Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ

Σ

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (135/57/16); 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)

Diannaa and Girx are correct, the onus is on the uploader to provide proof, there is date ambiguity, and it must be published, not merely taken, <1923. This is one of the more important pieces of US PD law and since wiki servers are in the US, US law applies, even to a foreign image. That it is foreign make it even more complex an issue. PumpkinSky talk 00:46, 4 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)

Thank you all for your insightful comments. I have sent an email to Giano to see if he can provide the information. I will tag it as {{db-f4}} right now. →Σσς. 01:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not very happy with this solution, as if the photo was actually taken in 1890 as claimed on the website, the photographer must surely have been dead for 100 years by now, which means we could tag the file {{pd-old}}. -- Dianna (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I have removed the deletion tag and re-tagged as pd-old. Further comments are welcome. -- Dianna (talk) 02:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm. This question is diagnostic many ways. Here's the Cornell public domain summary. Glrx (talk) 03:26, 4 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.

Can you explain why that sentence is "undesirable material"? Tijfo098 (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I am placing this comment here to note that this reasonable question by Tijfo098 (talk · contribs) has been unanswered by the candidate, who may not have replied to this question because he has not seen it? Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

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: Assuming I was completely uninvolved in the situation (which I was), I would actually have not commented on that discussion. However for the sake of the question, let us assume I was asked to give my opinion on the discussion.

Now after reviewing the various diffs that TParis used as justification for removal, I would agree with his actions. It is important to remember, as TParis did, that rollback is granted and removed based on community trust. This user has resorted to edit warring behavior in content disputes. The actually technical action used to perform the revert is inconsequential.

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: CC BY-ND is incompatible with Wikipedia. We even have a CSD template for files like this. At most, the file can be kept if there is a justification for fair use. Otherwise, it must be deleted.

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

A: CC BY-NC is also unusable on Wikipedia. Files under this license are covered, like for CC BY-ND, by CSD F3. Like in my answer to q9, we can keep the file if it meets the NFCC and is claimed under fair use. Otherwise it must be deleted.

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: Yes. I was renamed to Σ from 43?9enter, and I have an alternate account and several bots who have been linked to in my answer to q2. I am also in control of several doppelganger accounts, including Ʃ (talk · contribs) (contrary to popular belief, that is not a sigma) and SigmaWP (talk · contribs).

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

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: I will not be changing my username at this time. A non-Latin username is permitted, through the spirit of SUL and the word of local policy. Additionally, measures have already been taken for those who cannot type my username. User:Sigma, User:SigmaWP, etc have links to my userpage. My 3 bots provide a link to my userpage in the bot infobox. I provide methods of displaying sigmas on my talk page. User:E has become a disambiguation page because of this. I believe that this adequately meets username-related concerns.

Thanks for the response Σ. Some have brought up that they prefer to type your name. Is it fair to assume that you believe those users should instead click on relevant links (e.g. talk pages, user pages) where available; in the (rare) event of their absence, they should retrain themselves to copy-paste, remember control key strokes, or find other alternatives? Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

From my talk page, I do not mind being called Sigma. I have also changed my signature to show that. →Σσς. (Sigma) 23:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

There may be other cases, but a user might need to type your actual name, Σ, at http://en.wikichecker.com/ In that case, the alternatives I mentioned earlier would be the actions you would expect, correct?—Bagumba (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

That is correct. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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)

Discussion regarding ridiculousness of question moved to talkpage. -— Isarra ༆ 20:13, 8 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? Withdraw question. (Thank you, O Helpful One!) --regentspark (comment) 02:56, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A:

Additional question from AutomaticStrikeout

14. You come across an editor that has made 3-5 edits, all of them clear vandalism. However, the editor has not received any warnings yet. Which of the following choices is the best?

1) Give the editor a warning for each edit, with the warnings ascending in severity

2) Give the editor an only warning to cover all of the edits

3) Temporarily block the editor

4) Indef them as vandalism-only

A: My answer actually depends on the situation. For typical "change a sentence to 'LOL PENIS LOL'" vandalism from an account whose name was not bad faith, I would actually do none of the above, and issue a standard {{uw-vandalism2}}. It is possible that the editor did not realise that there are real humans who watch for and remove vandalism edits. BLP violations and personal attacks are a different story, though. Depending on the edits, they would probably either receive a level 3 or 4im warning, or an indef block. But for all cases, if the username was also inappropriate, I would instantly indef block.

Additional question from Chaser

15. Someone has claimed (Frood in oppose 8) that you organized vandalism of conservapedia. Is this true? Please elaborate.--Chaser (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

A: Well, in 2011 I did a fair number of stupid things. However, I have a quibble about describing it as "vandalism" - on Wikipedia we are horrified, if unsurprised, by vandalism, because vandalism is a deliberate attempt to subvert our stated aims of verifiability and neutral point of view. Conservapedia does not have neutral point of view or verifiability. Many may feel that it's just "their" point of view, but take a quick glance at Conservapedia articles like this one - it's not any sensible point of view. So I do feel that describing my actions as "vandalising another wiki" is greatly misleading. Having said that, my actions were obviously inappropriate, and I have not done anything similar since then nor will be doing so in future.

So what'd you do?--Chaser (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I endorse Chaser's questions.

1. Please provide links to the Conservapedia articles (in addition to the E=mc² one) that you targeted.

2. Please also provide specific diffs of any of the edits you (or any of the people you encouraged) made to those articles.

3. Please provide links of the accounts you operated on Conservapedia.

4. Please provide the specific date (or approximate date if you do not remember) of the last edit you made to Conservapedia. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding validness of question moved to talkpage; there is no mandate that a candidate must or must not answer anything. -— Isarra ༆ 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky

16. In Q8 you approved the removal of the Rollback user right even though the alleged specific tool misuse was proven not to have taken place. You appear to advocate collateral sanctions (for want of a better description) against erring community members. You have recently misused Rollback. What would be an appropriate injunction in your case?

A: I have responded to Cunard's allegations below, and will copy them here for clarity.

(a) This was not a good faith addition. If you looked deeper in the IP's history, you would realise that the user was blocked as a sockpuppet of globally locked and de facto banned user Rolandhelper (talk · contribs) (SPI). Per WP:BAN, edits by a banned user can be reverted - the measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk... that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

(b) Looking in the page history of the Trebuchet article, we can see that the edit I reverted was made by 64.251.241.215. The vandal edits were made by 64.251.247.108. These two IPs are similar, both starting with 64.251. I thought I had reverted one IP who made 3 edits. This was an honest mistake that was not caught until now. I hoped that it would have been treated as such rather than an intentional misuse of rollback.

(c) I saw this edit as an attempt at subtle vandalism. The IP inserted blatantly false information in order to compromise the integrity of the article. That is what rollback is supposed to be, and was, used for.

This is an RfA, and I have no issue with others reviewing my edits and pointing out mistakes or problems I have made. However, you seem to feel like I have abused the rollback tool. Feel free to ask an uninvolved administrator to review it.

You have misused the rollback tool. Not intentionally, but ignorantly. That does not, however, excuse you from being treated like other editors whose rollback is removed (i) if they have misused it or (ii) if they have committed an unrelated infraction.

(a) This edit was a good faith addition. Each edit should be individually judged as improving or not improving the encyclopedia. Your edit may be within policy but it did not improve the encyclopedia.

(b) This edit is a misuse of rollback. That it is an "honest mistake" does not absolve it from being a misuse of rollback. The editor in your answer to question 8 said he unintentionally made numerous non-rollback reverts. But he was sanctioned for them anyway. You endorsed the sanction. Why should you be treated any differently? Do you still stand by your answer to question 8?

(c) You reverted an edit to socialism that changed "Socialism is an economic system" to "Socialism is a political system". That statement is in several non-mainstream books, though not in mainstream publications. It seems to be a fringe position held by some. In that light, to characterize this misguided edit to the lead of this prominent article as "subtle vandalism" is a gross assumption of bad faith. The IP editor deserved a manual undo with the edit summary ("revert fringe revision unsupported by consensus"), not an unexplained rollback.

Your rollback in (a) can be excused as within policy. But your rollbacks in (b) and (c) cannot. In light of this, please review Leaky caldron's question again: "What would be an appropriate injunction in your case?" Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What I was really hoping you would get from this was an understanding that finding a reason to support other Admins agreeing to revoke a user-right from an editor innocent of that specific accusation, but possibly involved in an edit war, is fundamentally wrong. Going down the edit warring resolution route, even if the ultimate sanction might be worse, is the only correct Administrative approach. “Might as well hang him as a sheep rather than a lamb”, i.e. erroneous accusation equals a sanction anyway, is against natural justice. There is no shortage of storage to cease a course of action when it’s wrong and start again, no need to continue down a wrong route when the right route is just as easy and no need to rush to hasty sanctions. Nothing should be done about your incorrect use of Rollback and nothing should have been done about the Q8 editor you are eager to sanction. Leaky Caldron 17:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

17. In RFAs do you think the onus is on the nominator(s) to carry out extensive due diligence on their chosen candidate or is that responsibility for the community at large?

A: Speaking as someone who has never nominated another editor for RFA, I would assume the nominators have done their due diligence when nominating a user for adminship. However it is also a responsibility for the community at large, as that is the point of the whole process. If only a few users needed to do it, the process would be very similar to WP:PERM.

18. Do you think if the series of concerns about your past behaviour (disruption, vandalism, rollback misuse, juvenile April foolery, etc.) had been evident at the start of your RFA you would now be certain to pass with 90%+ community support?

A: I don't know. Before I transcluded, I actually predicted my RfA to end near 85%.

Additional question from LikeLakers2

20. Was it really me having made my sync-pp template that led you to you making your bot(s) do the protection template syncing job?

A:

Additional question from Ceradon

21. Are you now engaging or have you ever engaged in vandalism at Conservapedia? If so, Could you give a description of the vandalism you engaged in there? And how long ago was your last attempt at vandalism there?

A:

This was considered in question 15, where for privacy reasons, the candidate did not answer more specific questions about his actions there. You are within your rights to pose this question, but I think the privacy arguments against answering justify the candidate's declining to answer. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional question from Goodvac

22. Rephrasal of Q7, which did not produce a helpful response (not necessarily your fault): Colonel Warden (oppose #2) contends that you've no "attempts to welcome or assist new editors" in the course of your NPP. Please provide recent examples to disqualify this claim and explain how you tactfully handled the situation. (I'm looking for interaction with new users that is the polar opposite of User talk:Σ/Archive/2011/June#Regarding CSD tagged article and that shows understanding, patience, and a desire to help.)

A:

Additional question from Br'er Rabbit

23. Your userpage uses various images as wallpaper:

• User:Σ/Userpage/Rest of year

• File:Glacial iceberg in Argentina.jpg
• File:Glass is Liquide.jpg
• File:Energy Arc (central electrode of a Plasma Lamp).jpg
• File:Reflection in a soap bubble edit.jpg
• File:Caldera de Taburiente La Palma.jpg
• File:Neophema chrysogaster male - Melaleuca.jpg
• File:C17 aircraft alt.jpg
• File:Marmot-edit1.jpg
• File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg
• File:Terragen render.jpg
• File:Amadina erythrocephala (l) edit.jpg
• File:Boletus in Finnish forest.jpg
• File:Hemerocallis Lilioasphodelus.jpg

Turned gallery into a list; the gallery is quite large and the images themselves don't need to be shown. -— Isarra ༆ 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Most of these images (not the US military two) require attribution, which is usually given by being able to click through to the File: page. However, the code you are using does not allow clicking or attribute the images in any way. Do you feel this is acceptable? If not, what should be done here? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Bonus question: Why the height: 1%; in the code?

A:

Optional questions from jc37

In order to help determine whether you meet my criteria (including your knowledge/understanding of policies and processes in relation to the tools and responsibilities that go along with adminship), please answer the following questions.

• 24. How would you personally determine whether you are involved in any particular situation when deciding whether you should block (or unblock) an editor, and when deciding whether you should protect (or unprotect) a page.

• A:

• 25. Please describe/summarise why and when it would be appropriate for you to apply the policy to ignore all rules to a situation, while also explaining the interdependency between being bold and seeking (and/or following) consensus on Wikipedia.

• A:

• 26. How do you determine consensus from a discussion? And how may it be determined differently concerning an RfC, an RM, an XfD, or a DRV.

• A:

• 27. User:JohnQ leaves a message on your talk page that User:JohnDoe and User:JaneRoe have been reverting an article back and forth, each to their own preferred version. What steps would you take?

• 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.
• User:Leaky caldron has posted messages on the nominators' talk pages.[4],[5],[6],[7]. I will be requesting feedback elsewhere as to whether this is appropriate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
• A further attempt to influence the course of this RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Comment Is this the right place to make a general comment? Anyway, here goes:

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)):

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

  "usually" is the keyword. Vandalizing anything, particularly an educational Wiki, is unusual misbehavior. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

---

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)
• Will be listed at WP:100. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 07:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I just visited the talk for the main page of Conservapedia and found this. Though this doesn't make any difference, I just felt that this was worth sharing. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 06:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• The closing bureaucrat is strongly urged to consider the fact that what the candidate does off-wiki should be of no one's concern.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

That is, at a minimum, debatable. Carrite (talk) 06:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Aye, that is up to the consensus - and thus the closing bureaucrat - to decide. -— Isarra ༆ 06:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• I know we’re in the closing stages of this RfA, but I thought I’d drop a note here. Firstly, I’d like to apologise to everyone, especially Σ himself, that I’ve been inactive for the majority of this request – especially since it is clearly quite so contentious. I’m disturbed by amount of unpleasantness that’s been thrown around, as I’ve been telling people that RfA has improved. Unfortunately, I simply don’t have time to go into the incivility and work out why it’s happened and how to improve it – but one thing is clear to me, it’s a culture thing at RfA, not from specific editors. In any case, I would like to re-iterate my support for Σ. The biggest issue appears to be with his maturity – many in the oppose section highlight incidents that show immaturity. I personally have no issue with Σ’s current maturity levels, I believe his improvement is evident. I mention above that a year ago, I would have opposed – primarily based on maturity, and I’ve found that he’s grown up in that time. If the community believes he needs more time to mature, so be it – some of our best administrators have needed time to work on feedback given at their first RfA. I will proudly nominate him in the future. I won’t comment on specific issues in the Oppose section, as I do not have the full information and do not have time to find it out, but I hope this clarifies my position. Worm^TT(talk) 09:04, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• My two-pence, I think RfA's like this one are exactly what Jimbo was talking about. ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 17:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree. I think that this this RFA has served its purpose very well. Some RFAs are marred by petty sniping, but in this case an apparently strong candidate has been revealed to have serious flaws. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:11, 8 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)

   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)Moved to neutral TheSpecialUser ^TSU 17:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

10. Support I've seen the candidate around a lot and they will make a fine admin. Monty₈₄₅ 04:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

    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)

11. Much needed for NP Patrol. Secret ^account 04:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
12. 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)
13. 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)
14. Support. Looks good to me. Spencer^T♦C 04:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
15. 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)
16. 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)
17. Support Σ, I thought you were an admin already. No issues, good luck. — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:41, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
18. Support as co-nom. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
19. 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)

    I just want to reiterate my report after reading all the later Oppose !votes regarding Conservapedia. While I do not condone vandalising it, I really don't think it's of any concern here. A Wikipedia RfA should, in my view, be based solely on what the candidate does on Wikipedia (and other Wikimedia sites), and whether that suggests they will make a good admin - what a candidate does outside of Wikipedia/Wikimedia is very unlikely to influence my opinion in an RfA. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

20. Support looks good to me! BO | Talk 07:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
21. Support. No problems here. Jafeluv (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
22. 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)
23. Support ~ A big fan of Σ's work, obviously support is granted. Good luck! -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 07:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
24. Support - Fantastic editor who will make a great admin. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 08:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
25. 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)
26. 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)
27. Support. No reason not to. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. —stay (sic)! 09:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
29. 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)
30. Support. He is definitely ready to use mop. Torreslfchero (talk) 10:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

    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)Withdrawn. Certain revelations, while disruptive in the way they were expressed, have given me reason to pause. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

31. 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)
32. Strongest 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)
33. 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)
34. Support --Morning Sunshine (talk) 11:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Support No problems for me. Seen around a lot, doing good work. Good knowledge. Peridon (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
36. 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)
37. 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)
38. Support per Kudpung. This user also has an excellent user and talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Support Intothatdarkness 14:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Support. Σ will clearly make an excellent admin. Zac  14:37, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
41. 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)
42. 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)
43. Support. Fully qualified candidate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
44. 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)

    Support as there is no evidence they will abuse tools or position.MONGO 16:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

45. 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)
46. Support - Should do fine Kansan (talk) 17:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

    Support - nothing that troubles me enough to oppose. GiantSnowman 17:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

    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) - Moving to Oppose. Vandalizing Conservapedia is conduct unbecoming of a Wikipedia administrator. Maturity issues... Carrite (talk) 02:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

47. Yup. -Scottywong| prattle _ 18:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Support great new page and vandalism patroller. -- Luke (Talk) 19:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
49. 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)

    Extraordinarily weak support, per username and vandalism of another "pedia", I have to weaken my support. While I don't think he would do it here, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm close to moving to weak oppose, but not there yet. Go Phightins! (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

50. 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)

    Everything I've seen indicates support. In light of the Conservapedia vandalism I am moving to oppose this nomination. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

51. Support Trusted user, no reason to think he would abuse the bit. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
52. 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)

    In case it isn't obvious from my comments elsewhere on this page, my suport for Σ is as strong as ever. So he vandalized Conservapedia last year — big deal. It's not like they're a reputable source of information anyways. Kurtis (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC) OK, so it's sort of a big deal, but it was a while ago. He's not proud of it, and he won't do it again. Kurtis (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

53. 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)
54. Support. Thanks for stepping forward. Your work is appreciated. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 00:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
55. Support. Every time I've seen this user, he/she has been very helpful. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
56. Yeah. Typical "per above". Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
57. 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)

58. 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)
59. It's about time.  7  05:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
60. 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)

    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)

    Moving to Oppose. Please see my comments below. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

61. Support wholeheartedly. Ironholds (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
62. 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)
63. 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)
64. Support A sensible editor who will do well as an administrator. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
65. 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)

66. Support to offset the ridiculousness of most of the oppose comments. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    Support, no reservations, based largely on previous observations of the editor. Σxemplary CSD log. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

67. Support, can't find anything wrong. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
68. Support - Just getting a nom from this respected admin is enough !  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  19:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
69. Support If the best reason to oppose is a foreign character in his/her user name and they have an otherwise positive history then I'm more than comfortable. Sædon^talk 21:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
70. Support Vowed that I'd stay off the RfA band-wagon but I have to support here. Shocked and appalled at the opposes, get some perspective, RfA is a daunting enough process as it is. Good luck Σ, you'll do well. God knows we need more active admins! ^Alex J _Fox^(Talk)_(Contribs) 21:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
71. Support great person, knows Wikipedia's policies and guidelines really well, will make a helpful admin. Nuff said. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    CharlieEchoTango (contact) 01:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

72. Support Although I haven't encountered them personally, Sigma seems to have matured and I'm impressed with the contributions. Miniapolis (talk) 02:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
73. Support Sigma is always helpful, always knows, is always around, and is always level-headed. A bit obsessed with the whole coal ball thing, but that's an idiosyncracy, so we can overlook that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:40, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
74. Support Seems reliable. I would also note that the username opposes are in violation of the spirits of both the local username policy and of the global unified accounts system. (I can just imagine the trouble a user who was also active on the Greek Wikipedia would have here!) --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
75. Support I'm surprised the Sigma wasn't an admin already and the username isn't a problem at all. Besides, Σ is an excellent mathematical symbol! Royalbroil 04:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
76. I was going to make a joke oppose against the username, but then I saw that people were actually opposing for that. Sigh. Wizardman 05:14, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
77. Support About time. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
78. Support - Σ's contributions to this project could be better improved with the sysop tools. All the best, — JamesR ^(talk) 07:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
79. Support. Good answers to questions, good nominators, sound behaviour during this RfA, entirely legible username. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
80. Support. I don't understand the fuss below - I've looked at this candidate's work and see no issues. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
81. Support Rzuwig^► 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
82. Support I see no reason why not to because of the answers to the questions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
83. Weak support- Good contributions, but username is a concern for me. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 17:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
84. Strong Support Assistive, came across several times. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 17:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
85. Support Knowledgeable, capable, and willing. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
86. Support' He's a great guy and a highly capable editor. Noms are great. Ryan Vesey 19:05, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'd like to add that my support is just as strong now as it was before. The vandalism of conservapedia show a level of immaturity that might be concerning; however, I feel that the issue of vandalism of conservapedia gives a very narrow level of insight into Σ. Based on all of the interactions I have had with Σ I am wholly comfortable supporting him in this RfA. I feel that he has a very good knowledge of policy and that he can apply it well. Ryan Vesey 20:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

87. Support He should be an admin. He's a great editor.--Lucky102 (talk) 21:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
88. Support. Good contributions. The username is irritating, but not enough for me to oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

    Support (moved to oppose) --ceradon ^talk_contribs 22:19, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

89. Don't delete the main page for lacking some paperwork. Other than that, we should be fine. Tijfo098 (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
90. Support Bgwhite (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
91. Wait, he wasn't an admin already? Support -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
92. Support Looks good! Michael (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
93. Hell yes, in fact I'm disappointed that I'm here so late in the game. While the nominators are top notch, the four co-noms are not necessary—Σ is such an obvious choice for adminship that a stripped-down self nom would be sufficient. The grasping at straws I see in the oppose section only serve to validate this in my mind. The simple fact is that the user name violates no policy or de facto standards. This isn't a children's website, it's an encyclopedia. I should hope our contributors are capable of dealing with an obstacle so miniscule as a sigma. Swarm ^X 04:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
94. Support, because of Roland. :-/ mabdul 06:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
95. Fuck yes! It's about time... Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 06:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
96. Support While I'm not a fan of admins having hard-to-type user names, Σ appears well qualified to be an admin and can be expected to use the tools wisely. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
97. Support While I wouldn't necessarily go with the same options myself, his answer to Q14 was particularly impressive, showing a perceptive awareness of the need for flexibility for different variations in what is superficially the same circumstance. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
98. Another thought-he-was-already for me. I personally prefer for editors to stick to Basic Latin when it comes to usernames unless there is a genuine cultural reason not to, but it's not a deal-breaker on a good candidate (especially where the candidate is happy to respond to a Latinised title and includes one in his sig for quick in-page search). The other opposes vary from "lame enough to ignore" to "lame enough to support". Nothing there to counteract a candidate who simply oozes clue. (FWIW, shouldn't the first sentence in coal ball use the singular form preferably?) Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
99. Support, although he needs to brush up on copyright issues and as many, many others have said, the user name is a problem (but doesn't rise to the level of a negative vote). Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
100. Support - I don't see any issues. Kumioko (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2012 #(UTC)
101. Support - What they said. Futhermore, how come he isn't an admin already?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
102. Support (changed to neutral) While I've learned a few things about the candidate in the opposes that I wouldn't have guessed, nothing that would make me reverse an already positive view based on contributions I've seen to date. Username not an issue for me (and I love his eloquent bang-on-the-money response to Q13, too). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

     I've restored my support !vote; sorry for the indecision but I see this is becoming very close and as I do not see the username or some rollback errors as deal breakers, and the candidate has already characterized his 2011 Conservapedia mischief as "stupid" and is, I'm confident, not about to repeat it, I just don't see a compelling narrative for denying him the tools. If this is going to be as close as it seems, I can't stay neutral. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

103. weak support The username thing is a definite inconvenience (and I like the suggestion of making User:E a dab page). But that's minor. The Conservapedia thing is also pretty minor- yes, vandalizing another website is generally immature, but it doesn't really say much at all about what we expect Σ to do here. The other oppose issues are similarly unconvincing. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
104. Support sysoping Sigma will almost certainly be a net positive. The name issue shouldn't be enough to oppose but I too see it as an annoyance, especially for newbies and the many people who are not tech-savvy and wouldn't think about the cut-and-paste trick. And there are quite a few people who wouldn't know that the sentence "I agree with Sigma" is synonymous with "I agree with Σ". Pichpich (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
105. Support- Per above rationales. The more the merrier. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
106. Support Recent positive activity trumps past indiscretions. Everything I see leads me to believe Σ will be an excellent sysop who will continue to improve WP. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 01:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
107. Samir 04:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

     Would you provide an explanation for your support, taking into consideration the recent misuse of rollback and the recent uncommunicative and immaturity issues? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

108. (moved back from neutral) This guy has done plenty of stupid crap, but he seems to have learned and meantime also makes himself useful. As he would have use for the tools and seems unlikely at this point to detriment the project with them, that's a yup. -— Isarra ༆ 07:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

     Although the username is kind of unnecessarily difficult. -— Isarra ༆ 07:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

     And wikipedians are all big fat meany heads and this is a damned person here who is better than most of us, so why can we not stop nitpicking and accept him as he is and will be? Because he can learn! He does! -— Isarra ༆ 06:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

109. Support after some ambivalence. I think that some of the opposes and neutrals are actually quite thoughtful, and I've spent a lot of time reading and thinking about everything on this RfA page. In a way, I get two diametrically opposed images of the candidate from those who support and those who oppose. I'm convinced that there has been a past history of immature conduct, and that isn't helped by some mediocre answers to questions, particularly Q3. On the other hand, there is a lot of support from people I trust, who make a believable case that the candidate has matured, and learned from past mistakes, and that's a commendable trait. Ultimately, I decided that this is a gnomish editor who will be a net positive in moppish work, so please prove me correct. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
110. Support trustworthy editor. Overall, I consider the opposes to be unconvincing. Agree with Kierzek and JoshuaZ about the name. PhilKnight (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

     PhilKnight, would you explain why you consider the opposes to be unconvincing? The candidate has misused rollback recently and has recent uncommunicative and immaturity issues. Supports that do not directly address these issues are unconvincing. Cunard (talk) 17:47, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

111. Support TBrandley 20:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

     After I posted my oppose rationale below, a signature not preceded by a rationale is unhelpful in explaining why you support this candidate. Would you provide a rationale for your support? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

112. Support I'm impressed with Σ's answers to the above questions, particularly in regard to his reflections on past RfB comments and about image and article policy. Personally, I have been very pleased with Σ's demeanor and treatment of other editors in a variety of high-tension circumstances, and knows to avoid escalating wikidrama. I believe he will be a more effective editor here with a mop in hand. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 00:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
113. Support First, let me state that I don't recall ever hearing of this user before the RFA. I agree that a year ago this RFA wouldn't have had a chance, and I see merit to many of the issues in the opposes. Yet, I also agree there is merit to many of the support arguments. So we are left with the decision that may not be obvious to any particular RFA participant: support or oppose? For me, I see much improvement in the last year in this candidate and feel he will be an asset as an admin as he will take the feedback from this RFA to heart. PumpkinSky talk 01:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
114. Strong Support Coalballs notwithstanding. Eeekster (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
115. Support as qualified and competent candidate. Username "accessibility" complaints are completely and utterly stupid (not going to beat around the bush here), and off-wiki behaviour is not necessarily reflective of on-wiki maturity. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

     The username "accessibility" concerns are valid but not solid reasons to oppose the candidate. However, the repeated failure to communicate effectively and consistently seems to be a solid reason. I would like to hear your thoughts about this. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

116. Support skilled and maturing, clearly demonstrates energy and justification for use of the bit. There's evidence of imperfection (yes, I've read through this), but the candidate has shown receptiveness to feedback and incorporation of same into future behavior. -- Scray (talk) 05:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
117. Support seems perfectly qualified and the oppose rationales are, frankly, ridiculous and an excellent illustration of why this process is so dysfunctional. To address specific concerns: the username doesn't really bother me, as I don't think people regularly type usernames into search boxes and the candidate has taken steps to help anyone who does, the candidate's off-wiki behaviour shouldn't be relevant unless it impacts their on-wiki behaviour (and nobody is suggesting they are going to start vandalising here), and Cunard seems to be expecting the candidate to be positively superhuman, never make any mistakes, and follow up things no reasonable editor would bother to follow up. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

     Support mostly for the same reason as Oppose #1--130.102.158.16 (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Indented. IPs may comment but not !vote. --regentspark (comment) 12:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

118. Support - I am kind of amazed that squiggly line isn't already an admin, looking over the contribs, the answers, and the comments from other editors, I believe making squiggly line an admin would be a benefit to Wikipedia. - SudoGhost 13:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
119. Support I can't see real reasons to oppose.--В и к и T 16:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
120. Support I was neutral until I sat down and read through most of the opposes. I think I should probably leave it at that. GaramondLethe 22:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
121. Support - Per some of the ridiculous opposes and to counter the obvious pile on that is ensuing based on sheer laziness. Also, for vandalizing Conservapedia. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

     You support the vandalizing of other sites? ```Buster Seven Talk 01:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

122. Support Read all the questions. Read all the oppose votes. I like the response to the rollback question particularly, whether someone agrees or not shouldn't be the basis of a vote though; it's a legitimate issue that divides opinion. I don't agree with the TLDR to Cunards large note, it is worth reading and he makes a good argument, but to me it is fundamentally unconvincing. It's a collection of random disparate events. Not particularly happy about the vandalism of Conservapedia, but it was last year and off wiki. Non-ascii character in name is a trivial pain, but I think rejecting someone for admin for that reason would be extreme, he changed his signature, issue addressed. Σ did the april fools joke nominations; yes they annoyed me (not specifically his, but those by others) as well as they were changes to article space, but some admins did as well. It's annoying, but not something to consider at RfA. I don't like the lack of replies to votes or engagement, it's not something that I would do, but Σ's not me. If the candidate doesn't want to make corrections, it is his prerogative. The candidate hasn't been involved in a serious dispute but when it does occur, the candidate will have to deal with it. It will be a trial by fire I guess. More communication is required. This sort of learning can be done "on the job"; Although I've focussed on the issues, and not mentioned the good, all in all, the good far outweighs the bad. as a small further comment, It took an hour to read the RfA alone. An interesting RfA. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

     In what sense is vandalising article space not to be considered at RfA? When it's done by your friends? Malleus Fatuorum 23:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

     I disliked what happened on April fools day with respect to making changes to article space and I made my feelings clear at the time (initially I did not realize it was April fools day) Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Physics_(2nd_nomination), [8]. I do support a blanket ban on the practice (mainly because it permentantly has an effect on the AfD archives). Sigma is not my friend. To the best of knowledge he's not an editor I have interacted with before, nor any of the Noms particularly much. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

     I never suggested that you and Sigma were friends, I was simply musing on possible explanations for your dishonesty. But you haven't answered my question, which is in what sense is vandalising article space not to be considered at RfA? Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

     I may answer your question when you remove the personal attack against me. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

     You clearly can't answer my question, hence your own personal attack. Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

123. Support Sigma looks like a well qualified candidate, nominated by three well-respected admins (I'm not familiar with the other nominator). The username is a little strange but not an insurmountable problem, and the nominee's off-wiki behavior is none of our business IMO. S/he already spends a great deal of time doing unglamorous, mop-and-bucket type chores; seems ideally suited for the unglamorous, mop-and-bucket type work of an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
124. Per NYB. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 03:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
125. Support. Excellent and productive record of maintinence and clearing backlogs on Wikipedia. Whatever he does on other websites is his own business. Shrigley (talk) 03:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
126. Support primarily to nullify, if only a tiny bit, opposes based on subject's username.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 04:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
127. Support; see above. Lectonar (talk) 09:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
128. Support: net positive. Some of the oppose concerns look reasonable, especially the Colonel's point that you're not always friendly and helpful to newbies. Sometimes it might be better to slow down your output a little to give you more time to communicate sympathetically with the different audiences you're interacting with. Brevity is a great virtue, but it can be overdone. When talking to someone who differs sharply in worldview or relevant experience, making short concise comments can be unhelpful even if you're perfectly correct. You need to make the effort to understand where they are coming from, and then talk in a way they'll understand. Its something you'll get better at with time. IMO, attacking Conservapedia would be a negative for someone over 30s. As I guess you were fairly young at the time, and as there seems no risk of a repeat, I see it as a good thing, suggesting you have good drive and idealism. ( I find it amusing that the only group where I'd hope the majority might agree with me on this (at least on this side of the pond) would be public school educated conservatives. ) Overall, supporting per your impressive volume of useful and competent edits, and as you have the trust of several excellent nominators. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
129. Support all round good Pass a Method talk 12:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
130. Support per WormTT and Kudpung. In spite of a grossly undignified proceeding, and some accusations that have turned out to be unsupported assertions, they have taken the high road and not allowed themselves to become provoked. I'm annoyed by the sig, but don't see a less superficial reason to oppose. --Neotarf (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
131. Support I've vacillated between support, oppose, and do nothing but, on reflection, I think this is the right !vote. Off wiki activities should stay off wiki and, on the very unlikely chance that the candidate decides to vandalize Wikipedia in the future, it's not as if it can't be handled (and, of course, you don't have to be an admin to orchestrate a coordinated vandalism attack!). The user name is a problem for technically challenged folks like moi but personal choice is more important. Misuse of rollback is a mild concern but mild concerns always exist. Better to focus on the many positives described by the nominators and so support it is. --regentspark (comment) 14:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
132. Support, why not?--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
133. Support - Don't see any reason not to.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
134. Support. I am proud to support such an outstanding candidate, and have always questioned why he wasn't already an admin! When I became an admin, I remember that I could always count on Sigma to provide quality requests for speed deletion. He is an asset to Wikipedia, and he's proven time after time that he has an in-depth knowledge of policy and a need to use the tools that come with adminship. I know that he'll use them well, and I support him 100%.--Slon02 (talk) 19:43, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
135. Support. Sigma is a committed, hard-working, and clueful editor who deserves to enhance his existing contributions to the maintenance of Wikipedia, just as much as Wikipedia deserves the benefit of that enhancement that will be brought by his having access to the admin toolset. This RfA has seen some extremely questionable Oppose rationales, as well as disgraceful behaviour by those aiming to derail the RfA, so I will also comment here on some of those aspects. First, the very long Oppose rationale posted by Cunard. Others have questioned it purely on the grounds of its length, but for me the issue is the strength of argument within it. The strength of argument is as close to zero as could be imagined.

Cunard suggests in all seriousness, that it's an important transgression on Sigma's part, that, on one of the many thousands of pages that he's marked or nominated for deletion, the consensus was against Sigma, Sigma was right and the consensus was wrong, and Sigma happened not to return to try to overturn the consensus on that particular nomination. Are we seriously going to discourage editors from nominating articles for deletion if they might not have time or inclination to fight against consensus on every single occasion that it happens to go against them? (Personally, I see it as a sign of maturity to accept the consensus of other editors if one is not sure oneself.) Another of Cunard's many nitpicks is that, of all the many pages Sigma has patrolled (more than ten thousand?), on one of those pages he missed that it was a copyvio. How many editors have not at some point edited an article and missed that some of it was a copyvio? (We've certainly had Featured articles with copyvio in.) There's much more of this, including the astounding revelation that, in all the anti-vandalism work Sigma does, every few months, he uses rollback where he would've been better including a manual edit summary.

These nitpicks are ludicrous arguments to Oppose, and adding a very large amount of text about such weak reasons, doesn't make them any less weak. RfA should not be decided by who can sling enough mud that some of it will stick whether it's relevant or not. Added to this mud was the even slimier material that sought to attack the candidate's nominators - in fact, that material (wholly irrelevant) made up a large part of the huge wall of text. It's plainly obvious that this Oppose should be discounted - or assigned very little weight indeed - for failing to provide even a basically sound rationale; and so should those Opposes that cited it without providing any other argument.

This RfA has also seen ongoing off-site canvassing threads against the candidate on both Conservapedia and Wikipediocracy. The exact impact of these is hard to gauge, but certainly there was a correlation between their growth and the increase in editors appearing to Oppose. (Note that although several supporters have changed their vote to Oppose, the vast majority have not - the Opposers are overwhelmingly "new" contributors to the RfA). Other canvassing included repeated attempts to persuade the nominators to withdraw their nomination or persuade the candidate to withdraw. Every nominator was approached on their talkpage at least once, and one of them at least twice by two different editors. Some of these approaches were later withdrawn as being admittedly inappropriate, but the damage was already done. There was also a talkpage approach to a 'crat, MBisanz, which did more to propagate the memes of "vandalism and disruption" without including the context or being honest about what was referred to. (When I questioned this, Leaky Cauldron told me that he would not withdraw it, nor discuss its accuracy, because he was merely summarising what he believed other editors had said.) This canvassing does seem to have had a significant impact on the RfA, with the language used almost immediately cropping up in a large number of subsequent Opposes. It seems unavoidable, therefore, that these Opposes are distinctly suspect.

Finally, as I've pointed out on the talk page, this RfA descended into what I consider to be McCarthyist badgering and condemnation of the candidate. We don't - or at least we shouldn't - consider what candidates get up to off-wiki, any more than we would oppose a candidate because they participated in or supported hunting or bullfighting or revolutionary activities or direct action or civil disobedience campaigns or trade unions or strike-breakers or (almost) anything else that we might happen not to like or agree with. The cry of "but it was a wiki" is empty rhetoric - the software is freely available and anyone can use it for any purpose at all, it doesn't make them an encyclopedia or a sister project or remotely related to Wikipedia or the WMF. All this aside, the candidate renounced that aspect of his activity nearly a year ago, has renounced it again in this RfA, so the repeated questioning with direct echoes of McCarthy is quite frankly sickening. (The behaviour of a minority on this RfA's talk page when I mentioned this, strengthens the unpleasant connection considerably.) There doesn't appear to be any length of time that would be acceptable for the candidate to have matured and moved on, the question of what practical steps he would have to take in addition to an apology was never answered. Opposing on this basis is deeply flawed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:56, 8 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)

   “one” ??? Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

   It was then - 8-( Peridon (talk) 20:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

   SupportComment (see #7) 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)</small

   I never did understand why Ayn Rand created a Norwegian pirate named Ragnar Danneskjöld; "Dane's shield", which is what she was trying for, would of course be written Danneskjøld. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 7 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)

2. 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)

3. 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)

   Dude, I can't even read yours in that ridiculously colored box. Drmies (talk) 02:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   I used dark colors that go for (somehow) politics. I can't even understand why you are criticizing my signature. Anyway, the plot thickens for this RfA. No offense in any matter. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 14:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

4. 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)

   I'm a bit puzzled as to why so many experienced Wikipedians do not seem to get that the primary way users get to one anothers talk pages is by clicking on the links in their signature or the talk links in page histories, not by actually typing their name into the search bar. Be honest with yourselves at least, you know that is what you do and what everyone else doee in almost all cases. I would also note that User:Sigma has only three live edits, all of them made to their own userpage in 2004. we could probably redirect that if needed, although I think this entire issue is very silly and will; not impede this users ability to be an effective admin. I have a hard time understanding why people would feel so strongly about it that they would oppose him being an admin at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   Agreed!  7  01:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   Occasionally I do type people's names into the search bar if I'm specifically looking for them and am not sure of where exactly I could find an easier link to their userspace. Also bear in mind, I am still supporting Σ for adminship, so it's not as if I consider it to be a huge concern. Kurtis (talk) 06:03, 4 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)

   You mean JamesR? He's been an established member of the community for several years, and in fact was actually granted adminship under his prior username (see here). But maybe he'll acquiesce to this request, provided of course there are means in which anyone looking for James specifically could also get ahold of him via Σ's userpage. Kurtis (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   Like turning User:E into a disambiguation page?--Chaser (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure if your comment was intended as sarcasm, but I actually don't think that's such a bad idea. Wonder what James would think of that. Kurtis (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   It was a sincere suggestion.--Chaser (talk) 02:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   OK, just making sure. Sometimes the internet makes it hard to tell. Kurtis (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   Personally, I don't see such an issue with using the User:E page as a disambiguation to try and make it easier for users to access Σ's userspace. I'd still obviously appreciate a link on-forwarding to my userspace also, preferrably keeping the User talk:E page as is. — JamesR ^(talk) 07:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   N.B. I have just noticed the User talk:E already contains a disambiguation link - I apologise - I haven't been too active due to my work :) — JamesR ^(talk) 07:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose for recent vandalism of another website; never heard of Conservapedia, until learning you organized vandalism of it. No. per user name issue, and no thanks to users without accessibilty issues scolding those with for failing to rise to the occassion; and per Sigma's failure to respond to or engage those opposing. As an admin you should be able to answer concerns about your engagement with the community; after all, the commiunity is trying to decide whether to grant you admin powers, not your buddies. Maybe I am missing your responses here, or you have not gotten to them yet. I would rather start participating with a support.... Eau (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   No candidate is officially required to answer any of the questions, or to respond to !voters' suggestions. They do so to their own advantage and/or disadvantage, but very often, by choosing not to respond to boldly worded comments, they may be avoiding the very dramafests that are currently discouraging candidates of the right calibre from running for adminship - a situation that many veterans of Wikipedia do their best to avoid. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   Curiously, Eau, I always consider it a bad sign when candidates directly respond to opposing comments. Not feeling the need to defend oneself against every oppose is a sign of maturity, especially when the candidate is still willing to answer direct questions in the appropriate section. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   You say two things here, Someguy1221, "directly respond to opposing comments," and "every oppose," and I agree with the latter. But Sigma ignored the question "in the appropriate section." I see a lot of this on Wikipedia, where there is a disagreement, or a concern, and instead of the person responding to the concern they have a pack of hounds nipping the heels of the concerned party, and, while I don't see that in Sigma's activities on Wikipedia as a whole, I do see an immaturity in engagement with other editors, and this request for admin could be seen as a chance to show the ability for mature interactions in less smooth waters. Just my take, show you can engage responsibly, the place between the extremes you mention, a balanced, contributing, mature, member of the community who can make a good decision, independently. Eau (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose Personal intuition. — ChedZILLA 05:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think a more substantive and defensible rationale would be appreciated. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:02, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think this a perfectly good reason, if you have a "gut instinct" or know something fist hand about the candidate and not want to cause drama, this is a very good way to !vote, I admire this users decorum. Mlpearc (powwow) 17:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Oppose I had previously opposed due to your Username. You could incorporate a more visible signature element per WP:NLS instead of that pt2 squiggle, but you appear set on making it awkward to communicate with you, about you or to search for your edits on potentially big discussion pages. I would oppose you for any of the following reasons:
   

   Username issues as highlighted earlier and by others
   

   Disruption at previous RFAs (Q6)
   

   Canvassing on IRC for this RFA
   

   Finally, your over-simplistic answer to Q8. This demonstrates a clear lack of judgement and suggests you will be a sheep, inclined to following what fellow Admins decide rather than standing up for the individual community member in a dispute. In the case concerned the Admin removed the Rollback user-right stating specifically and unequivocally that it had been used in an edit war. Diffs were presented which clearly showed that full edit summaries had been provided, with no relevant edits made using the rollback function. Indeed, the editor appeared to have an exemplary vandal fighting record with no misuse of Rollback in their day-to-day activities. Eventually the user-right was reinstated by another Admin. following an appeal here [9]. In short, if you think that it is ok to remove user rights using a patently wrong justification then you are a potentially dangerous addition to the Admin group who are required, by policy WP:ADMIN, to use care, judgement and to be accountable. There is nothing in the policy that allows the erroneous interpretation of a situation to be somehow vindicated by a cavalier “well, you are guilty of something so I am removing your rights anyway” attitude. Leaky Caldron 13:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

8. Strong oppose: Multiple times, in late 2011 (last admitted attack was in November 2011), Sigma has organized vandalism of ConservaPedia in #wikipedia-en, and continued despite warnings not to. Absolutely not. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 23:06, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   Say hello to the rest of the gang at the encyclopedia that makes Fox News seem wholly unbiased for me! Besides which; how does vandalising ConservaPedia affect Wikipedia? Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   (edit conflict) Okay, I'll betray my ignorance and bite. What is "#wikipedia-en"? Is there evidence of the organization? Is there evidence of the warnings? (I now know what Conservapedia is. My ignorance is apparently boundless.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   wikipedia-en is the IRC channel of the English Wikipedia.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

   If this was on Wiki it could change my vote. The WP IRC channel is not owned or controlled by the WMF and so I am inclined to say that this adds to my support as we don't need admins who are sympathetic to pseudoscience and this demonstrates he is not. As far as negative actions go, trolling conservapedia is close to the bottom of the list. Sædon^talk 00:23, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   I think what Frood is trying to say in some distorted manor is that if Σ has the grit to vandalize Conservapedia, that he might have the grit to vandalise Wikipedia, perhaps in some clandestine manor, if (and I haven't had too many interactions with Σ to say whether or not he is capable of it) something doesn't go his way. I, for one, don't quite relish an administrator with tendencies of vandalism and I can see where Frood is coming from. --ceradon ^talk_contribs 01:27, 5 October 2012 (UTC) I don't support Conservapedia or its activities and I really don't think it's a reason for an oppose though.

   Not to name names, but do you have any idea how many admins and people with even more bits are members of Encyclopedia Dramatica or other lolz? And it is difficult to substantiate the claim. Granted, you don't need to prove anything to oppose and I respect that, but that is a pretty strong claim, and the link to how they would act here, even if 100 percent as described, is dubious. We have no idea what most people don't do offwiki here, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   Based on conversations I have had with him, I'm convinced Sigma has ceased taking part in such activities months ago, and that he has understood that the behaviour is inappropriate regardless the target. I think Frood knows this, too, so I'm pretty disappointed he has decided to phrase his opposition as if the vandalism may still be ongoing, just that Sigma's no longer admitting to it. Granted, it was a pretty juvenile thing to do, and the timeframe isn't that long ago, but Sigma's behaviour in the past few months makes me think that we don't need to worry about him engaging in immature attacks against targets he dislikes. wctaiwan (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   Σ, please can you confirm here that you have disavowed this type of activity? --99of9 (talk) 07:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

9. I regret not having worked with you, as judging by the support of others, I probably wouldn't be here. Take this as constructive criticism, or ignore and be glad we operate on consensus.
   • You were civil in your response to Q12, but I expected a bit more per WP:ADMINACCT in addressing and acknowledging others' concerns that were raised. I got satisfactory answers in followups, and maybe I didn't frame my original question properly, but I would have liked to have one concise, all-encompassing response. Aggravated users are not keen on followups; at the same time, we can't all be mindreaders.
   • For Q14, a "problem user welcome" template could be the first response while skipping a few levels if there is a later repeat offense; it assumes good faith from people who just didn't know better, and hopefully recruits a few more new editors with no additional overhead on an admins part. Also, user name issues was not part of Q14, but seemed to randomly be part of your answer. If it was meant to be a complete answer, there are many other side issues to cover in the hypothetical scenario presented.
   • I was expecting a little bit faster turnaround to people's questions, which seems to be averaging around two days. I understand you have a real life, so this is a minor point, as I don't think you are editing any less this week than usual to stay under the radar.
   • I'd rather you didn't have some of those problems in your early contributions, but you've learned, and that's what's really important: what you are going to do, not what you did.
   • For Q8, it would have been acceptable to explain why you would not comment, and provide options you would present to someone asking help in lieu of your directly being involved. Same with the scenario in Q4: an admin does not always have to feel coerced into participating just because they are asked, though at the same time it will always be appreciated. Know how to pick your poison. :-)
   • Responses by others in Q13 alluded to work environments. I've voted against hiring people before, but some end up being valuable contributors and I work with them just fine. It's an inexact science with individual evaluations, as it can vary based on circumstances and not be representative of the candidate. It's why there are multiple participants here. You have accomplished a lot in your time here. All the best going forward.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
10. OpposeNeutral. Just change Thanks for changing the signature. (12:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)) I considered supporting based on Reaper Eternal's and (the almost always reliable) Kudpung's nominations, but the maturity concerns raised by other editors suggest that you try again in 6 months. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if you noticed, but Sigma changed his signature (you can see it in his response to Q12). LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 22:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    And additionally, there won't be another RFA for Sigma; this one has way enough supports. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    As of this writing, his signature has the text "Sigma" that links to User:Sigma, which has a hatnote of "Not to be confused with User:Σ". Frankly, if I got there from Σ's signature, I'd be only more confused why I was directed to a page that is not Σ's actual page.—Bagumba (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I previously thought that someone had redirected User:Sigma to my userpage, but now I notice that they only added a hatnote. I can see how that would be confusing. I have edited my signature again, to make it clearer. →Σσς. (Sigma) 00:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    The nominee should withdraw and edit in a fresh account for a year with no connections to vandalizing other encyclopedias (or participation in IRC versions of Malfoy's crew or The Scooby Doo Club) before applying again. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Whether this RFA ends up being successful or not, it is unnecessary and inappropriate for Σ to make a fresh start for such an unrelated thing. I have been following this RFA from the beginning and I consider that how people has been reacting to what is considered to be an element of the past is very alarming. I personaly believe that such a thing has to be overlooked and, taking into account that Σ's strenghts are way much more that their debilities, there is no such issue at all with the Conservapedia thing. Some people just measure in a different way how to behave in each website. Maybe Σ does not value Conservapedia, but they (in my opinion) has proven worth enough in this website (which is what really, trully matters) and diligent enough to be granted with the tools. The fact that all this off-wiki thing has almost shifted the direction of this RFA is unprecedent and worrysome. — ΛΧΣ21™ 13:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    I, for one, view it as reflective of what xhe is capable of doing should Wikipedia become something not to value... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Helping to organize vandalism suggests substantial impulse-control, maturity, or aggression issues, just as a blink/wink can suggestion flirtation. Of course, a mistaken wink may have been actually a blink (no flirtation intended), and the suggestive problems associated with vandalism may well apply only to others who've committed vandalism. The only way to escape the cloud is a new account. I wish the candidate well in future activities. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

11. Summary of oppose: uncommunicativeness and immaturity. Cunard (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Misuse of rollback and failure to communicate:

    1) Σ used rollback (later reversed by Achowat) on 7 July 2012 to delete 182.4.55.215 (talk · contribs)'s good faith addition, neglecting to provide a reason for his objection. The failure to discuss his reversion with 182.4.55.215 in the form of an edit summary or a user talk page post points to a lack of respect for the IP editor's contribution. Nor has Σ explained his edit to Achowat.

    2) Σ used rollback at Trebuchet on 20 September 2012 to revert a misguided but good faith edit (changing "projectile" to "ball"). He provided no explanation of the revert in the edit summary or on 64.251.241.215 (talk · contribs)'s talk page. I also discovered that he did not catch the actual vandalism, the previous edits that changed "earliest" to "newest" and "popular" to "unpopular". The vandalism was fixed later on 23 September 2012 and 3 October 2012.

    3) This 23 May 2012 rollback of 204.111.39.20 (talk · contribs)'s good faith edit would have been better done with a manual edit summary, pointing out why the wording should have been left unchanged. If no explanation was provided in the edit summary, one should have been provided on the IP editor's talk page. User talk:204.111.39.20 remains a red link.

    Administrators should have strong communication skills. When reverting non-vandalism edits, they should provide clear edit summaries explaining their actions. Σ has failed to accomplish this. Administrators who do not communicate clearly do not inspire confidence in community members.
    
    Answer to question 8:

    Σ wrote, "Now after reviewing the various diffs that TParis used as justification for removal, I would agree with his actions." This endorsement of the unjustified removal of rollback reflects the philosophy that userrights are status symbols that can be stripped if a user is "misbehaving".

    Userrights were created solely to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. If a good faith user committed an unrelated infraction, removing the userright is punitive. Consider an admin who made a single incorrect deletion, protection, or block. Is this admin stripped of adminship—a collection of userrights—for his or her lapse in judgment? No. The same standards that apply to admins should apply to non-admins.

    Σ quoted TParis, "rollback is granted and removed based on community trust". Based on his misuse of the same userright above, I find removal of Σ's rollback more justified than removal of rollback of an editor who committed an unrelated infraction.
    
    Overeager AIV reports:

    1) His AIV report against Debjyoti dhar (talk · contribs) was removed by Closedmouth (talk · contribs) after reviewing admin Waggers (talk · contribs) wrote, "Confused newbie learning the rules. Don't bite." The problem with Σ's 06:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC) AIV report is that he never warned Debjyoti dhar that he would be blocked for continuing to post an article about his college organization. A block on this good faith but misguided user would have been excessive and harsh. Had the user continued to repost his article after Gogo Dodo's 06:45, 21 May 2012 (UTC) warning, a block would have been justified. Once warned, though, the user chose instead to seek feedback at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation rather than continuing to repost his article. That he heeded the warning indicates his earlier edits, though misguided, had been made in good faith.

    2) His AIV report against Gggame1 (talk · contribs) on 18 June 2012 was declined and later removed as an unactionable request. As in the previous example, Gggame1 was not warned that his test edits were unacceptable. After he was warned by Materialscientist (talk · contribs), the user ceased making his test edits. A block would have been harsh and could have scared away someone who might in the future become a productive editor.

    3) In his AIV report against Fiammy 95 (talk · contribs) on 1 July 2012, Σ wrote "actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Long term." Reviewing admin Ronhjones (talk · contribs) wrote, "User has only made 3 edits..." The superficial AIV report did not convey what Σ meant by "long term"—had the user been vandalizing over a long period of time; was the user a long-term sockpuppeteer? After the AIV report was removed, Σ neglected to follow up with the reviewing administrator, another failure to communicate.
    
    Superficial contributions at AfD:

    1) After filing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Charles Honig on 5 June 2012, Σ never returned to the discussion. There were one "delete" vote and "four "keep" votes, and the AfD was closed as "keep". A review of the article's sources indicates that none of the sources provide independent nontrivial coverage of the subject. The "Reuters, Bloomberg, and Forbes" profiles mentioned by one participant were not independent sources (see for example this profile in Forbes: "Barry Honig, Director, was appointed as our Co-Chairman ..."). The BLP currently contains no secondary reliable sources about the subject. His failure to follow up on his deletion nomination led to the AfD being closed as "keep" and allowed a poorly sourced BLP to languish in mainspace.

    2) He filed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative (3rd nomination) on 3 May 2012 with the one-word rationale "Essay". This superficial rationale did not demonstrate how the article was an essay and how it violated Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines.
    In his answer to question 1, Σ wrote, "copyright violations are best removed right at the start ... I have been doing my best to tag these problem pages as quickly as possible, for over a year now." However, Σ neglected to examine Antenarrative for copyright issues. As a new page patroller, he should have known that essays are frequently copied from other sources. Prior to an AfD nomination, he should have checked for any copyright issues. Antenarrative's first paragraph at the time of the nomination was:

    The first ever use of the term antenarrative is in Narrative Methods for Organization and Communication Research[1] . In 2001 David Boje also delivered two papers in Europe on antenarrative [2] [3] . In 2002, Professor Boje also developed the theory in a keynote address to the Discourse Conference in a paper delivered regarding Enron antenarratives, that became the basis for a coauthored article in the journal Finantial Times Top ranked journal Organization Studies[4] .

    http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/what_is_antenarrative.htm states:

    The first ever use of the term antenarrative is in my book (Boje 2001a) Narrative Methods for Organization and Communication Research (London: Sage). In 2001 I also delivered two papers in Europe on antenarrative (Boje, 2001b,c). In 2002, I also developed the theory in a keynote address to the Discourse Conference in a paper I delivered on Enron antenarratives, that became the basis for a coauthored article in Organization Studies Journal (Boje, Rosile, Durant, & Luhman, 2004).

    The rest of the article suffered from copyright issues from other sources. For example, the sentence "Antenarratives collect events and characters into their psychic economy" is verbatim from http://business.nmsu.edu/~dboje/papers/ENRON_critical_dramaturgical_analysis.htm.

    The copyright violations are still in the article today, and I have listed it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 October 6. The word "essay" ought to have thrown the red flag that the article text was likely taken from another source. Not recognizing this indicates inexperience in the new page patrolling field.
    
    Participation in 1 April 2012 joke AfD nominations:

    On 1 April 2012, several users filed "humorous" AfD nominations against notable topics. Editors decided that with joke nominations, the corresponding articles should not be tagged because it would affect the reader experience. Snotbot (talk · contribs), a bot that adds AfD templates to untagged articles nominated for deletion, received a block to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. The bot operator, Scottywong (talk · contribs), replied that the bot would not tag articles if the AfD nomination was not categorized in Category:AfD debates. (See also the subsequent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#April Fools nominations getting out of hand.)

    Σ was among the editors who made several "humorous" AfD nominations. Σ knew how to prevent Snotbot from adding the AfD template to his joke nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herostratus. When he nominated Larry Sanger for deletion, he added the AfD template to the article, though had the good sense to remove it immediately. However, he forgot to remove Category:AfD debates from the AfD discussion.

    This oversight led to the AfD tag's being restored to the Larry Sanger article by Snotbot and defaced mainspace before being removed 45 minutes later by Hut 8.5. This edit, prompted by Σ's carelessness, effectively had the impact of a mainspace vandalism edit in detracting from Wikipedia's reliability and reputation. The AfD nomination was later closed by Sandstein (talk · contribs) as "The result was speedy keep. Unproductive and not funny. Please use userspace rather than actual encyclopedia processes for attempts at humor."
    
    IRC Cabal comment:

    Σ's statement As members of the IRC Cabal, I expect all of you to support me on my RFA! mentioned below in Rcsprinter123 (talk · contribs)'s "neutral" vote is further indicative of immaturity. In reply to Leaky caldron (talk · contribs), Demiurge1000 (talk · contribs) wrote that it was made More like half a week [ago], i.e. before the nominators had even created the RfA page. However, conominator Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) wrote that it was made in the presence of only a couple people, most of whom had already supported this RFA. Who is correct?

    Demiurge1000. One screenshot depicted a pre-RfA, then-"half a week" old discussion; one depicted a "private chat" between Σ and Rcsprinter123 on the eve of the RfA. It is the former at which the candidate said, As members of the IRC Cabal, I expect all of you to support me on my RFA! The chat log is truncated, but its context indicates that Σ was the first person to mention RfA. (Respondents appeared incredulous that Σ was running for adminship, particularly given that this RfA page was still a red link at the time.)

    But regardless of whether this IRC statement was prompted by a question about his RfA (the evidence indicates the polar opposite), the canvassing comment one week before the RfA is a very recent indicator of the candidate's immaturity and poor judgment.

    That the candidate failed to correct his nominator's inaccurate (but well-intentioned) characterization of the chat logs' dates demonstrates a lack of attention to detail and openness.

    It would have been better for Rcsprinter123 to have quoted or described Σ's IRC comment rather than have posted screenshots, but he was within his rights to reveal this information and courageous to disclose this misstep by the candidate.
    
    Conominator Kudpung's attempt at disenfranchisement:

    About 17 hours after Rcsprinter123's 15:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC) post at this RfA, conominator Kudpung (talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive771#Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures:

    Although this is a report of RCS['s] (sic) actions in a series of issues concerning a single feature of Wikipedia processes, I feel that in the light of his editing history, we need to look at the bigger picture. While obviously acting in GF, in spite of some more serious issues and the advice in a recently failed RfA, he is still constantly having brushes with policies.

    I think it would be a very good idea if RCS (sic) were to agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion. While the technical side of Wikipedia can be learned, maturity is something particular to the individual that only develops with time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

    The edit summary was "admin comment: a maturity issue". By prefacing the word "comment" with "admin", he gave it the aura of authority. Authority from an uninvolved admin who should not be disobeyed.

    In his opening sentence, RfA conominator Kudpung acknowledged that the report was solely about Rcsprinter123's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion closes. Rather than providing input about AfD closes or evidence of any misconduct, he instead suggested the draconian measure that Rcsprinter123 "agree to stay away for a while (6 months?) from anywhere that needs a !vote or a carefully considered judgement or opinion". Following Rcsprinter123's damaging IRC canvassing revelation at this RfA, Kudpung's comment seems retaliatory. At the most, a restriction on Rcsprinter123 from posting screenshots of IRC chat logs may have been merited had he not recognized his error. Kudpung failed to provide any evidence that Rcsprinter123's judgment is so impaired that he should avoid all community discussions.

    As wctaiwan (talk · contribs) noted, "saying he shouldn't take part in discussions seems more humiliating than anything", and Rcsprinter123 himself wrote, "Stating my opinion on a[n] [RfA] candidate oughtn't to be restricted."

    The underhanded effort to discourage Rcsprinter123 from participating "from anywhere that needs a !vote" is a transparent attempt to disenfranchise him for his whistle-blowing.

    I raise these issues to ask Σ a question. Do you consider the comment at the "Rcsprinter Non Admin Closures" ANI thread ethical or acceptable behavior by your RfA conominator? Failure to speak out against Kudpung's untoward actions would be a tacit condoning of them.

    As Σ seems loath to comment in the "oppose" section, I recommend that if he does not reply to my question and other RfA participants are interested in his opinion, they post it in the "Questions" section. As I have opposed, I will not formally pose the question.
    
    Conominator Legoktm's interactions with Rcsprinter123:

    Legoktm (talk · contribs) wrote at User talk:Rcsprinter123#Your AfC reviews:

    I'm going through most of your AFC approvals right now. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 02:55, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

    after finding issues with Rcsprinter123's AfC contributions (see the list of the 17 affected articles here; he had second doubts on prodding one of the articles). I have not closely analyzed Legoktm's proposed deletions, so can make no comment about whether they are warranted. The comment here by DGG (talk · contribs) indicates that there are issues with Rcsprinter123's AfC contributions.

    However, this two-pronged focus by two conominators on Rcsprinter123 after his recent "neutral" comment appears prompted by his participation in this RfA and gives me some discomfort.
    
    RfA nominators' behavior

    RfA nominators' behavior during their candidate's RfA reflects deeply on their candidate's judgment. See Balloonman (talk · contribs)'s Wikipedia:How to pass an RfA#Why who your nom is matters. That two of Σ's nominators have engaged in questionable behavior against whistle-blower Rcsprinter123 raises concerns about whether Σ should have accepted nominations from these two users.
    
    Summary of merits:

    Σ has made numerous excellent contributions to the encyclopedia in the form of his coal ball article, his contributions to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing (example 1 and example 2), and his bot contributions (examples 1, 2, and 3). His speedy deletion work at User:Σ/CSDlog is solid overall.
    
    Summary of demerits:

    The two underlying themes in Σ's demerits are (i) uncommunicativeness and (ii) immaturity.

    His persistent failure to communicate with other editors—particularly IP editors—is an undesirable trait in an administrator. As Colonel Warden (talk · contribs) wrote above, "It's not easy to find cases where the candidate interacts with other editors". And as Bagumba (talk · contribs) wrote (bolding added for emphasis), "I would have liked to have one concise, all-encompassing response [to my question]. Aggravated users are not keen on followups; at the same time, we can't all be mindreaders."

    Failure to communicate in rollback edits, failure to communicate at AfDs, failure to communicate after filing AIV reports, and failure to correct his conominator's incorrect comment at this RfA demonstrate a steadfast inability to converse consistently and clearly with other editors.
    
    Past immaturity has been raised multiple times in the "support", "oppose", and "neutral" sections. Br'er Rabbit (talk · contribs) mentioned immaturity that occurred over one year ago, in May 2011. Has this immaturity disappeared? No.

    It reappeared again in his participation in the 1 April 2012 joke AfD nominations. It reappeared within the past two weeks in his IRC Cabal comment canvassing support for his RfA.
    
    Verdict:

    After considering Σ's merits and demerits, I must oppose this RfA nomination.

    Cunard (talk) 04:51, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    WP:TLDR. And I fully trust the nominators here, which in any case have nothing to do with Σ himself.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    At the beginning of my RfA comment, I wrote: "Summary of oppose: uncommunicativeness and immaturity." At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ#Summary of demerits, I wrote: "The two underlying themes in Σ's demerits are (i) uncommunicativeness and (ii) immaturity."

    It is clear that the nominators' poor behavior does not form the basis of my oppose. The attempt to brand it as such overlooks the key issues.

    The nominators' questionable behavior was added to ask Σ to review their behavior and comment on whether it is acceptable. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    OMG This reminds me of somebody who did the same at my RFA and then he was "forced" to erase his comment. Cunard; I understand you had many reasons to oppose this nomination, but as Jasper stated above, your reasons would've been better explained in some short 2 paragraphs rather than all this great letter. I am not questioning your reasons to oppose Σ, but the way you printed them here is kind of odd and awkward. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    My oppose rationale could not have been explained in two short paragraphs. Nearly every person who opposes a candidate is challenged, so I have included the diffs, quotes, and analysis to support my statements. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)(edit conflict)Cunard, you are entitled to your !vote, but this is an almost unprecedented use of the RfA system and a classic example of the dramafest it has become that is preventing good candidates from presenting themselves. I don't care what anyone says about me, particularly if they could pluck up the courage to say it to my face or make complaints in the appropriate forum, but this is not my RfA, neither I nor the other nominators are on trial here - Sigma is, and the closing bureaucrat is quite capable of evaluating for him/herself the oppose votes of the the other participants. Although I was a conominator, I have no affinity with the candidate, and whatever the closure, I have no personal interest whether this RfA succeeds or fails. At best, your TL:DR, except for its first line, should be removed to the talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:46, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    We differ on whether Σ is a good candidate for adminship. All editors should be able to review my comment and decide on its merits whether it's justified. Shunting this to the talk page would be silencing this dissenting opinion. Seldom do RfA participants perform extensive research into a candidate and post their findings. I've now done so. If there are any errors in or disagreement with my analysis, feel free to rebut them. The behavior of his conominators was mentioned to ask him his opinion about their behavior. It gauges his opinion on a difficult issue, much like question 8 did. Cunard (talk) 06:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    I find the TLDR objections totally unfounded and I strongly disagree with moving Cunard's analysis to the talk page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Wow, the lack of courage displayed by Kudpung is downright shocking. Check him out trying to distance himself from a truly awful candidate...one that he himself nominated. Keepscases (talk) 06:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Wow, what a completely nonconstructive comment that only serves to provoke and antagonize. Please stop. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    It speaks volumes when nominators run from their nominees. But anyway, here's a tissue. Keepscases (talk) 06:31, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    The only thing shocking here is how far off the mark your comments are. No tissues needed when your claims of Kudpung having a "lack of courage" and "trying to distance himself", not to mention that sigma is a "truly awful candidate" are all misrepresentations and exaggerations for your convenience. Your behavior speaks volumes for your own position. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:51, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    As of this response, this RfA has 43 opposes. Have a nice evening. Keepscases (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Guys, enough, please. This isn´t helping anything. -— Isarra ༆ 07:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I have noticed I am mentioned quite frequently in the above oppose. I agree with your well thought-out points about co-noms perhaps targeting me after my recent neutral !vote in this RfA. Two things I need to say though; I think that the co-noms investigating my AfC reviews was sparked by a recent event on IRC (no screenshots this time) involving Fire and Water. It was just a coincidence they were nominators, although that could have had something to do with it. Also, what do you mean by whistle-blower? Don't get it. Rcsprinter (deliver) @ 08:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Rcsprinter, I don't quite understand your last comment and would like to ask you a few questions about it, but I don't want to detract from Sigma's RFA, so I would prefer if we had this discussion on your talk page. I will follow up there. Thank you, LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 09:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC) New thread at User_talk:Rcsprinter123#Comments_from_Sigma.27s_RFA. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 09:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Rcsprinter123. A whistleblower reveals wrongdoing to the public in the face of severe reprisals. As I noted above, your actions have been courageous. You disclosed the damaging information despite knowing that other users would be offended by your revelations. In other words, doing so would make you more enemies than friends. That you did not keep this under wraps speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity, something that is rarely seen at RfA.

    As you spend more time on Wikipedia, please do not let your principles be compromised. Deficiencies in policy can be overcome. Deficiencies in honesty and integrity cannot.

    Cunard (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hi Cunard, I'm glad that you have a strict interpretation of policy. Are you aware of the IRC guidelines that Legoktm quoted above? Rcsprinter quickly corrected and admitted his mistake after being informed about it, however, you seem to be endorsing his actions, which were in clear violation of the policies. Forgive me if I am wrong. Thanks, Thine Antique Pen (talk) 20:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    I agree that Rcsprinter123 should not have posted screenshots. But he is within his rights to disclose the contents of the discussions through short quotes or summaries because they are directly related to this RfA. The IRC guidelines are not Wikipedia or Wikimedia guidelines (note the lack of any guideline tags). Transparency trumps secrecy. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    It seems that the rationale above has broken the automatic numbering. The oppose below should be numbered "12", and so on. HueSatLum 21:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    No, the automatic numbering was not affected by the above rationale but by a later comment by another editor. Thank you, Bbb23 (talk · contribs), for your correction. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    • None of the things you've listed are especially concerning in and of themselves, and even when taken as a collective whole, they still don't leave me with the impression that Σ's judgment is seriously flawed. In fact, the only thing I would take out of this if I were Σ is just to be a bit more cautious when using the rollback feature. But it's nothing worth opposing him over. Kurtis (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    The persistent uncommunicativeness is an extremely undesirable trait in an administrator. That by itself should be sufficient grounds for failing this RfA.

    The candidate has also misused rollback multiple times. That by itself should be sufficient grounds for failing this RfA.

    The candidate has a lengthy history of immaturity. That has alarmingly appeared within the past two weeks in his IRC Cabal comment canvassing support. That by itself should be sufficient grounds for failing this RfA.

    Taken as a collective whole, these issues demonstrate that the candidate is blatantly unqualified for adminship.

    Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Hello, Cunard. Thank you for taking the time to review all of my edits and actions. I feel that a few of your analyses are incorrect and have responded to them below.

    (a) This was not a good faith addition. If you looked deeper in the IP's history, you would realise that the user was blocked as a sockpuppet of globally locked and de facto banned user Rolandhelper (talk · contribs) (SPI). Per WP:BAN, edits by a banned user can be reverted - the measure of a site ban is that even if the editor were to make good edits, permitting them to re-join the community poses enough risk... that they may not edit at all, even if the edits seem good.

    (b) Looking in the page history of the Trebuchet article, we can see that the edit I reverted was made by 64.251.241.215. The vandal edits were made by 64.251.247.108. These two IPs are similar, both starting with 64.251. I thought I had reverted one IP who made 3 edits. This was an honest mistake that was not caught until now. I hoped that it would have been treated as such rather than an intentional misuse of rollback.

    (c) I saw this edit as an attempt at subtle vandalism. The IP inserted blatantly false information in order to compromise the integrity of the article. That is what rollback is supposed to be, and was, used for.

    →Σσς. (Sigma) 22:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    You know, the category:Socialism is in the category:Political Systems. You don't think the IP could have just made a mistake? Eau(W)oo (talk) 23:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    Thank you for your detailed reply. I've posted my response above. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    The joke AfD stuff (clicking on the links should make my involvement in them fairly clear) wasn't all that awful; honestly, there are plenty worse things than an article on a pretty minor person having an AfD template on it for 45 minutes (it may surprise some people here to know that Wikipedia editors aren't the only people aware of April Fool's Day). In fact Σ was later a group of one castigating me for another April Fools joke of mine, so it's not as if he went totally beserk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    It is very surprising that your post was all about you and your adminship. Keepscases (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Defacing a mainspace article for joke purposes is unacceptable. If Σ called you out for doing something more unacceptable, then it is unsurprising that you do not find this behavior awful. I have not seen any indication that you have done something worse though (in response to your question here, I found this edit quite amusing and an apt characterization of RfA), so I will take it as merely a difference of opinion that good faith editors can have. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Since the issue is apparently (in your words) "This oversight led to the AfD tag's being restored", then I think you mean accidentally causing a mainspace article to be defaced. Which I think has been done by most of us, at one time or another (misclicks and the like). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Rationale uncollapsed. Collapsing destroys the functionality of the anchors to the individual sections, and there is no consensus to do so. Please do not collapse again without gaining prior consensus. Here on User talk:Jimbo Wales, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) wrote (my bolding):

    What disturbs me most is how tolerant we are when an admin is clearly too verbose, and would have quickly hatted, talk page'ed the discussion, or dragged the editor to ANI if they refused, 'IF it would have been a non-admin. Do you think that if it was YOUR name attached at the end of those comments, it would have been so easily tolerated and overlooked, Br'er Rabbit? I don't. That is de facto inequity, condoned by the community, and that is what I find most disturbing. RfA doesn't belong to us admin, nor should admin have special privilege when participating. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I fully endorse the statement that "RfA doesn't belong to us admin, nor should admin have special privilege when participating".

    As a non-admin who has never been an admin and is not interested in being one, I am heartened that I am not treated unequally to an admin. In my particular case, that is de facto equity, condoned by the community. Cunard (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

12. Oppose I share the above mentioned concerns: 1) transparency. User:TParis says above (Q#15) that "we have historically discouraged use of off-wiki behavior on-wiki", however, this RfA is undoubtedly influenced by the candidate's behavior off-wiki. I don't like organized efforts related to this project that are discussed in private channels among a group of friends. I may be naive as this happens everyday, however, I value openness and I miss it here. 2) attitude towards inexperienced editors and IPs mentioned in Cunard's oppose. 3) uncommunicativeness and immaturity. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose ugh, far too many issues. Mostly per Cunard who added an extensive oppose rationale. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Cunard. --John (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose. I believe Sigma is temperamentally unsuited to be an admin because of poor judgment and immaturity. Sigma is clearly an intelligent, capable, technically-savvy editor. I also think xe is honest. However, Sigma has behaved poorly in too many incidents. Sigma is to be commended for their candor in owning up (mostly) to past errors, but the time period in which xe has been editing is too compressed for me to have confidence that xe's reformed. Also, the problems are not related to misunderstood or misapplied policies or guidelines. That's just knowledge; it can be acquired and fixed. Temperament is not something so easily learned.
    Two contentious areas that have been discussed here. First, the user name. Frankly, I don't understand the level of hostility toward Sigma's user name. Sure, it may be mildly irritating, but it shouldn't be enough to oppose. That said, I also don't understand why Sigma was so reluctant to accommodate the complainers. Even now, I don't completely understand what Sigma has done to "correct" the problem, but Sigma's reaction was a bit grudging and I-shouldn’t-have-to. Second, the Conservapedia issue. I agree with TP that we shouldn't go on a witch hunt about off-wiki behavior, but Sigma used a Wikipedia channel. These channels are not official, but they are related to Wikipedia and attract Wikipedians. If Sigma had used some other forum, I would feel differently, but I don't approve of vandalizing websites, no matter how much you disagree with what they stand for. And I didn't appreciate Sigma's quibble on what constitutes vandalism. Just to be clear, I am not opposing just because of these two problems, but because of these and the other problems highlighted by editors, some of which have been admitted by Sigma .
    I'll close by saying that I have an enormous amount of respect for many of Sigma's supporters, and I was very tempted not to vote, but I felt it would be cowardly of me to stand in the wings. It looks likely to me that Sigma will be nominated. If so, I wish them nothing but the best. Sometimes, the acquisition of administrative responsibility gives a person a new perspective. Hopefully, Sigma will pause before acting and deliberate more about what xe does.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

    I felt it would be cowardly of me to stand in the wings. – thank you for having the courage to oppose after you found the candidate temperamentally unsuitable to be an administrator. It is difficult to go against 125 editors in an RfA guaranteed to pass. That you chose to oppose when it could cause ill will against you is a clear marker of integrity. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

16. - Moving to oppose owing to serious concerns about maturity issues. Fucking with Conservapedia is not okay, even if they are a pack of mean-spirited and thoroughly reactionary political drones. Carrite (talk) 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
17. Reviewing the candidate's editing history and reading this RFA leads me to conclude that Sigma lacks the maturity the community expects from a sysop. Vandalizing other sites erodes my confidence in Sigma. I oppose this RFA. Majoreditor (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    He's hardly the only person to vandalize other sites; I fuck with and troll Encyclopedia Dramatica under a variety of usernames on occasion. Sometimes we need a break from combating entropy, and it's fun to cause it somewhere that frankly deserves it. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    In every RfA now you portray yourself as someone who shouldn't be an admin. Here's hoping that one day you wake up and find you're not. Keepscases (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    If this were any venue besides RfA you'd be blocked for trolling; besides that, I won't feed you further. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Blade, give it a rest. The fact is that many editors don't trust vandals. An admin wanna-be who messes with other sites strikes me as a lot like a crooked cop; he thinks it's fine for him to engage in dodgy behavior because he's special. Majoreditor (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

18. This may (will) have little effect, but I should point out that although Conservapedia's contents are off the deep end, we should not vandalise what is considered by its editors as a serious Wiki. On a Wiki meant to be vandalised, fine, but on something conceived as a serious Wiki such vandalism shows signs of immaturity. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    I agree with your position. Some individuals justifiably believe that Wikipedia is a poor website because it does not do enough to protect living people. But that doesn't mean that Wikipedia deserves to be vandalized. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

19. I oppose this nomination because I will not support an admin candidate who vandalizes other wiki's. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose. The Conservatopedia business signals immaturity and hypocrisy. You don't like Conservatopedia, then don't read it.  Volunteer Marek  08:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Cunard's tldr, Crisco, Majoreditor, VM, Carrite etc. The vandalism to Conservapedia may have been last year and it is a site that verges on self-parody but a serious encyclopedia should not be run by people who disrupt its rivals. There is still evidence that a lack of maturity remains an issue. Do not feed trolls by making them admins.--Peter cohen (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
22. Strong oppose Support for wholly unjustified actions by TParis in revoking rollback as punitive punishment, despite being guilty of exactly the same offence, the immaturity of organising an attack against another site all point to this being a case of someone wanting a nice new hat. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
23. Oppose Vandalising other wikis is a bright line for me and if Blade of the Northern Lights has been doing it as well he should hand in his mop. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Damn... and here I was thinking about asking him if he'd be interested in a potential run at RfB. I mean, I personally would still support him if he were to apply for bureaucratship (eerily enough, I don't think vandalism of other "gimmick" Wikis is really all that big of a deal; it's not like they're serious academic sources or anything), but now I think his chances for passing are quite a bit lower than they were before this RfA. Kurtis (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    I don't think vandalism of other "gimmick" Wikis is really all that big of a deal; it's not like they're serious academic sources or anything) - as opposed to Wikipedia which is a serious academic source or something?  Volunteer Marek  05:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Sorry, I shouldn't have used the term "academic". The word I was looking for is "reputable". Kurtis (talk) 05:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'm starting to believe you're taunting me. But ok. Volunteer Marek  06:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'm not sure whatever gave you that idea, as I was only referring to my original text. In any case, I've already made far too many edits to this page, and I think it would be best if I ceased commenting here altogether — it's become an almost barbaric dramafest that nobody should be the least bit proud of. Kurtis (talk) 06:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I wasn't planning to respond to any of this, but I'm a bit surprised people didn't get what I said. Think about what I said for a moment; how exactly would one troll ED? Maybe troll other sites from ED, but ED itself? Yeah, I occasionally edit ED, but very infrequently; maybe a few times a year. That's what I mean by causing entropy; ED is designed to do just that. I hope this clears things up. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

24. Oppose for vandalising another wiki; immaturity; lack of depth in knowledge of policies; lack of demonstration of good communication skills (most of his communications are via template, and thus it's difficult to assess his communication skills). — Dianna (talk) 15:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
25. Sorry, but the maturity level just isn't there. There are a few things down here I don't think hold water (your username chief among them) but the general maturity required of an admin is something I don't see. Courcelles 17:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
26. Oppose - Maturity concerns are important to me in a Rfa. I agree with those opposes above that point out serious issues which I feel illustrate considerable problems with this candidate. I would go so far as to urge those supporting this candidate early on to reconsider their !votes. Admins must be much better than this. Jusdafax 18:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
27. Oppose - Though he's improved a lot in the past few months, I don't think Sigma has been consistently mature enough to have the bit. I'm not concerned about the vandalism on Conservapedia (I have to admit, I've done that too) or any other off-wiki action. My objection is strictly because of the lack of maturity he has shown at times on-wiki. I think if he continues to have a consistent track record of maturity, he would make a great admin in a few months. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:33, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
28. Regretful Oppose I've seen nothing but superb work from Simga here, but based on some of the oppose rationales, I can't support. Vandalizing Conservapedia was inappropriate and so was canvassing on IRC. Mislabeling good-faith edits as vandalism cost another superb editor his RFA recently, and he used Twinkle, not rollback. While making a few incorrect AIV reports should not be a source of opposition at an RFA (in my opinion), they were a bit bitey and probably discouraged those editors. I don't find April Fool's Day AFD nominations to be funny, but rather disruptive to the normal community process. While the AFD votes/nominations are a bit problematic, Sigma didn't express interest in working at AFD, so I'm not concerned. Good luck. --v/r Electric Catfish (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
29. Oppose - I'm glad it was admitted, but I have difficulty supporting someone with a known history of supporting, organizing, or committing vandalism. Even at conservapedia. --Nouniquenames 20:12, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
30. Oppose due to maturity concerns, but also, the admission to "obviously inappropriate" behavior and evasiveness about the details of it. I'm not expecting actual diffs, but I'd at least expect enough of a summary for us to decide whether or not it should disqualify you. Kcowolf (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
31. Oppose Maturity issues. I don't mind the joke AfDs so much, but the vandalism issues appear serious even if they aren't here. I couldn't support with that but given the rest I'm stuck in the oppose category. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Even if that sounds "badgering": what is the rest? His username? mabdul 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

32. Oppose per Cunard, and it does not speak well of a candidate when supporters feel the need to hold his hand for a question. Keepscases (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
33. Oppose No moar IRCAdmins. Skinwalker (talk) 21:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Just curious: where you ever in that kind of chat? Do you know how many admins are online there? And to "Sigma"'s timezone? What is so bad of being in any live chat? mabdul 23:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    @mabdul, Might I remind you that !voters are not obligated to to put much, if any, a reason for their supports or opposes. So yes, to ask for more of a reason than "Maturity issues" from a !vote is badgering. And with your question to Skinwalker, IMHO, your question contained traces of dickishness. IRC is a luxury rather than a necessity for Wikipedians. --ceradon ^talk_contribs 23:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    That's not quite true. Supporters aren't required to provide any reasons at all (unless you consider "why not?" to be any kind of a reason for anything), but it's very common for opposers to be badgered even when they do offer reasons. Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    So what is the oppose reason? Being active in an "off-wiki" chat? Messing around with Perl? @Malleus Look up at Cunard's "badgering" of the supporters, that is not really better. I mean that whole RfA is some kind of "strange" to me. (not pointing to anyone, it's more that the outcome and discussion is getting to nowhere even if there are some real reasons to support/oppose) mabdul 23:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    I find it quite incredible that you feel it necessary to ask such a question, so let me try and put it in terms that you might be able to understand. "It's OK to vandalise the home of someone me and my friends don't like." Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    (e/c with MF) Mabdul, I'll explain it slowly and using the simplest words I can. Yes, I have used IRC in the past, but not in anything involving wikipedia. I have no idea how many admins participate in such a non-transparent and cliquish decision-making venue, but the fewer the better on a project that values transparency and open consensus. The fact that editors who reveal the deliberations of the unlogged smoke-filled rooms of IRC have been threatened with blocks, legal action, and even physical assault shows me that the IRC clique has something to hide. The IRC cabal cooks up bad blocks, promulgates canvassing and meatpuppetry, and tries to rubberstamp their unqualified buddies for adminship. Skinwalker (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

34. Strongest Oppose. Far too much not right here, as many have pointed out above. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
35. Oppose - Per the candidates display of immaturity. --ceradon ^talk_contribs 22:17, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
36. Oppose per numerous concerns raised by Cunard and others. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
37. 'Oppose Vandalism displays immaturity. Here or elswhere. ```Buster Seven Talk 23:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    I may have misread, but from what I understood the incident was some time last year and he appears to undoubtedly regret it. What length of a time period do you expect between the incident and the RfA? IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    He may regret it, but did he do any thing to repair it. If you can (analogy) "show me the repainted garage door" and counter User:Cunard's oppose argument and get the nominee to use a name instead of a prolematic symbol I may reconsider. ```Buster Seven Talk 01:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity, what might that act of contrition look like? Would it be an apology on Conservapedia? Would be it some nontrivial amount of constructive editing there? Would it be an apology here? Some or all of these things? I'm asking this in all seriousness by the way, because I think it has interesting implications for how we treat off-wiki behavior in RfAs. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

38. Oppose per the improper rollbacks done just few months ago. I have seen some people doing improper rollbacks by mistake due to automated tools like Stiki, Huggle. But these three edits are non-automated and are totally unacceptable. --Anbu121 (talk me) 00:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
39. Oppose - The username don't concern me. The world write with more than latin script, when did we become a tyranny that says only latin script is acceptable? The April Fool don't concern me by its intention. I wouldn't had done it, but a little humour does no harm though what actually ended up happening was unfortunate and not what we want. IRC incident don't concern me. Some on here need to lighten up a little. Conservapedia however does concern me. If it's okay for wp editors to vandalise Conservapedia because we disagree with it, then it's equally okay for people to vandalise wp because they disagree with it. Even if all this had cease, better answers re this and other opposes concerns is needed. Then there are the raised concerns each on its own is nothing to oppose over, but combined raise enough question to push it over the line as of this time. KTC (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
40. Oppose, moved from support. I was happy to give my support, but the Conservapedia issue leads me to question the candidate's maturity and ability to treat different points of view with respect and detachment. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 00:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I'm going to expand on my rationale here; having observed this rather nasty RfA for the past few days I've seen quite a bit of misunderstanding of some opponents' argument. Suggestions by supporters, such as this one, that opponents think Sigma is untrustworthy because he would vandalize this website or another Wikimedia website is a straw man. No one (besides this guy, I guess) is opposing because they think Sigma will vandalize Wikipedia.

    I cannot speak for others, so I will speak for myself; I've been trying the past few days to come up with an excuse to keep supporting Sigma's candidacy, or even just move to neutral; I couldn't, so I now firmly sit in this section. I oppose his candidacy for three main reasons, both of which have to do with character, and ultimately, with trust :

    • 1) it takes a special kind of person to waste time vandalizing a website like Conservapedia (or Liberapedia for that matter) : either someone who is immature, or someone who is a zealot. No one displaying either of these traits should ever be made administrator.
    • 2) we don't need users, nevermind administrators, who are so entrenched in a belief system that they feel it is okay to attack ideological opponents, no matter how idiotic the target is. It brings disrepute to Wikipedia and its contributors, it is provocative and thereby makes us a target in return, and is just a net negative all around.
    • 3) an administrator candidate who refuses to fully acknowledge past shortcomings and instead attempts to circumvent the underlying concerns by dismissing the target and by diminishing his own actions, cannot be taken seriously. Sigma's half-assed answer to Q15 basically says "it wasn't even vandalism because Conservapedia sucks" and is a splendid demonstration of why he should not be given the tools until he addresses the issue in a much more meaningful way.

    Sigma, through his actions, has demonstrated contempt for viewpoints he disagrees with and for the work of others, which is unacceptable. Everybody is subjective and has political leanings, not everybody is an activist and intolerant ideologue; the former can be impartial, the latter cannot. Because Sigma has proven to be the latter, he cannot be trusted to be objective when closing contentious content or policy discussion, therefore, he shouldn't be an administrator. It's as simple as that.

    As for the off-wiki business having nothing to do with Wikipedia, I would generally agree, but not in this case. Given that Sigma has been kind enough to scream from the rooftops that he was vandalizing Conservapedia, privacy concerns do not apply, and it becomes a public matter of character that is perfectly legitimate to discuss here on his RfA.

    I'm sorry if my extended rationale sounds harsh and contributes to the nastiness of this RfA; I truely think Sigma is a valuable editor and a good candidate. I cannot, however, disregard the trust issues outlined above. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 09:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

41. Oppose. I have a hard time opposing a candidate that Kudpung and Worm That Turned brings forward, because they are always excellent, and I have nothing but respect for both of them. I can overlook the acute attack of idiocy it took to go over and vandalize Conservepedia. What I CAN'T overlook is question 15, and how the candidate attempted to justify said idiocy and pretend it was something other than vandalism. Someone who destroys the creative works of others because they don't agree with them has no place as an administrator on this project. Period. Ever. Trusilver 03:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    As an added note... Everyone screws up from time to time. I see no reason at all why an error in judgment should preclude someone from becoming an administrator. I feel that this incident has become as volatile as it has been because it involves another wiki... even if it's a wiki that does not share the same values or standards that our does. The only thing that prevents me from supporting is the candidate's demeanor in question 15. Any time someone makes an apology or accept responsibility using the word "but" or "however", they are, essentially, not taking responsibility at all. Next time around I will happily support if that acknowledgement is there... minus the qualifiers. Trusilver 08:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

42. Oppose - Even though I dislike the conservatives. Your attempt to stir the pot at Conservapedia worries me because your unintended consequences could draw more vandalisms and POV-pushers (which are not as blatant as high school kids and thus much harder to catch) to Wikipedia. We have more than enough drama going around already and we don't need more. Plus it's relative recent, not like it took place years ago. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
43. Oppose per maturity concerns noted above. Graham87 06:15, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
44. Oppose vandalising a page or another wiki that you disagree with is totally unacceptable. Valenciano (talk) 07:14, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I think you, along with many others, got this completely wrong. Not only did said events occur over a year ago, Conservapedia is in no way shape or form associated with Wikipedia - it was actually created as a alternative to this project. If you're gonna hold someone to something they did over a year ago to something that isn't related to the project at all, I must question your knowledge of Wikipedia. Zac  08:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    I never said it was associated with Wikipedia. I'm well aware that it's another Wiki and I stand by what I said, vandalising a project that you disagree with shows potential maturity/intolerance issues and those are not what I want in an admin. Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

45. Oppose. Too controversial. There are issues which can be resolved by waiting for six months and applying again. And in the meantime, taking notice of some of the concerns raised, such as quality of communication, and maturity attitudes. There is potentially a good admin here who if appointed now might face too close a scrutiny which could lead to drama. If appointed with a clearer consensus in six months time, they would have the support of the community as a whole, and their life, and that of Wikipedia, would be happier and healthier. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 08:16, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
46. Oppose - For a conglomeration of lots of reasons stated above. I'd say I don't think the rollback issues are dire, nor is the username a problem. We make too big a deal out of relatively minor technical infractions. What is a problem is the overall attitude. While off-wiki activity ought not be especially relevant to an admin's work, this activity has a connection to the wiki. And perhaps most of all, concerns about transparency with much of the RfA process being a club (as someone said above, I'm being naive, cause this happens all the time, but this example's especially out there). Shadowjams (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
47. Per Cunard. --Closedmouth (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
48. Oppose due to serious concerns about Σ's maturity. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:48, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
49. Oppose—per Skinwalker and because of the Conservapedia thing. Others have explained as well or better than I can why the Conservapedia vandalism is a problem. Regarding the IRC business, I'm actually shocked to find out that not only are IRC conversations not logged, logging is not allowed, that admins and admin wannabes discuss Wikipedia business there when it's not logged, and that others would criticize those who make IRC conversations public when those discussions are relevant to Wikipedia business. I know this particular issue isn't strictly the candidates fault, but I don't want to see admins who think this is OK.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
50. Oppose - misusing the ability to freely edit a website shows a serious lack of judgment, as does using IRC to coordinate attacks. I don't feel that the user can be trusted with the tools. Achowat (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
51. Oppose reluctantly for now -- good potential but the rough spots are too recent (2011) for my comfort. Come back in a year with a good record and some more seasoning; I'll support enthusiastically. I think some of your past behaviour is troublesome but you seem to be learning and on a good trajectory. Also, stop quibbling over the user name -- just change it if you want to be an administrator. Yes, you're within your rights but it's tricky for some folks to figure out on their keyboards; a lot of intelligent but technologically-impaired folks don't know about stuff like this and may miss your talk page note:

    ""Σ" (u03a3) can be typed with Alt+228 on Windows. Σ should not be confused with ∑, which is Option+W on OSX. Σ can be typed using the HTML entities Σ or Σ. I do not mind being called Sigma."

    An administrator has to be readily accessible to everyone. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    fwiw, I did learn during this rfa that html character entities work in the search box: Enter User:Σ or User:Σ and you're there. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

52. Oppose, based on my understanding at present of the Conservapedia-events and response to Q15. As I understand the matter, this came too close to putting Wikipedia riding shotgun in said vandalism/trolling/whatever for my taste. This isn't a permanent oppose, there is a great deal I respect about this editor, but a complete acknowledgement of what happened, and enough time, would be prerequisite to my future support. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
53. Oppose — Conservapedia vandalizing poses serious concerns about the level/lack of maturity possessed by Σ. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
54. Oppose - I would have given full support, Σ is a great editor and CSD tagger, far better than I will ever be. He's helped me out before on tough decisions. However the concerns raised about immaturity are valid. Sorry. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 17:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
55. Oppose - Not now; there are too many issues. To those who question why the Conservapedia thing is relevant, one reason is that it exposes Wikipedia to some small chance of retaliation. Also, it is not a good idea to turn an IRC channel associated with Wikipedia into 4chan. Cardamon (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
56. Oppose I have comparatively few edits here, but I am an admin on WQ and WV, and do not regsrd Σ's conduct as appropriate for a WMF admin.--Collingwood (talk) 19:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
57. Oppose - While the editor has a good amount of edits and has been very effective in producing good articles, I have to oppose, mainly due to the Conservapedia issue. While it is a while ago and Conservapedia isn't great, being based on the author's version of Christianity or conservatism, it is not a good sign towards other 'pedias if we give people who vandalize them more user rights. Toa Nidhiki05 20:06, 8 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)

   Instead of poking Rcs with your righteous indignation because he was forthright in bringing attention to off-wiki canvassing, people like NYB and Dennis should be asking how 3 experienced Admins have jointly nominated an inherently controversial candidate with what is, frankly, a poor set of behavioural characteristics with such effortless persuasion in their nomination statements that they have convinced 90% of those !voting to support their candidate. Why were these faults not honestly revealed up front? Leaky Caldron 19:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

   Because in spite of the controversies, the four editors who nominated Σ felt that he would do an overall excellent job as an administrator and would be a force for good in clearing out CSD backlogs. They would not nominate someone unless they were confident that the candidate was experienced and temperamentally suited enough for adminship — specifically, in my interactions with Kudpung (both on-wiki and off), I know for a fact that he is very thorough when reviewing RfA nominees. His standards are fairly high, so the fact that he is one of the ones nominating Σ speaks volumes about any perceived issues that may have been found. Kurtis (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   Sorry, what CSD backlog? I see that come up sometimes at RfAs, and it's a ruse. Of all areas we have CSD suffers least from backlogs, in my experience. UAA and RFPP are a bit clogged sometimes, but what's actually most needed is admins to close RfCs, and I don't see Sigma making that an important part of their job, for various reasons. All of this is tangential of course, but it always bothers me to see such things mentioned as arguments. Drmies (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   Out of recent experience, Matrix Ecomm Symposium sat with a CSD template on it for more than 24 hours. Was that an actual backlog? Or were there just no admins who were willing to delete it? I'm not sure. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 03:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   One outlier does not demonstrate there is an actual backlog. At Category talk:Candidates for speedy deletion#Patience, an editor noted that "the median is tagged within two minutes of its creation and deleted 36 minutes later". Drmies is correct that there is no persistent CSD backlog. Cunard (talk) 06:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   @Drmies — I guess my interpretation of a "backlog" might be a bit too broad. I count it as anything which gets a sizeable number of things that need to be tended to ASAP (not necessarily urgently, but sooner than later), and my definition of the term is much more related to incidence than it is to instantaneous quantity. Legoktm just above me brings up a good example of something that has been tagged for an extended period of time without really being tended to, and I think having more administrators apt in the area would help to reduce the number of instances in which that happens. Kurtis (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   Hi Leaky, is there a reason you didn't bother to include me as a non-admin nominator? More than rude I find it odd that you didn't bother to include myself in the group of four editors who nominated Sigma. If you'd like to hear my full rationale of nominating Sigma, feel free to include me in that question you asked (though I can't guarantee it's as long as Cunard's statement ) and I don't mind explaining it. LegoSpecial:Contributions/Legoktm|K^ontribs]]T^alkM 03:39, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   Please don' be offended. I hold Admins to an exceptional standard, otherwise I would not be investing my time challenging this premature candidacy. When 3 Admins who are prominent and respected by the community collectively agree to support a candidate who, enquiry reveals, has some pretty poor recent past behaviour as well as damaging ideas about using Admin judgement and tools against innocent community members (Q8), I'm keen to understand what has gone wrong at the selection stage. As a non-admin you are exempt from that scrutiny although you are welcome to explain why you continue to support this candidate and, more importantly, if you had known then what you know now, would you still provide a nomination? I think that the 3 Admins should answer the same question. Maybe someone would like to ask them. There is no loss of face in withdrawing nomination backing and support in the light of new evidence revealed. Its been done before. Maybe the talk page is the best venue for this. Leaky Caldron 10:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   There is no need to post direct links to IRC chatlogs. Just search for "SigmaWP OR CoalBalls, #wikipedia-en" at GOOGLE. You can add keywords like Conservapedia.... Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:06, 8 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. Looks a good candidate apart from those 'hilarious' April 1st AfD nominations. Avoid that sort of thing in future and I would have no problem supporting. --Michig (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Don't feel comfortable supporting nor opposing. Knows what he's doing but carries far too much immaturity as evidenced various times offwiki. — foxj 11:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
5. Neutral – I have no concerns regarding the username, and do appreciate all of the efforts Σ has made to alleviate the issue. However, my off-wiki interactions with Σ (IRC, specifically) give me cause for concern regarding Σ's maturity level. I deliberated for a while over whether it was appropriate to !oppose based on IRC conversations (not officially WMF-related, a more casual environment, etc.), but I worry that this immaturity will appear elsewhere. Last-minute change to neutral. Oppose doesn't feel right either, due to all of Σ's positive contributions to Wikipedia. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
6. Neutral I believe that sensible, considered use of the tools would be made, and judge that a successful outcome will result in a net positive to en-wp. However, the April Fools referred to by Michig and the username script and brevity are of enough concern to dissuade me from fully supporting the candidature. Congratulations on WP:100 anyway. -- Trevj (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

   I look forward with interest to your answer to Br'er Rabbit's Q23 (I can see why the depth of scrutiny round here is found daunting by potential candidates). I think you're wise to take a little break for now, and would like to wish you well as the final 24 hours approach. -- Trevj (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

   I note in your answer to Q15 regarding the organising of Conservapedia vandalism nor will be doing so in future. While such actions are things which some 16-year-olds wouldn't even consider appropriate, it's reassuring to know that this sort of behaviour is now behind you. However, an acknowledgement that your actions were vandalism would provide further reassurance. -- Trevj (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

7. Neutral per foxj and GW. The fact that he demands, not asks politely, for admin tasks to be done in #wikipedia-en and that I have fears that sig may approach CSD in much of the same way that caused Fastily (talk · contribs) issues places me here. He has done so much good work that I do not feel right to oppose. --Guerillero | My Talk 15:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
8. Support. moved to neutral. [earlier supportive comments: I'm confused now by the user name--now that it's apparently not Sigma but Esh. Well, Esh seems to listen to the name Sigma, so I guess that's not much of a problem. I will say (pace Beeblebrox) that there are moments when one needs to type in a user name--for instance, when one doesn't have a link at hand to click on and wants to visit that user's space; esp. on netbooks that can be problematic. But Sigma has done good work and I see no reason to oppose. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)]

   I am putting my support on hold for now, esp. in light of Cunard's valuable comments (they were apparently moved? whoever moved them did us a disservice, and I am glad they were moved back). I'm also wondering now about past interactions with Sigma and may revisit this. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

   Not sure if they were moved in the end. It was suggested that it should be transferred to the Talk Page by one of the candidates co-nominators apparently to prevent drama. It is a shame that good, honest and open research is seen as a threat rather than revealing details that nominators should have been aware of before backing their candidate. Leaky Caldron 21:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

   The 'research' was little more than a summary of other oppose votes and criticisms of the nominators (which you also chose to continue on other places). The rest of your comment is off-topic like so many here - we are under no obligation whatsoever to examine what candidates do in real life or elsewhere on the internet that have nothing to do with Wikimedia projects. What we are concerned with is what they do here. This RfA is riddled with old stuff that is of no consequence today. If people are going to drag stuff up that is older than 1 year, then we should fast be considering a minimum of 12 months tenure and 10,000 edits for all candidates, but when we suggested such things at WP:RFA2011 all we got was flak. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

9. From Sigma's response, something happened on Conservapedia that was not vandalism but was "obviously inappropriate" (his words). I think it reflects badly on Wikipedia when our contributors use knowledge they gathered here about wiki-syntax, wikis' ethos, etc. to inappropriately subvert whatever other wikis are doing. It creates unnecessary resentment towards our projects and may lead to retaliation in kind against Wikipedia. Giving someone that does this stuff additional authority and power sends the wrong message. I don't know enough to oppose, but I'm not comfortable supporting.--Chaser (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
10. Neutral Definitely a good contributor, very likely will be a net positive as an admin. My concern is that admins should ideally have the ability to diplomatically discuss things with other users, and I'm not sure that I've seen the candidate do that. (Admittedly, this has been a failing of mine recently.) Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Mark, I think you can take off the hairshirt now. Best, Drmies (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Yes, time for self-flagellation is over. PumpkinSky talk 02:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

11. Moved from support to neutral - While Cunard's evidence was presented in a disruptive and unacceptable manner, there is still merit to it, enough for me to move from supporting to currently neutral. Extended content should have gone on the talk page as to not bludgeon the RfA. To not consider the evidence, however, would have been just as WP:POINTed as the way he presented it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
12. Also moved from support - too many issues have now been raised, but not enough for me to out-and-out oppose. GiantSnowman 19:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

    Regretfully moved from support as the issues appear to be bigger than I first thought.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Now that I think of it, I think Cunard is making logical fallacies by not considering the whole of the nominee's character.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

13. A username that doesn't help communications. As an admin you'll be communicating - or at least in some tasks, so I can't support. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 03:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
14. Neutral Good contributor, but the Conservapedia issue led me to neutral. Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 05:28, October 8, 2012 (UTC)

    Neutral - Moved from support, though I kind of regret it considering how much I disagree with some of the opposes. Unfortunately I don't feel right supporting someone who will be working in countervandalism, NPP, and the like who cannot adequately explain what 'vandalism' is. And yes, Sigma was vandalising Conservapedia. But as he also stopped vandalising it and seems to regret his actions, I don't really see that as a blocker here. I do, however, wish that those defending Sigma's actions could instead rise to his level of maturity and do as he has, or at very least not condone such behaviour on this wiki, as it is that which is the primary problem with such off-wiki behaviour - not the actually doing it in an individual capacity (although that still isn't very nice), but the encouraging of it as acceptable and tying it back to us as a community and a project. Those of you who in any Wikipedian capacity condone the vandalism of other projects should be ashamed of yourselves. You already shame us all by doing so. -— Isarra ༆ 06:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

    Meh, screw feeling right. That ain't right. -— Isarra ༆ 06:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

15. Neutral Although IRC is certainly separate from Wikipedia, I find that his actions unnecessarily link Wikipedia to trolling of Conservapedia, which could be of detriment to the community as a whole. This would be amplified should he become an admin. I'll look past that issue, and just say that those actions demonstrated a lack of foresight. His editing however has been reasonably mature as of late, and looking past these IRC issues I would support. However the fact he didn't think through the potential repercussions of those actions is somewhat troubling. Hence I am neutral. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
16. Neutral - My previous support was based on my interactions with the editor and the contribution through which I went through. However, I see some serious allegations of vandalising other Wiki. Few answers to questions were not what I'd have looked for. This generates some doubt in my mind about the editor's maturity. I was inclined to actually oppose this stand, however, the attempts of so called vandalising were performed some time back and there may have been some changes in the attitude. On the positive note, they have done amazing job on Wikipedia; awesome work at Coal Balls and apparently the best NPPer I've seen till now, which creates some sort of hope in the candidate. But still this is not enough for me to support the candidate anymore. You'd make a wonderful admin one day but not now in my eye. Best of luck and hope you'll stay (I'd love to support you in your next run few months later). TheSpecialUser ^TSU 17:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)