be able to copy/paste like most of us have to do with non romanized scripts?  7  05:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

3. Oppose I went through his contributions for June. These were mostly speedy deletions which I suppose arose from new page patrol. My impression is that this was one-way traffic as all I saw were nominations for deletion. I didn't notice any attempts to welcome or assist new editors and consider this attitude to be too hostile and unfriendly. In amongst the NPP were a few constructive edits like the work on coal ball but I worry that this work may have been tailored to the requirements of RfA. And finally, I notice the creation of bananaa which seems quite weird. So, altogether, while there's nothing especially bad there, I'm not comfortable supporting this candidate yet. Warden (talk) 23:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   The edit history for bananaa shows it was created via WP:AFC, and the article is tagged with {{r from typo}}. Assumingly, someone made the typo, and asked for a redirect based on their experience. Seems fine to me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   It's still not making much sense. Single character typos are usually handled automatically by search routines, including our own, and they will suggest the word that you meant to type. We don't need redirects for this. Warden (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Please show me a recent diff where he WP:BITE'd a new user.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   It's not easy to find cases where the candidate interacts with other editors but here's a recent example. The guy wants to know why his article is being speedied. He gets a bureaucratic lecture about notability which is probably greek to that user. What might have been more helpful in that case would have been a pointer to a source for the topic such as this. Note that the A7 was declined in that case and getting A7 wrong is a elementary mistake. Warden (talk) 07:09, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Maybe I'm not understanding, but I don't find anything wrong with his explanation to that user. He gave a concise and straightforward explanation of notability standards. The appropriate links were put in for more detailed information on the key areas of policy. And really... if that was greek to the user in question, then they probably aren't competent enough to be editing anyway. I fail to see how he was being "hostile or unfriendly" for not being part of the Wikipedia glee club and posting the handy dandy welcome template on the new user's talk page in lieu of attempting to do something useful... like explain our standards for inclusion. Trusilver 08:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Not trying to pile on, but in regards to the coal ball article being used for RfA, I can tell you that is not the case. One day I was curious enough to ask Σ on how he found out about coal balls, and he said he saw it listed on WP:HOT. After doing some preliminary research on it, he created a stub for it, has contacted professors at an institution doing research on them, and after finding out that I currently reside in coal ball land, has helped me establish contact with that professor so I can take specific photos that he wants before he goes for FA. I think thats going above and beyond simply writing an article just for an RfA. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 01:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose per Leaky_caldron. I have a bad feeling his username won't make much sense. Why would he choose the symbol for a summation in statistics named for Leonhard Euler? TruPepitoMTalk To Me 08:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose. That username impedes accessibility. This is particularly important for an editor who wants admin tools for use in an area where there are many new editors. Change the username to something which can be typed on a standard keyboard without using obscure multi-key combinations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Why type it? I just copy and paste, as I said above. It's no worse than Brownhaired Girl. er, Brown-haired Girl, er, no, BrownhairedGirl, er... Anyway, it's in the Special Characters thingy at the top. Peridon (talk) 17:58, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   No, actually I think it's quite a bit worse. All I have to do in BHG's case is enter "User:BrownHairedGirl", which takes me only a couple seconds to type. With Σ, I have to actually seek out a sigma symbol (saved only by the miracle of Google), then type in "User:", and then paste it, and hit search (or the enter key). It's needless tedium, something I wish there were an easier way to rectify than what has already been proposed. Kurtis (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   • Comment If it's possible, I think Σ should contact the user whose account redirects from User:E and ask them if it can redirect to him instead. That would solve that issue. Zac  20:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Reluctant neutral I was hoping to be able to support on this RfA, as Σ is an excellent Wikipedian with the best CSD log I've seen in a long time. However, this was not possible as when I was chatting to Σ recently on IRC, he produced two comments which one could classify as "canvassing". Now, this was not a blatantly obvious "hey, come and support me" type of comment, but I still feel this behaviour is not suitable for an administrator-to-be. It isn't so bad I should outright oppose, but it raises some little concerns. I know my !vote won't make any difference to the outcome of this RfA, but I want to note it down for others to see and judge their opinions on. If for some reason this request is not successful, I certainly will support Σ next time for they thoroughly deserve the buttons. Good luck.Rcsprinter (shout) @ 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Your screenshots show elements of conversation (including identifiable usernames) in channels which are clearly marked "no public logging". I think you should remove them. On the actual content of the screenshots, the first one ("IRC cabal") shows Sigma making what he describes as a "joke" in a channel that has only two other people in it - and it occurred well before his RfA went live or even existed. The second one shows you asking him about his RfA, three times, apparently out of the blue, not him raising the topic with you. Perhaps I should AGF a little more, but it's almost as though you're trying to prompt him into saying something you can screenshot to upset his RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that screenshots of chats should not be posted on-wiki. In the meantime, somewhat hypocritically, I've read them and I seen nothing that troubles me. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I agree that they should not have been posted on-wiki. I was also in the channel, and saw that Rcsprinter had asked about his RfA three times. I see no problem in this whatsoever. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   “As members of the IRC Cabal, I expect all of you to support me on my RFA!” - within a day of coming here - is clear cut off-wiki canvassing in my book. Leaky Caldron 16:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   Despite the out-of-context material you can see in the screenshot, it wasn't "within a day of coming here". More like half a week, i.e. before the nominators had even created the RfA page. I guess this sort of context-problem is one of the reasons that eager beaver screenshot-snapping often ends up being problematic, and is therefore strongly discouraged. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   One of them refers to "tomorrow" so it was imminent canvassing - whether or not the eventual nomination was the following day is irrelevant. Leaky Caldron 16:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   "As members of the IRC Cabal, I expect all of you to support me on my RFA!" is an obvious jest, and it was made in the presence of only a couple people, most of whom had already supported this RFA. You really can't canvass people who are already supporting. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   So what is the "proper" answer to a question along the lines of "when are you starting your RfA"? I don't think it's realistic to require people to respond with "sorry, no comment." Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   There was no evidence of a question, just his statement canvassing support. Look, the candidate has made an error of judgement. Supporters coming here to paint a different story will only do his cause further harm. Best you draw a line under it, accept it for what it was and hope that the wider community aren't bothered by it. If I was Sigma I would be cringing at the spin being used to defend his excitable IRC hubris. Leaky Caldron 17:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) m:IRC/Guidelines clearly states Don't post public logs of any channels without prior permission from all persons quoted. Censoring them does not make it ok to do so. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 16:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   • Sigh*, I'm taking away the links. The point is Sigma made these comments and they are innappropriate. Rcsprinter (shout) @ 16:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   It's not like he made a major announcement in #wikipedia-en or took out a billboard or something. He was idly chatting with friends in a channel which we are told had just a couple of people in it. The purpose of the anti-canvassing policy is to ensure that the tone and outcome of discussions isn't unfairly swayed by input from a biased notification process. I hardly see this as a concern here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   This !vote is invalid. !voter uses Apple products.--v/r - TP 17:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   This is exactly why I don't use IRC. Editors, such as Rcsprinter123, not that I am accusing you of doing so, use it as a tool to hurt the credibility of other users.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 18:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I am rather disappointed. If you wanted to oppose or be neutral, you don't have to provide much if any reason. But dragging chat logs in this way demonstrates very poor judgement and wasn't necessary in order for you to express your concerns. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

   I can only agree with what has already been said above by others. The screenshots you posted not only violated freenode's general no public logging guideline, it also violated the no public logging rules that have been around for years in #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-help and #wikipedia-en-helpers. In your own private chat with CoalBalls on IRC, you asked him twice about his RFA - therefore, anything he said in response or in the future would not be classed as canvassing, as you had previously asked, so he would have been keeping you up-to-date on the status of his RFA, on the good faith assumption that you wanted to be kept up-to-date about it. Thehelpfulone 01:00, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   OK everybody, the point's been pretty well hammered home, and I don't see a need to reiterate it any further. Rcsprinter made a mistake, he should have taken the time to assess the possible consequences of posting the contents of what was essentially a private conversation between himself, Sigma, and a few others (as far as I can tell, that's the situation — I have admittedly not looked at the screenshots, so my perspective on the matter is somewhat lacking). It was a violation of privacy. Not the end of the world. We all make some boneheaded judgment calls every now and then (Lord knows I've made more than my fair share); the most important thing to do when you realize you dropped the bomb is to say "yeah, I screwed up, sorry about that" and learn from it. That's why I can at least say I am glad, Rcsprinter, that you owned up to your mistake, and I'm reasonably confident you won't let this sort of scenario repeat itself again! =) Kurtis (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

2. Neutral I can't muster the enthusiasm to get into the support column, although my recent conversation with Lowercase Sigma have taken me out of the oppose column. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Neutral. Just change the signature and I'll consider supporting based on Reaper Eternal's and (the almost always reliable) Kudpung's nominations. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)