Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Σ

Edit stats

Edit stats as of 01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC).

Username:	Σ
User groups:	autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit:	Jun 21, 2009 01:26:46
Unique pages edited:	16,207
Average edits per page:	2.62
Live edits:	33,025
Deleted edits:	9,409
Total edits (including deleted):	42,434

Namespace Totals

Article	8549	25.89%
Talk	626	1.90%
User	7546	22.85%
User talk	10985	33.26%
Wikipedia	3964	12.00%
Wikipedia talk	316	0.96%
File	79	0.24%
File talk	1	0.00%
MediaWiki talk	20	0.06%
Template	503	1.52%
Template talk	90	0.27%
Help	8	0.02%
Category	14	0.04%
Category talk	2	0.01%
Portal	316	0.96%
Portal talk	6	0.02%
	
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2009/06	5 	
2009/07	0 	
2009/08	1 	
2009/09	7 	
2009/10	0 	
2009/11	0 	
2009/12	0 	
2010/01	0 	
2010/02	0 	
2010/03	1 	
2010/04	1 	
2010/05	3 	
2010/06	3 	
2010/07	0 	
2010/08	0 	
2010/09	0 	
2010/10	0 	
2010/11	0 	
2010/12	0 	
2011/01	0 	
2011/02	40 	
2011/03	1183 	
2011/04	1501 	
2011/05	2485 	
2011/06	2352 	
2011/07	2176 	
2011/08	2309 	
2011/09	2652 	
2011/10	2156 	
2011/11	2178 	
2011/12	2205 	
2012/01	2180 	
2012/02	1832 	
2012/03	1856 	
2012/04	1619 	
2012/05	1918 	
2012/06	949 	
2012/07	724 	
2012/08	414 	
2012/09	260 	
2012/10	15 	

Top edited pages
Article

    559 - Coal_ball
    101 - Adolf_Carl_Noé
    62 - List_of_Diary_of_a_Wimpy_Kid_characters
    57 - Physics_of_the_Future
    50 - Gorno-Altai_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
    45 - Kabardino-Balkar_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Repub...
    37 - RuneScape
    37 - Marxism
    35 - Udmurt_Autonomous_Soviet_Socialist_Republic
    32 - Brookesia_micra


Talk

    55 - RuneScape
    18 - Coal_ball
    12 - Fluffernutter/GA1
    11 - Centers_of_gravity_in_non-uniform_fields
    10 - Soviet_Union
    10 - FunOrb
    8 - Comparison_of_Nazism_and_Stalinism
    7 - Communism
    7 - Suicide_method
    7 - Alsos_Mission/GA1


User

    6610 - Σ/CSDlog
    115 - Σ/PRODlog
    99 - Σ/Testing_facility/Think
    39 - Σ/BYM
    37 - Σ/Testing_facility
    23 - Σ/Testing_facility/Protoss
    21 - Σ/huggle.css
    19 - Σ/Star
    18 - Σ/monobook.js
    14 - Σ/Communist_topicon


User talk

    575 - Σ
    157 - ClueBot_Commons
    62 - Kudpung
    46 - Bassist_DaTaco
    41 - Reaper_Eternal
    29 - Sodins
    29 - Goldblooded
    25 - 184.100.24.239
    20 - Materialscientist
    20 - Rolandhelper


Wikipedia

    623 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
    365 - Requests_for_page_protection
    287 - Usernames_for_administrator_attention
    196 - Sandbox
    187 - Motto_of_the_day/Nominations/In_review
    102 - Requests_for_permissions/Rollback
    79 - Bot_requests
    69 - Articles_for_creation/Redirects
    47 - Reference_desk/Science
    45 - Village_pump_(proposals)


Wikipedia talk

    77 - Criteria_for_speedy_deletion
    23 - Twinkle
    16 - WikiProject_Wikipedia_Awards
    15 - Requests_for_adminship
    14 - Motto_of_the_day
    6 - User_pages
    5 - Articles_for_creation/Wadsworth_constant
    5 - Articles_for_deletion/Lewis_Chambers
    5 - Creating_a_bot
    5 - Protection_policy


File

    13 - Pixel_Bender.png
    5 - Adobe_Connect.png
    5 - General-Runescape-HUD.PNG
    4 - Adobe_Flash_Media_Server.png
    4 - Photoshop_Elements.png
    3 - Kixeye_logo.png
    3 - MIRC_Screenshot.png
    3 - Runescape-Logo.png
    3 - Crystal_Clear_USSR_flag.png
    2 - DaladierMonnetReynaud.png


File talk

    1 - Davenport_(PSF).png


MediaWiki talk

    13 - Bad_image_list
    5 - Titleblacklist
    2 - Sp-contributions-footer


Template

    24 - Vandalism_information
    14 - USSR_imagemap_with_SSR_names
    13 - Facepalm
    12 - Talkbacktiny
    11 - Communism_sidebar
    6 - History_of_Udmurtia
    6 - Uw-hasty
    6 - RFPP/sandbox
    5 - Did_you_know_nominations/Adolf_Carl_Noé
    5 - Db-g11


Template talk

    30 - Did_you_know
    24 - Db-meta
    5 - Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship
    3 - Editcount
    3 - User_wikipedia/Administrator
    3 - Clerk-Note
    2 - Pp-meta
    2 - Vandal
    1 - Vandalism_information/gallery
    1 - Db-multiple


Help

    2 - Email_confirmation
    1 - Substitution
    1 - Reverting
    1 - Wikipedia:_The_Missing_Manual/Author_and_Publisher...
    1 - Link
    1 - Archiving_a_talk_page
    1 - Infobox


Category

    1 - Canadian_electronic_musicians_by_genre
    1 - Palaeobotany
    1 - Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2011
    1 - Prehistoric_plants
    1 - 2010s_slang
    1 - Sportspeople_from_Wisconsin
    1 - 1852_in_horse_racing
    1 - Passed_DYK_nominations_from_January_2012
    1 - Geothermal_power_stations_in_New_Zealand
    1 - People_of_World_War_II


Category talk

    2 - Wikipedia_help_contents


Portal

    16 - Soviet_Union
    13 - Computer_programming
    8 - Computer_programming/box-header
    7 - Soviet_Union/Header
    6 - Soviet_Union/Intro
    5 - Computer_programming/Selected_picture/3
    5 - Computer_programming/Opentask
    5 - Soviet_Union/Featured_article/January
    5 - Soviet_Union/Featured_article/May
    5 - Soviet_Union/Did_you_know


Portal talk

    2 - Poland/Did_you_know
    2 - Soviet_Union
    1 - Contents/Overviews
    1 - Technology/Intro




Executed in 0.90 second(s).

Extended discussion

I am contacting the candidate's nominators about the level of concern raised during the course of the RFA. They may, if they choose to, respond here. Leaky Caldron 11:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Such a wholly inappropriate thing to do. Leaky, you've been a pretty disruptive element in this RFA altogether, and I'm quite surprised by these actions from you. We finally get the process to be a little less-badgering, and you re-implement the badgering to the umpteenth degree dangerous panda 12:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just relax. The nominators are mature editors, but at least one of them has been off-wiki for a few days due to wisdom teeth, so a heads up seems appropriate. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Highly innapropriate. I read the thread on Worm's page and was astounded that you would do something like that. If Worm or any other nominator no longer felt the confidence of this editor, I'm sure they would've done something about it themselves.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am friendly towards the nominator and the nominee and hence will not be taking action in this situation. As a general rule though, I will note that it is inappropriate to contact RFA commentors to ask them to change their comment in light of new information because new information is a subjective standard. However, engaging in discussion on a talk page for clarification purposes, as I did above with Cunard, generally is appropriate. Nothing in this RFA is so earth-shattering to warrant a deviation from the usual practices and the standard rule of a comment is assumed to represent the final intention of the commentor unless they come back and change it should stand. Further, I should note that I consider Leaky's message on the nominators' talk pages itself inappropriate as it was not neutrally worded. Leaky would have done better to post the message here on the RFA talk page and put neutral notes on the nominators' talk pages saying he had mentioned them in a linked thread. MBisanz ^talk 14:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The query at the nominator's talk pages has been withdrawn. Leaky Caldron 15:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MBisanz. The same problems that you find in Leaky caldron's request for clarification occur in yours on my talk page. Your non-neutral post revealed that you had not read the short first line of my post: "Summary of oppose: uncommunicativeness and immaturity." You seemed to have instead focused on the first reply to it that came to the same incorrect conclusion as you did that my oppose was based on the nominators' behavior.

You could have posted your non-neutral question on the RfA page after my vote and then provided a link to it on my talk page. But you did not because posting limited non-neutral clarification requests on the talk pages of RfA participants has never been forbidden or discouraged.

In reply to Leaky caldron here, you wrote,

I wasn't threatening sanctions. Even if I could have acted, my remedial actions would have been of the nature of going to the nominators' talk pages and replacing your comments with a plain link to the WT:RFA discussion or discounting oppose comments added after your postings as a discount to canvassing.

I am glad you consider yourself involved, as your judgment has been clouded by your friendship with the candidate. Striking out opposes because a user made good faith comments on the nominators' talk pages is an unjustified overreaction. A double standard since no action will be taken with regard to the IRC Cabal canvassing comment.

Neither Leaky caldron's posts nor the IRC Cabal canvassing comment has canvassed large numbers of users here, so discounting of any votes—support or oppose—on that basis is without merit. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I think the amount of bludgeoning that has gone on has been unacceptable. I respect Leaky withdrawing his comments and would say thank you for that. Others have droned on in the RfA to an extent that is clearly in excess of what others have been dragged to Arb for. It isn't a statement on the accuracy of their comments, but it is to the tenacious manner in which certain opinions have been hammered, repeatedly throughout this RfA. Strong opinions are always welcome, but extended content should have been here on the talk page, as dominating the process with a singular opinion is WP:POINTy at best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dennis. If you are certain that bludgeoning has occurred I'm sure you'll recognise and agree that it is not confined to questioners and opposers. Supports have also wielded some hefty blows - some notable ones. Leaky Caldron 18:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a user has taken the time to write a detailed oppose rationale (as I have done here), the post belongs on the main RfA page. I encourage other RfA participants to review my oppose rationale and rebut any elements they find inaccurate.
None of the opposers have complained about "the tenacious manner" in which their opposes based on the candidate's username have been challenged. That's because they do not mind having their opinions challenged.
Open, honest, robust debate should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Cunard (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I encourage robust debate and it is disingenuous to even imply otherwise. If I could come up with 3 megs of text to debate with, is that appropriate to post? Then at what point is it best to summarize with say 4 paragraphs and put the details on the talk page? No one is trying to reduce your right to protest, but at some point, it begins to infringe on other's rights or simply becomes a distraction, or even disruptive. There is no "bright line", but I have seen non-admin being threatened with bans/blocks for being less verbose, so it is a question of equity. It isn't a matter of the material being right or wrong it is a matter of posting material that you know is TLDR and begins to resemble bludgeoning rather than informing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for supporting robust debate. If you post a logical, well-reasoned post that happened to be lengthy, then it would be appropriate. Imposing or threatening blocks/bans on non-admins for being verbose is unacceptable. There is no consensus that my post is disruptive, and there is no consensus that it should be moved to the talk page. Cunard (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) for not attempting to silence the perfectly reasonable questioning from a good faith user who asked him to provide his thoughts about the recent developments at this RfA and instead providing a substantive, robust defense of the candidate (diff):
My apologies for not replying sooner, but I was on my way out the door when I replied to the above posts, so I was unable to reply to your comments here immediately. I have known Sigma for more than a year (on-wiki; I don't know him much off-wiki), and I never would have considered an RFA nomination then as he was simply too immature then. However, since around New Year's, I have noticed a greatly increasing level of maturity in Sigma's contributions, and, as I mentioned in my nomination, have been considering nominating him for about 3-4 months. You should note that the last example of Conservapedia vandalism, which I admit disappointed and disheartened me when I found out about it halfway through the RFA, seems to have occurred when Sigma was still relatively immature about a year ago. I am far more discouraged by a couple other Wikipedia users on IRC who I know orchestrated massive Grawp/meepsheep-esque style vandalism through the use of custom-coded vandalbots.
In Sigma's RFA, I see one example of the "canvassing" as merely a joke and nothing to be worried about, and the other was a response to Rcsprinter's question. The username opposes, are, in my opinion, a little ridiculous since there is nothing in policy prohibiting a non-ASCII username. I would invite the opposers to propose a change on Wikipedia talk:Username policy if they believe admins should have only ASCII usernames.
Therefore, the question comes down to: Has Sigma matured significantly since the vandalism incidents? In my mind, he has done so greatly. Therefore, as a nominator, I still stand by my nomination because I believe that he will be a good positive for the admin corps. I do not hope to sway your opinion, but I would like you to know that I still support Sigma. Unfortunately, if I were the closing bureaucrat, I would likely need to extend the RFA by the standard three days to determine if the community still trusts Sigma with the admin tools. Thanks, and good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
The two key points in this response is (i) conominator Reaper Eternal reaffirms his support for Σ and finds the oppose arguments unpersuasive and (ii) conominator Reaper Eternal would likely extend the RfA by three days if he were the closing bureaucrat to see if Σ should be granted adminship.
Cunard (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without prejudice to the current RfA, open, honest, robust debate should not be a licence to turn an RfA into a dramfest. If the community insists on being allowed to hand the bit to 6-month, 6,000-edit candidates, then there is no justification whatsoever for dragging up dirt that is older for someone who has been around longer and contributed a lot more content. What people do outside official Wikimedia projects is also no concern of ours, and nominators are under no obligation whatsoever to make such research. Candidates should be judged solely on the merits or demerits of their work here. Cunard's oppose vote was little more than an attack on the integrity of the nominators, much of which was grotesquely off topic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find Cunard's oppose to be an attack on me, whether personally or in reference to me as part of the group of nominators. I personally find it a little long for the main RFA page, and perhaps he should summarize his oppose and move his detailed analysis here. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All Cunard needed to do was hat/habits the extended content, leaving his summary intact. --dangerous panda 19:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)#O11 is lengthy for sure but to call it "little more than an attack on the integrity of the nominators, much of which was grotesquely off topic." is way off track. He mentions your attempt to deal with the IRC revelation so I assume that is what you regard as a an attack on the nominators. Well, if you give it out you should expect to receive a little in return. But as far describing it as "little more than an attack on the integrity of the nominators,"...sorry I'm not seeing it. Leaky Caldron 19:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I posted boven or was it only the last sentence that caught your eyes? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RfA is appalling

I find it incredibly disgusting the direction the RfA is taking. When good work is done on another Wikipedia, it gets ignored when evaluating a candidate here, however if something not even related to Wikipedia gets vandalized, it immediately becomes the highlight of the opposes. This process has become so poisoned that it actually might make me think of leaving this project. Either factor in off-wiki activities or leave them out entirely. I prefer the latter. There are so many ridiculous opposes with some of them opposes for reasons in which they have problems with themselves. I feel bad for Σ. (holy shit I can type it in without copying and pasting and I'm using a freaking iPhone to type this.)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gets ignored? On the contrary, judging by some of the !votes on this RfA (I won't say "the comments on this RfA" because most of the comments, by volume and quite possibly by number, are from a tiny handful of editors who are determined to derail it), I think if someone had tens of thousands of wholly constructive edits to a wiki like Conservapedia, that would be used by some as an excuse to Oppose. I'm disgusted. RfA had improved to a certain extent over the last several months, but it's now coming to resemble a weird McCarthyist interrogation. "Are you, or have you ever...?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

+1 --dangerous panda 20:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree too. I am very disgusted by how this RFA has turned around and went backwards by something that has nothing to do with the project. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur with all the above. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I concur. What someone does or doesn't do on other wikis has no relevance to being an admin on the English Wikipedia. Is Conservapedia even part of Wikimedia!? Zac 20:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just simply not true. We should use all available information in assessing a candidate. Volunteer Marek 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Get a private detective on them as well, eh? McCarthyism lives again. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the ridiculous hyperbole. I could just as easily accuse you of arguing that we should just blanket approve any and all nominees. Your comparison is an insult to people who suffered from McCarthyism. It's like an 11 year old calling his parents "fascists!" because they want let him stay out late. Volunteer Marek 21:58, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not ridiculous, it's not hyperbole, it is a realistic reflection of the behaviour of some individuals on this RfA. Most victims of McCarthy weren't killed or exiled to labour camps, or even imprisoned, they just... had a rather sharp and unjust stop put on their careers. On the grounds that they had an unpopular viewpoint on something that had nothing to do with their careers. A few months ago, no-one here would have believed that we would be going through a candidate's behaviour on completely unrelated parts of the internet, to find reasons for opposes. This is first, what's next? Do you think I'm an anonymous coward because I won't tell you my real life name so that you can have someone snoop dirt on me all over the internet? Oh wait, this sounds somewhat familiar... I am way beyond disgusted now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, quit the bullshit. Nobody's calling for this user to be blocked or banned, they're just saying that vandalizing other people's websites is a signal of immaturity which makes him unfit to hold a powerful position of trust on this website. That isn't "McCarthyism" and your suggestion that it is a straight up insult to everyone who has expressed a concern over this incident.

And this has nothing to do with "holding a unpopular viewpoint" - in fact the nominee's viewpoint appears to be quite popular (and hey, I actually share it). It is about particular ACTIONS. If somebody goes to another country and does something bad, then comes back and runs for office in your home country, voting against them because of that is perfectly reasonable EVEN IF we don't like that other country or something.

And actually I do think that admins shouldn't be anonymous. Volunteer Marek 22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I couldn't have guessed that. The community happens not to agree with you, though - why not have the decency to accept that, rather than trying to smear those who abide by community norms?

And no, Wikipedia is not a country, and nor do countries universally condemn actions carried out overseas by their citizens. They might disavow them, especially when an apology has been made - which we seem already to have. Obsessing over it says something else, and the "we should use all available information" is indeed very unpleasant. You may not be able to understand that. Others will. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these questions are ridiculous. Have you guys seen question 23? And I don't understand why Cunard (talk · contribs) feels the need to comment on other people's votes and opinions. This is a fuckery. Zac 20:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia is indeed nothing to do with Wikipedia, in fact it was set up to oppose it. Some of the comments about "another wiki" in the Oppose column, either don't seem to understand this, or don't think about the impact their comments may have on others. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, what do you believe is wrong with question 23? It is a valid question that is related to copyright issues. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I checked, it was perfectly acceptable to use commons images for use on your user page, as they are free. This is something many users do to design their userpage. The user asking him the question has such a design on their userpage. The question came off condescending, and has no relevance to whether or not he would make a good admin. "Why the height: 1%; in the code?" just puts the icing on the cake. What does someone's userpage coding have to do with an RfA? Zac 21:14, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 23 is ridiculous. I thought the community agreed on not asking about recalls (question 19).—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commons pictures are fine, attribution is the issue. Wikipedia gives attribution in it's pictures by the ability to click on the picture and end up on the file description page. That is restricted on Σ's user page. Some of the issues brought up at RfA are fixes that can easily be made. For example, there is the issue with Σ's signature. He fixed this by including the word "sigma" in his signature. All it would take to adequately answer question 23 is to change his coding on his userpage so he is in compliance with attribution requirements. I don't know what the 1% part of the question is about. Ryan Vesey 21:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The questions are indead obscene, as are the attitudes of far too many opposers. However, some of the concerns are, I feel, valid. Giant Snowman 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this RFA has become a farce. The last several months, many people have worked hard to try to make it a more reasonable examination of the candidate. This go around, more than one person has acted in ways that I consider appalling and completely unprofessional. That the community itself has failed to be more vocal about this is even more disappointing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My one hope if anything positive can come out of this RfA (besides Sigma becoming an admin) is that the community doesn't accept this as the new "norm" for RfA's after a dead month. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 21:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but just because in the past RfA's have been a "badgering process" or whatever, this absolutely in no way implies that we should not approach a nomination critically and thoughtfully. In other words, just because a bunch of past !voters were a bunch of assholes does not mean that any given nominee, including the present one, should be given a free pass and ennobled as just a mere formality.

Personally I think the vandalism of Conservatopedia - especially COORDINATING such vandalisms (what's next, coordinating to get users blocked?) - is a big deal. But actually what really convinced me to vote Oppose (as opposed to just staying out of it) is the lame-ass excuses given by the nominee when asked about it. The whole "it's okay to vandalize Conservatopedia because it is bad (TM)" routine. Even if it is bad (which it probably is) who the fuck gave you the right to mess with other people's websites?!? It's not like it's an attack site, merely a website representing different point of view (one which I very strongly disagree with). That kind of sentiment displays a very high level of immaturity, bad judgement and just simply "not getting it". Honestly, I cannot even trust this person to be neutral in their editing, never mind in administrative work. If could vote Oppose five times, I would. And you don't get to trivialize my, or other opposers' opinion. Volunteer Marek 21:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great deal. At all. Wikipedia is a universe in and of itself. We don't need to assess how a person has been acting outside of this universe to see if they deserve something here. If that were true, Wikipedia would have no users. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of thinking that makes Wikipedia a "self-centered, closed-minded social club" which is responsible for its continuing degeneration and downward spiral. Volunteer Marek 22:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Exactly. This is not a social club. We are here building an encyclopedia. And if granting the tools to Sigma proves to be of the benefit of the project, I don't care about any Conservapedia-shit that could've been brought at any time. No one is perfect. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "appalling" aspect of this whole process is how many people are willing to give the nominee a free pass just because the website he vandalized was "conservative". This is a completely lack of critical thinking, empathy and self awareness. What if it was a website you happened to like? Would you still be whining about "what happens off-wiki doesn't matter"? Or is this just "hey this guy shares my POV so support". The thing is that one can easily imagine a situation where tables are reversed and you'll get a, say pro-creation science nominee who vandalized scientific websites and if the right majority's in place then, THEN you'll be crying about vandalism.

Bottom line is that there's a principle here. Forget about whether you like Conservatopedia or not (remember your Voltaire) and !vote on the principle. Which I do think very strongly suggests opposing. Volunteer Marek 22:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could be like TParis, who has political views about diametrically opposed to Sigma, but has a sense of decency and honesty, and calls it like it is. He knows what "principles" actually are. He's actually considering the benefit of the encyclopedia. He's not one of the people that thinks Wikipedia is a failed project, and wants it to die as soon as possible. He doesn't jump into McCarthyist bullshit just for the hell of it or because it seems like the right time. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna direct personal attacks at me, then have the courage and decency to actually come out and say it straight rather than insinuating a bunch of false crap. Volunteer Marek 22:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested into picking a fight, then choose another forum. This is the Request for adminship of Sigma, and you have no right to come here out of the blue and start bullying everyone who directs a comment at you. Please have some respect to the nominee and everyone involved in this professional and academic measurement. Otherwise, I guess you may have nothing to say. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "bullying" going on here is you, Demiurge1000, and one or two others trying to badger those of us who have a problem with the nominee coordinating vandalisms into removing our oppose votes. Look in the mirror buddy. Volunteer Marek 22:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone thinks everyone else is the bully. Well now, where do we proceed from there? Leaving out the personal attacks would be a good start, I think. But I do see a "one or two" who have been behind most of the attempts to derail this RfA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison with McCarthyism. The charges here have been made, are true, and supported by evidence.

You are the one guilty of McCarthyism, when you smeared Lihaas. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I could ask for no greater validation of my concerns, than for the sole defender of that despicable userbox to turn up here to snipe at me. Thank you, KW. I wish you well in one day getting over your grudges. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Geometry guy clearly explained why you were out of line smearing Lihaas in your conflict with me. Lihaas modified the user-box when I suggested it, but nonetheless you never apologized. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems my positive wishes have fallen on stony ground. G'bye. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I wish you well in one day getting over your grudges" is "positive wishes" like "have you stopped beating your wife" is a good faithed question. It's a straight up insult, just done in a back handed weaselly way. Like I said, if you want to direct personal attacks at people, at least have the courage and decency to do it straight up. Volunteer Marek 22:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're telling us that my objection to the Nazi userbox is in some way relevant to this discussion? Pull the other one. You may think the Lihaas userpage was just fine, but I didn't, I will stand by that, and bringing it up here as a nasty little snipe, is pathetic. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about any userbox. Just commenting on your way of making "positive wishes". Volunteer Marek 22:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you are whining about McCarthism. However, you smeared Lihaas and haven't had the decency to apologize, still, because he had supported me when you were engaged in your witch hunt.

You accused me of removing material from Penn Kemble, which I had actually restored, among other falsehoods, which may not have been conscious, but have been intentional every since their falsity was brought to your attention. You are hardly in a position to complain about McCarthyism.

Maybe another young man at IRC will strike your fancy soon? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:45, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, even if it's not especially constructive right now, if you're going to disagree about the opinions expressed in this RfA or about the RfA process in general, could you at least stick to that please? It's time to drop these other matters. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mm, quite. I always was a fan of good ol' Penn Kemble, though :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bad faith labelling of !votes is outrageous. here to disrupt ? What because I don't agree that someone with a history of disruption on this and other projects makes a good admin? GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 05:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This RfA is a shameful example of what the RfA process can descend to - I could understand if Σ told us all to fuck off and took his excellent work for the project and his good faith offer of his services elsewhere. "Government by consensus" was a brave move for Wikipedia, and I am very impressed by just how successful it has been - I really didn't think it was going to work. But when it turns into "Government by baying mob", it confirms some of my worst fears. I fear RfA has been severely damaged by this, after I was starting to feel a little more optimistic after a few months of things going relatively well. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

I just wanted to apologize to everyone for the role I had in making this RfA such a vicious dramafest. I feel ashamed and embarassed to have been such a major proponent of everything that's gone on over the past week. I hope this doesn't deter Σ from continuing his outstanding NPP work, and hopefully he'll be able to pass RfA next time after enough time has passed (provided of course that this one is deemed unsuccessful and Σ actually wants to be subjected to this again). Kurtis (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bold and courageous apology, which I'm sure the community will take in very good faith. Nonetheless, this RfA in general has probably done more to damage the system and the future number of active admins than any other in the past 18 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Kudpung, I really appreciate your sentiments regarding my apology. I don't think anyone should be proud of what this RfA has become. It's been one of the most horrific failures of the community as a whole, and a sad reflection of Wikipedia at its absolute worst. Kurtis (talk) 07:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That could have waited until after the RfA. At least you posted it before the milk-and-cookies break (EST) in the USA, so its effects on "get out the votes" wasn't maximum. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too may have caused some of this dramafest, though unintentional, unnaacceptable too. For that I apologize as well.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 10:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once this is over, there is much to discuss. Laboring it now wouldn't be fair to Σ or the community, however. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this RFA is the very best example that running for adminship can be as hurting as a cruxifiction. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No Hahc21, believe it or not, there've been even nastier RfAs over the years. Kurtis (talk) 23:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts of the community to fix the Requests for Adminship process

I have to say, despite all of the opposes and the arguments, this RfA is in a mess. Just in my opinion, Σ is a fully qualified candidate; they have many more CSD nominations than many others, along with some content work, and work in many various processes. Despite many attempts by the community (mainly the 2011 RfA Reform and the 2012 RfA Reform), Requests for Adminship is becoming a tougher, harder process for editors to get through. This truly made me think how various editors' hard work is actually going to waste, and their long attempts to fix the process have not been followed up by many members of the community. Many of the accusations in this RfA have turned out to be unsupported assertions, as they have "taken the high road and not allowed themselves to be provoked." Many of Σ's older actions have been taken into account, including nominating an article for deletion, but not following it up. User:Thine Antique Pen/Inaction is not a crime; inaction is not, and never ~~will~~ should be a crime. There might be perfectly acceptable issues not to follow something up. Many of the reasons not to follow something up are listed at the Wikibreak page, which contains acceptable reasons (in my opinion) to not take action to something, or to be away from Wikipedia for a certain amount of time. Regarding the Conservapedia "vandalism," I see nothing wrong, although (I've heard) it was organised in the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. I personally believe that it doesn't matter, and should not be an oppose rationale. When has Σ intentionally "vandalised" the English Wikipedia? Never, in my eyes. I also noticed that some/many of the opposing editors were asking the supporters to take into consideration about the actions by Σ, by reading their oppose. I personally don't find this acceptable, but its just my opinion. I've also seen public logging of a chat in a small IRC channel, and in a private channel. I won't go into detail on that. I also see a few "bad"/declined AIV reports being mentioned. I see what they mean, but, (almost) everyone is human, and we all make mistakes, then learn from them. I've read over every obiter dicta, and noticed how various editors are using a type of 'per Example RfA Voter'-like comments. Personally, I think that many of the oppose arguments are not strong enough to decline this user for adminship without a bureaucrat discussion or other action being taken. There are a declining number of administrators, and a declining number of RfA nominations. I just hope that this doesn't continue.

Cut the long story short, I don't think that many of the oppose arguments are strong enough (some are, but some are not), I would at least expect a bureaucrat discussion, and I think that all of the RfA Reform work might be going to waste. I posted this here as I did not know of a specific place to post this on the actual RfA page, and did not wish to put it in the general comments section. Full disclosure: I am supporting this RfA. Thanks for reading my thoughts. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Life is unfair. Deal with it. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:12, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point I'm trying to get across. My attempted point is that life (and RfA) is increasingly unfair. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand "unfair". What is? The candidate was well nominated and well supported. Stuff was then revealed and fresh support began to dry up and, more notably, previous support began to switch to oppose. Was the candidate unlucky, unprepared or un-anything else? Maybe, but I wouldn't say that he has been unfairly treated. You cannot expect an open community to stay quiet. Leaky Caldron 16:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If life was unfair and it is now increasingly unfair, then it is unfair. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standards are raising. Lots less RfA candidates are passing now than in 2006. The wiki is growing, and losing admins quickly due to retirement or inactivity. Admins are needed, but it seems that the bar has been set too high for any potential, good administrators to pass. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The process needs to be changed. It's clear at this point that the process has fallen apart and a new one needs to be made up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New one needs to be made up:" I slightly disagree, in some senses. I've previously seen suggestions of a group like ArbCom assigning admins, which may make the process worse, and not allow many admins to get through the process. Anything else, I'm not sure about. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that. Jimbo Wales came up with the idea that if 10 administrators went up to the crats recommending a user, that user becomes an admin. Basically a form is filled out by the user, 10 administrators sign it and then submit it to a bueareaucrat. The bureaucrat promotes the user.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was only suggesting that as an example. However, I don't especially agree with Jimbo in this case, as many other various editors (non-administrators) might have valued points to get across. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I think an RfA would go far smoother if supporters didn't feel the need to question every oppose. Questioning an oppose rarely results in a change of the oppose !vote and leads to extended discussions which slowly but surely become aggressive. That's where an RfA gets derailed and that's pretty much what happened here. --regentspark (comment) 17:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that idea, personally. I think it may be relatively easy to find 10 admins to nominate a great many somewhat problematic editors, in which case it would be good to give bureaucrats more discretion. Anyway, it'll never happen but I'd be fine with it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been participating in RfAs for six years. I went through 2 RfAs myself - one here and one on Meta:

I've seen a lot of RfAs. I've been an admin myself for almost 5 years.

Unfortunately, I've seen too many problematic administrators over the years. I'm sorry to hurt folks' feelings, but websites like wikipediarevview and wikipediocracy exist for a reason, whether or not you like the sites' behavioural norms or some of their participants.

My observations:

Community standards for admins have increased in reaction to admin abuse over the years.
Some of our most problematic admins have been approved by bureaucrats after RfAs with very weak support.
Problematic admins are very disruptive and hard to remove. One troublesome admin can create enough drama to tie up other admins and editors for hours with each incident.
The community has become increasingly skittish of approving administrators who might cause problems: "better safe than sorry".
Administrator quality has risen since 2006. One informal measure is the reduced activity at wikipediocracy and wikipediareview.
Admin selection by ArbCom or 10 other admins will just lead to charges of cronyism and erode editor confidence in their adminsitrators.

I think a number of editors have shown that they lack confidence Σ will be a reliable administrator here. I think their concerns have to be respected and not discounted, especially should Σ's RfA fail to rise out of the 70-75% range.

Based on my own experience over the years, I personally want to see another year of solid good judgment before Σ becomes an admin.

If folks are really worried about declining admin numbers, make it easier for the community to remove problem admins; our editors, in turn, will be more willing to take a chance on RfA candidates. Better yet, let admins automatically stand for reapproval every 1-2 years.

We must never forget that our editors serve our readers and our administrators should serve our editors -- not the other way around.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has CSD been a criteria for adminship? I have hundreds myself of which about 10 have failed, but would never consider applying for adminship. What worries me is the growing trend that admins think they are in charge of the project, they are there to service the community not come up with arbitrary rules. Any admin that doesn't like this or thinks it is a thankless task can always retire. GimliDotNet^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding additional question from Keepscases

This is a ridiculous question and in my view should not be responded to. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more...this has nothing to do with anything and I hope was meant as I joke, but I would think that an editor with the experience of Keepcases would understand that RFA is a serious process. Go Phightins! (talk) 02:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; I think that question really should be removed or stricken. In some sense it is also a rather loaded question setting up a "Damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These questions from Keepscases usually have no right or wrong answer - they're similar to ones I and a colleague once devised to get an insight into thought processes rather than knowledge. I find the answers people give quite revealing on occasion. Peridon (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with this type of a question in a one-on-one interview. In a group environment, however, I fear the answer might not be interpreted by all the judges in the spirit that it was asked. And the candidate is sweating (or is oblivious to) the consequences of answering or not answering.—Bagumba (talk) 21:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of really good ways that I can think of to answer this that would reflect well on the candidate, but if he chooses not to answer, well, that's his choice. No cause to remove or strike, though. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nikkimaria. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really had a different impression from this question than Brad. I think it is a perfectly valid, even if absurd, question, as it forces the candidate to actually think and might offer insight as to their motivation. I like questions that you can't just look up, in moderation of course. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nikkimaria, Peridon, Bagumba, Guerillero, and Dennis Brown. Keepscases' question is intriguing and worth answering though the candidate could justifiably decide not to since this is not a Wikipedia-related question. Cunard (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, something new: a proposed RfA Question Response Ban (not a proposal to strike or remove, mind you). My vote is support. To the extent that's unclear, I'm with Brad. I should add that it appears that Sigma has already decided not to respond. We will need an uninvolved admin to declare a consensus on the ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keepcases questions have always been intriguing; equally intriguing is the fact that the community has always remained ambivalent as to their validity. Far more intriguing however, is that the vast majority of his edits are to RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Especially intriguing, of course, is that Kudpung's nomination here sucks balls. Keepscases (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding additional question from Chaser

No. That happened off-wiki and we have historically discouraged use of off-wiki behavior on-wiki. If you two want it, find it. The most the candidate should do here, and already has, is admit to it. And even that is beyond what is necessary. Do you also want the candidate to list every porn site he's ever been to in case he might have a fetish that is obscene? Or should the candidate provide his high school record in case he's ever gotten in trouble for telling a teacher off? This question request crosses the reasonable boundary between responsibility to the community and privacy.--v/r - T P 01:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have the right to ask these questions. The candidate has the right to decline to answer them. I find your satirical comparisons to porn sites, fetishes, and high school records humorous and quite effective in conveying your point. Thank you.

Σ can reasonably decline to answer questions 1–3 for privacy reasons. But question 4 is reasonable to ask. He can, of course, decline to answer that one too. Cunard (talk) 03:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on here? He already said 2011. Do you take his word for that? Do you not take his word for that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate said he did a "fair number of stupid things" in 2011. He did not say whether this ceased by 2012. Having read the response several more times, I see that Σ may have implied that it did.

Demiurge1000's edit summary: "why would you not take the candidate's word for a simple fact? Recently back, are you?" Yes, I am recently back from a 12-day break from editing. Thank you for taking note of that. I will consider it as a welcome back rather than an implication that I have no right to participate in this RfA. Cunard (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a problem with waiting for him to decline to respond. There is no answer to that question that is acceptable despite that it's inappropriate. If he declined on those grounds, then he sounds evasive and lacking integrity although it's within his right to privacy. His actions on another website reflect nothing about how serious he takes this website. That's why I say no in his stead. I just can't see anything beneficial coming out of the question. One answer is going to reflect purely negative on his character and because you know that I feel it's a loaded question, besides that fact that it is irrelevant to his on-wiki behavior, and the other answer (declining to answer) isn't going to reflect will on his personal honesty despite the fact that he doesn't have to answer it. I think asking the candidate to shoot himself in the foot is uncalled for. If you wish to dig up the diffs, my understanding is that it's an open wiki and you are welcome to put in the effort (I realize you're already a hard working guy). The only conclusion here is that a third individual must point that out.--v/r - T P 14:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The loaded question is founded upon a false premise. My questions are purely factual in nature and do not contain unjustified assumptions of guilt. The suggestion that Conservapedia is an open wiki and that I "dig up the diffs" is a poor one. Any diffs would be based on guesswork and speculation. I understand the remainder of your argument. I no longer pursue this line of questioning because Leaky caldron's questions below are more fitting. Cunard (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in taking part in the debate about whether these questions are appropriate. I'm going to !vote below. If Sigma chooses not to engage in further dialog on this matter, that's fine with me (although further dialog may change my view of his candidacy). It's up to him. Nobody else gets to decide for him who he talks to and about what; indeed, that would be a very un-wiki idea.--Chaser (talk) 21:19, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion help, please

I mistakenly reverted a couple of edits while viewing diffs, and seem to have made it worse by trying to correct it. Can someone fix my edits please? I edit on a mobile device, and it is acting up the last few days. Thanks. Eau(W)oo (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already took care of it :). — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I fixed them. No worries though. Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC

Thanks, it was rather ugly. I usually redo my prefs mobile/non, but forgot, decided it wouldn't matter since I was not creating articles, then, here I am deleting others' votes in a contnentious situation. Eau(W)oo (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over the top

This is way over the top. The position is only for Administrator. This is not for President of the United States, where the candidates are intensely scrutinized for past transgressions, honesty, and.... oh, sorry. Scratch that. Bad example.

Look, do you think the Conservapedia thing indicates that he may vandalize Wikipedia with his new powers? Do you think if he is uncommunicative, disaster will happen? If he doesn't communicate enough, a bunch of other admins solve the problem with a statement like: "Hey! Communicate more!", to which he would reply: "Okay." Problem solved.

Look, Sigma is pretty darn good, and has a long laundry list of good deeds in the bank. That should count for a lot.

Weigh it out. Risks, hazards, likely outcomes, benefits. Sigma becoming Admin doesn't scare me. What scares me about the future of Wikipedia is the conduct and manner I see above (I think I mean "above and below", at this RfA, in general). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He disliked Conservapedia and decided to vandalise it. There's therefore no reason to suppose that if in the future he takes a dislike to Wikipedia he won't decide to vandalise that as well. Strange that so many are so blind to the evident facts. Malleus Fatuorum 03:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like so many aren't falling victim to appeal to probability. That's a logical fallacy for a reason. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a logical fallacy. Inductive and probabilistic logics are used to describe rational behavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not a logical fallacy, why is it that the article itself (and the several books I used when taking logic classes) all define it as such? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic reasoning is difficult, and it is easy to make mistakes. A good introduction has been available for 130 years (Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)):[reply]

Extended content

Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1877–1878), "Illustrations of the Logic of Science" (series), Popular Science Monthly, vols. 12–13:

- (1877 November), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 1–15. Reprinted (CLL 7–31), (CP 5.358–387), (PWP 5–22), (SW 91–112), (W 3:242–257), (EP 1:109–123), (PSWS 144–159). Eprint. Internet Archive Eprint. Wikisource:The Fixation of Belief.
- (1878 January), "How to Make Our Ideas Clear", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 286–302. Reprinted (CLL 32–60), (CP 5.388–410), (PWP 23–41), (SW 113–136), (W 3:257–276), (EP 1:124–141), (PSWS 160–179). Wikisource:How to Make Our Ideas Clear. Arisbe Eprint. Internet Archive Eprint.
- (1878 March), "The Doctrine of Chances", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, March issue, pp. 604–615. Reprinted (CLL 61-81), (CP 2.645-668), (W 3:276-290), (EP 1:142-154). Internet Archive Eprint. Selections plus CP 2.661-668 and CP 2.758, published as "The Doctrine of Chances With Later Reflections", PWP 157-173.
- (1878 April), "The Probability of Induction", Popular Science Monthly, v. 12, pp. 705–718. Reprinted (CLL 82-105), (CP 2.669-693), (PWP 174-189), (EP 1:155-169). Internet Archive Eprint.
- (1878 June), "The Order of Nature", Popular Science Monthly, v. 13, pp. 203–217. Reprinted (CLL 106-130), (CP 6.395-427), (EP 1:170-185). Internet Archive Eprint.
- (1878 August), "Deduction, Induction, and Hypothesis", Popular Science Monthly, v. 13, pp. 470–482. Reprinted (CLL 131-156), (CP 2.619-644), (EP 1:186-199). Internet Archive Eprint.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. (1883), "A Theory of Probable Inference", Studies in Logic, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, pp. 126-181. Reprinted (CP 2.694-754),(W 4:408-453).

Dawes, R. M., Faust, D., & Meehl, P. E. (1989). Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science, 243, 1668-1674. (Reprinted in T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (pp. 716-729). New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Of course, Kahneman and others have shown that humans have difficulty with probabilistic reasoning.)

Good selection of sources there Kiefer. Probably the best available book discussing the difference between good and bad probability based arguments was published only last year: Thinking, Fast and Slow by noble prize winner Daniel Kahneman. As it says in the Financial Times review "There have been many good books on human rationality and irrationality, but only one masterpiece." I suspect most opposers would be supporting if they'd read it :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Σ recognizes that his behavior was inappropriate and has had about a year's time to think about it. If editors want to hang this kind of poor judgment over an editor eternally, that kind of judgment says more about them than it does about Σ. Few are blind to the facts about Conservapedia , but a significant minority seem to conflate "evident facts" with their own personal conclusions and speculations about what Σ's year-old actions off-wiki say about his character. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If future RfAs are going examine candidates' off-Wiki behaviour, it needs to be written in policy that this is acceptable. If events in a candidate's history older than 6 - 12 months are to be taken into consideration, perhaps now is the time to require all candidates to have a minimum of 12 months tenure and 10,000 edits (for example) so that their competency over a longer period, and their private lives can be more rigorously examined and assessed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's appropriate for me to suggest that you as a co-nominator exert influence on what has proven to be a bad nominee at this time to do the right thing and withdraw himself. I will also suggest here and now that this nomination be held over for another 3 days by the closing bureaucrat, since it has fallen from something like 75 approve, 8 disapprove (rough estimate) to 127+ and 42- since the off-wiki vandalism disclosures came to light. In other words, this is running very close to 50-50 since then. Let's see if the 70% benchmark for consensus is honestly met, shall we? Carrite (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that reaching 50-50 is virtually impossible. This RFA would need another 77 opposes to be at 50%. — ΛΧΣ21™ 21:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just discovered the page Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions which includes this: "Activities off-wiki are not usually considered as part of an RfA—even if a candidate takes part in activities in real life or elsewhere on the internet which you find objectionable or highly admirable." --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"usually" is the keyword. Vandalizing anything, particularly an educational Wiki, is unusual misbehavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. While I supported despite the off-wiki activity, there is a difference between avoiding the argument of (Oppose, he works in a grocery store and I don't think grocery store workers are qualified admin candidates) and using a helpful argument of "This editor has a history of vandalism to another site". Ryan Vesey 16:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the continued hammering of the word "vandalizing". The candidate has said that's not what it was. And "educational wiki"? Please. If you google the thread in question, they are discussing Conservapedia articles titled "Atheism and obesity", "lesbianism and obesity", and "Homosexuality and brain deformation". To me, those titles are just a case of "somebody is wrong on the internet"; they are unverifiable at best, and at worst, hate speech or bullying. But according to some value systems, there may be an ethical obligation to do something about it, or at least try. It's not clear what was actually done, if anything, but I can sympathize with anyone who did try to stand up to it, even if I don't agree that that's the right way to deal with it. Since this has been raised as an issue, and many are taking it very seriously, it's a shame we can't see links and diffs and URLs instead of misleading innuendo. --Neotarf (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is not the protagonist of Bread and Wine, behaving like a priest during the day, and painting revolutionary slogans on the walls in Fascist Italy. He vandalized a marginal encyclopedia maintained by marginalized persons, who do not need self-proclained "Wikipedians" destroying their work. What he did was bullying, picking on persons who are ridiculed or viewed with contempt by the majority of the population, to impress the other boys on IRC. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. Which marginalised group would be next on his radar if he was "promoted" to admin? Unpopular editors? Malleus Fatuorum 20:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Diffs? Links? Until there is something that shows what actually happened, all we've got here is a witch hunt. --Neotarf (talk) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All you've got here is another attempted cover up. Malleus Fatuorum 21:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another accusation, and one that also comes without diffs. --Neotarf (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]