Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

Good idea

I agree with Maxim that a crat chat is the best course of action since this is an instance where the numbers are deceiving and properly weighing a number of !votes that were cast in opposition more against the way the RFA was started and less against the candidate puts this squarely into the discretionary range. As for the RFA itself, fwiw, I think there is a slight consensus in favor of promotion (even though I opposed). Regards SoWhy 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I firmly believe the 'crats should discount any April Fool's related opposes as it was repeatedly made clear by RexxS that he was serious about running. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

First, “how the RfA was started” was validated directly by the candidate, so they can not be separated. Next, anyone who voted oppose based entirely on a misconception had a week to alter that; if they didn’t, that suggests that they were still in the oppose camp. Qwirkle (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with SoWhy. The crats have the authority to assess the seriousness of votes if they so wish. Just because it's traditional to apply rigid boundaries doesn't mean that WP:NOTAVOTE and the Wikipedia version of WP:CONSENSUS doesn't apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thirded. xaosflux points it out well, but given that it is close to the discretionary range and there is a likelihood that some (!)votes may be scrutinzed somewhat more heavily, considering it as being in the discretionary zone is a good call. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(moved from main) I do think that some of the discussion was influenced by WP:FOOLS events, and as such some of the responses may need to be carefully evaluated to determine if they were genuinely contributing to the consensus building exercise. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS deserves to reap what they have sown. Further, this crat chat is certainly in error because the result is below the discretionary range. Like so many XfD delete !votes being ignored at WP:DRV, now we see our elected embarrassments discounting oppose votes (but never support votes). I expect some fairness to show up or there will have to be a reckoning. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

↑ This comment is an excellent example of the kind of "civility" that certain people demand of others but are not willing to model themselves. Name-calling, threats, glee at seeing someone get what they "deserve"; all of those could have been left out and you'd still have been able to make your point clearly. 28bytes (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's a fair criticism and I've struck portions of my comment. Do bureaucrats think so little of editors like me because of our comments, or are my comments reflective of my distaste at how the will of editors apparently means little to bureaucrats? As for RexxS, actions have consequences. I would've wished he'd've picked April 2nd. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for striking that. I wish he would have picked April 2 too. Anyway, whichever way the 'crats decide, dozens of editors will be disappointed if not outright angry. Whenever there's a binary choice like this, there's no way to avoid thwarting the will of (some of) the people; either the supporters or opposers will wind up being decided against, and there are a lot of both. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Certainly not all April Fool's related opposes should be discounted – many participants knew or didn't care that this was a serious request, but argued that the timing and cringeworthy nomination statement showed a lack of judgement, maturity and/or respect for the role. These are valid perspectives and its not within the 'crat's remit to dismiss them. – Joe (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, I opposed because of the way this as done, which to my mind shows a lack of good judgement. I certainly hope that doesn't cause the crats to deem my opinion invalid. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Starting the RfA on April 1 was a deliberate decision, and I wouldn't be too quick to assume it backfired entirely. Some people did feel it showed bad judgement (which is a valid reason to oppose); but most opposes, even the early ones, are based on other concerns, and presenting your mellow and humorous side can help if there are concerns about your temperament.

That said, it's true there are a couple votes in the oppose section sufficiently misguided that it would look worse for RexxS if those people were supporting him. Sideways713 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. Opposes should not be discounted merely because they matched the initial ridiculousness of the nomination. Any bureaucrat that wants to go down that road and somehow come to a conclusion that this nomination was successful needs to clearly point out each and every vote that they are ignoring. Then they should return to each of those users and advise them that this nomination wasn't a joke despite the appearance that it was and ask if they have anything else to add to it based on that. Anything less would lead me to seriously question the judgment of any bureaucrat. Nihlus 22:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s also worth noting that at about half of the neutral demivotes are, for all practical purposes, opposition to adminship at this time or from this RfA. When someone tells someone to come back in a year, that looks an awful lot like a softened way of stating opposition. Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I recommend that the closing 'crats consider the fallacy of Poisoning the well as it relates to discounting oppose votes because of the timing. Hhkohh's oppose is illustrative of what this distortion (intentional or not) has caused. It would have been better to listen to Reaper Eternal: to respond to WTT, the 'crats (probably) can see the silliness, but can the average consensus builder? Crazynas ^t 00:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am questionable of an edit: [1]. Cyberpower678 added a {{humor}} on RfA. Then Bish revert Cyberpower678 edit after 15 minutes Hhkohh (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

During 15 minutes, only Tavix cast an oppose vote Hhkohh (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't notice that. What I'm more concerned about is Avraham discounting: " five oppositions (if I counted correctly) that relate to the April 1st timing that were not subsequently expanded on." That is where the poison becomes an issue. Crazynas ^t 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hhkohh, since you pinged me I put it up there because the nom statement was/is too silly to be taken seriously, so I assumed it was another April Fools page. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"As for the RFA itself, fwiw, I think there is a slight consensus in favor of promotion (even though I opposed)." Conversely, I see no consensus, simply because the Oppose section is full of supports and opposers whacking each over the head and getting into entrenched arguments (even though I supported) - pretty much how Wizardman has called it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, even we can disagree from time to time. I think DQ and Primefac have summed up pretty neatly (and far more elegantly) why I think this is the case here. Regards SoWhy 07:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• If I ever had ambitions to run, this process has well and truly put me off. Knowing that crat chat is an even more bewildering crapshoot than the RfA itself isn't exactly encouraging. Suppose I ended up just a whisker above 75%. What assurance would I have that the bureaucrats won't "cheat" to get me into the discretionary range and then shoot me to bits in crat chat? Reyk _YO! 17:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  While 65-75% is generally accepted as a discretionary range, it's not a hard rule. Any RFA can theoretically end in a crat chat if there is a reason to assume the numbers might not reflect consensus correctly (like for example an influx of possible SPAs voting or a late surge of opposes that might not have been seen by previous supporters). So while I am pretty sure that crats will not "cheat" to get you or anyone below any such threshold, it's impossible to predict the outcome of any RFA in advance. Regards SoWhy 07:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's pretty obvious that if the bureaucrats decide to expand the discretionary range they'll look for reasons to justify doing that. If they round up, they'll look for reasons to promote the candidate. If they round down, they'll scramble and scrape around for reasons to shoot the candidate down. Perversely, a candidate has a better chance of getting the mop if they're at 64.5% than if they're at 75.5%. Just look at the crap reasons given for ripping up and throwing away opinions in the oppose section. I did not participate in this RfA but if I had, and had opposed, I'd probably now be annoyed to find my opinion dismissed as "weak" or "hypocritical". Especially after all the times in previous RfAs where we've been told to accept and nod sagely at genuinely trollish opposes. I'd be fucking livid. Nah, I don't think I can possibly have any confidence in the RfA process in future. Reyk _YO! 09:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Questionable idea

Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#C2:_Expand_discretionary_range_to_60% ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 passed with 63%. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  If I see correctly, that was a voluntary RfA by someone who did not need to have an RfA at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  It was 11 years ago. Was the discretionary range 65% then? This case seems clear cut to me. The community agreed a discretionary range lower limit of 65%. Not 64%. [2]. Discretion BEGINS at 65%. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  It was 70-75% then. The other thing is that now that there is a discussion the 'crats can discuss whether or not they even have discretion at this point. It doesn't mean that this is an automatic pass, but simply that they discuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Only two opposing comments need to be "discounted" to bring the result to 65% (via rounding). That seems likely (if only by fractions) to my untrained eye. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  Assuming no support !votes are discounted. – Joe (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  What supports could they be, Joe? ——SerialNumber54129 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  @Serial Number 54129: I'm not referring to any specific !votes. I'm saying we can't assume that weighting by the 'crats will only be in one direction. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  That’s certainly one way to look at it. Another is that when an RfA was shot down for, among other things, what looked like gaming the system, the fix is to game the system further. Qwirkle (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

SPI

There's the allegation raised by @Begoon: that Pppery is a sockpuppet of a banned user - that will need some further analysis since it has a contribution to the outcome of the RfA. Nick (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is presently at Pppery's talk page, if nowhere else. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

As well as discussion at oppose 68. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Centralizing/redirecting discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technical_13#08_April_2019. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Note, the SPI instance has been closed, result: unlikely. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The SPI report has now been archived. The CU and ArbCom investigation could not find any connection, and admins have weighed in stating that there isn't enough evidence to take action. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Don't we owe Pppery some kind of apology? For the record, I think RexxS acted really well here, pointing out on the SPI page that it seemed unlikely Pppery was Technical13 (e.g. showing "admin" type qualities and fairness). Pppery has 3 years and thousands of edits on Wikipedia in very technical (e.g. much appreciated) areas. His talk page is full of "thank-yous", and even barnstars from very senior editors. It would be a major shame if Pppery packed it in on the basis of his treatment at this RfA, which was "full-on" in my view. Britishfinance (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'm not in a position to presume whether an apology is owed to anyone but the very nature of being an editor on Wikipedia is to be able to take shit when it's thrown at you, and have the dignity to not throw it back - a one-sided dung fighting, if that sounds better. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think Ppery got more than just shit thrown at him, he got taken out to the nearest tree and a noose put around his neck. I can't think of many editors who would have taken what he faced and responded so calmly and with dignity. I do think he deserves more from WP; he has already moved his status to semi-retired. Britishfinance (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

!vote trends

I find this graph most interesting. I've followed most RFAs post-2014, and I can't seem to recall another that dropped to below 60% before recovering significantly. At the very least, I think this suggests that candidates should not be too quick to withdraw if they receive some early opposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

That may be because post-2014 is a relatively small dataset. Back in the days of five RFAs per week, this was a fairly common pattern when the candidate was active enough in contentious areas to have accumulated enemies; all the people who'd taken a dislike to the candidate would have the RFA redlink watchlisted in anticipation (ten years on and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 3 still has 38 watchers), so you'd get an initial pile-on of opposes, before more reasoned editors arrived to assess the candidate neutrally. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Following the low of 59.5%, it peaked at 66.7% and ended at 64.1%. That's a min-max increase of 12.1% (7.2 percentage points) and a min-final increase of 7.7% (4.6 percentage points). Put another way, opposition after the peak of 40.5% dropped to 33.3% and ended at 35.9%. That's a max-min decrease of 17.8% (7.2 percentage points) and a max-final decrease of 11.4% (4.6percentage points). None of that means anything, but just to save any curious folks the math. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Iridescent: True, it is a small dataset, but it also covers most of the RFAs that have seen the extremely demanding standards !voters have applied of late. I suspect that more recent RFAs would have seen this pattern, had they been allowed to run for seven days. I have no way of checking, of course. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary range

While I do agree that 65% is not a rigid boundary, I believe that it was by community's will that the 65-70% was made to be put under bureaucrat discretion, previously it might not have been considered at all. Noting again, that bureaucrats have the discretionary range of whatever they choose, I think it's just unfair to anyone who might have stood before and failed due to just falling of an arbitrary discretionary range, Jbhunley's RfA being a prime example (with much less opposition). I think it's important for crats to set an uniform standard. If RexxS were to be granted adminship, I would probably not have any qualms, I very much doubt they will bring the entire site down but again, the crats have upheld higher standards before. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• Where does it say here [3] or anywhere else that 65% is not in fact a rigid starting point? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  The general discretionary range was 70-75% (and sometimes lower, depending on the RfA) and that became the assumed convention. If you read WP:RFA, it states, generally it is within that range, which implies it's pretty much crats who decide the range. The RfC was only sort of a binding agreement that now all RfAs above 65% (&&<75%) will have to go to crat chat, it doesn't state that crats cannot exercise their discretion below 65%, because it wasn't stipulated before, or now. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  QEDK, Speaking as a failed RfA candidate, mine failed at 74%. Doesn’t bother too much. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It didn't fail, you withdrew it, presumably because you weren't bothered about passing and wanted to avoid a bunfight at the crat chat talk page. I'm certain both of those actions were considered admirable and helped RfA#2 win by a landslide. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, you are right. It was to avoid the bun fight.  :-) Withdrawing is still an unsuccessful nomination though. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Unsuccessful but not equivalent in this context since we don't know whether having kept it open longer could've gotten you over the mark of 75 and made an ensuing crat chat unnecessary. I was speaking of where crat chats determined no consensus with arguably more of a consensus than this RfA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

As someone might have said once, "The code of RfA is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

Keen students of Wikipedia's history might recall there have been several RfAs closed as sucessful, even when the votes fell outside the mandated "discretionary" range. Discount an opposition voter here, downweight an opposition reason there, and you can soon persuade yourself than an "establishment" candidate has to become an admin, even if the poor deluded voters cast their votes the wrong way. Consensus is in the eye of the beholder. But bureaucrats making such decisions have often created considerable bad feeling that has lasted for years afterwards.

I can only recall one RfA closed as successful with more opposition than this (someone may be able to dig out others). If someone has the time, there is a research project to be had, working out whether (or not) things turn out well for admins who'd attract such a large amount of opposition at RfA. Shall we make a list while we wait for the black or white smoke? 213.205.240.247 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Anyone remember the last time enough support votes were discounted that an RFA above the hard upper limit of the discretionary range failed? Yeah, me neither. —Cryptic 01:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Cryptic, haven't there been RfAs where a discovery / observation made in opposition near the end of the week of scrutiny led to a significant drop in support – and the 'crats have used another of their discretions to extend the time frame to see if the drop in support actually led to a reversal of the outcome? I'm sure I've read about it, but it may have been a theoretical discussion. In any case, it is an option available to 'crats to see if a sudden change in the oppose rate would lead earlier supporters to reconsider, so that they would not need to discount supports. This might not be the exact scenario you imagine, but it seems to me that it is equivalent in effect. EdChem (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not equivalent, crats take their time to close any RfA to allow for anyone who might have held off until the last moment to get their vote in, maybe make a difference. I've seen them leave it open for a long time sometimes, to allow some RfA to go above the 75% range so they don't have to intervene or 65%, so they can intervene, which is correct, since this is a candidacy for adminship. Cryptic is right in the sense that supports don't get discounted to make numerical comparisons, even if the vote might be a signature, but that's probably because anyone above 75% is supposed to have passed anyway, while anyone below it is in the discretionary range. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK:} I wouldn't say that is normal practice, and I've been on the receiving end of the hurry up and close that RfA you 'crats!!! discussion before. I've never "held it open" in hopes the tally will change and I'm not aware of any recent evidence that any other crats have. Do you have any examples of this? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: There was one particular RfA that was left open for a while, caused a bit of a ruckus too, ended unsuccessfully though (will have to dig it up if a link is necessary). And, I wasn't trying to say the 'crats left it open in the hopes that the tally would change but I just followed human logic that the reason it's not ended as soon as it expires probably due to the fact that the 'crats want the last votes to get in before making a decision, and a corollary of that is what I said, since at 65% and 75% thresholds are the only place where it really makes any difference. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@QEDK: You may be thinking of Cla68's RfA, which was extended because of fresh concerns that emerged near to its scheduled end time, if I recall correctly. The ruckus was over the BADSITES issue, I believe. --RexxS (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, @QEDK:, the RfA page does say that. Biblioworm added the wording that "in general, RfAs that finish between 65–75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats" to the RfA header on 30 December 2015. However, in the actual RfC question or closing statement there was nothing about the range being non-rigid or it being just a "in general" principle. So this wording is just a personal version of Biblioworm and it does not represent the actual RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Pudeo: WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS. Furthermore, the RfC addressed expansion of the discretionary range to 65-75%, not that now the lower limit is 65% and any lower is a non-discretionary failure. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

92 oppose votes

The 92 oppose votes posted in this RfA is the second highest number received in any RfA during the past eight years. There should be a very strong showing at the crat chat to overturn such a historic level of opposition. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Even if one discounts a handful of !votes, the opposition is still very high from an historical perspective. And some of the opposing comments were vehement. And then we need to consider the large number of editors, who though they did not place themselves in the oppose column, nonetheless felt the need to post in the neutral section explaining why they were unable to pull the trigger in support of this candidate. When weighing it all up, if I were a crat, I would take a very deep breath before declaring a consensus to promote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

The number of votes is only of significance in relation to other factors-the number of supports, the total number of votes, for a couple of examples. A number has very little significance unless it is considered within context. Crat consensus should be respected; hopefully they won't feel threatened by the community. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Your comment assumes that the default position of the bureaucrat chat is to "overturn" the opposition. It is not. It's function is to determine the consensus of the candidacy. In addition, if a "very strong showing" of bureaucrats is needed to "overturn" then by that same logic a "very strong showing" is needed to close it as no consensus, too. As Littleolive oil has said, the sheer amount of votes isn't as significant as one thinks; after all, 164/92/15 becomes 82/46/8 when roughly halved and the numbers don't look as big even though the percentage is the same. And let's not forget that consensus and strength of argument come into play, not just raw numbers. Acalamari 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’ve only been able to skim the RfA, with an eye to returning tomorrow for a deeper dive. As far as I can see nearly all opposition centres around temperament and civility concerns. Were there any other major point of contention? –xeno^talk 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  I did vote for Rexx, as a disclaimer. I think it's worth looking at the diffs which are supposed to indicate incivility. I did, in my early days, have a disagreement with him but I'd say he was blunt and straightforward rather than uncivil. There may be others the same. Also diffs of incivility might be taken in context of both the discussions and in relation to the time he was not uncivil, patient helpful and generous in a very long career. If I hadn't been familiar with him I might think there was a concentration of incivility rather than a collection of diffs collected together to look like a greater concentration than they were. Those who deal in contentious situations and who have been around for along time cannot be compared to someone who is newer and does not deal with the hard stuff. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Apologies if I've commented when I shouldn't. I didn't realize you were addressing another bureaucrat. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not at all- It was a general question. Thank you for your input. –xeno^talk 00:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Xeno. As per my vote in this RFA, I'd like to encourage you and your fellow 'crats to treat every diff you see in the votes as you would if you were wearing your now-retired Arbitrator hat; many of you are past or current arbitrators, so I think you'll know what I mean, but I'll explain more thoroughly for other readers. Don't just look at the diff; look at what came before, and what comes after - the result of the discussion, how recent the event (e.g., should anything prior to 2 years ago be discounted?) and so on. I'd also suggest that the bureaucrat team closely follow the SPI mentioned above; the results of that investigation (it's not going to be a simple one, so it may take a while) are important since so many votes are "per X" in the oppose section. I won't presume to foretell the outcome of that SPI - I've recused on it as a CU - but I'm really not sure what happens when many votes (in either direction) turn out to be linked to the vote of a sockpuppet. Let's just say that I hope that your team doesn't feel a crushing urge to close this off quickly. RexxS. waited this long to run his RFA, I'm sure he can handle a few more days for a result that has a high degree of confidence. Risker (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    Risker, or they can ignore all the smoke and mirrors you wish to throw their way and use their heads to come to the obvious conclusion. Let them decide on reason instead of emotion. Nihlus 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Well, that's pretty much what I'm hoping they will do, Nihlus. I get that many find my personal expectations to be unrealistic, however. Mind you, it's entirely consistent with what I've said bureaucrats ought to be doing; that is, weighing the votes rather than just looking at them superficially. We might just as well have bots closing RFAs. As a community, we expect more of administrators closing XfDs than we do of bureaucrats closing RFAs, and always have. I have little hope that they'll actually do what I've expected for years, but then I've been disappointed for years, too. Risker (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

      And I am sure we've both been disappointed in them but for different reasons. The bar continues to be pushed lower and lower when it comes to what some consider "successful" consensus, and it has lead to some rather tragic successful RfAs in the past year or so. Hell, even one I supported because I felt they would become better turned out to be mistake. Consensus should be about what they've done rather than one they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the near or not so near future. The community gets one shot at determining who can become an admin, but anything that admin does after is beyond their control. Nihlus 03:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

      That's a pretty strong thing to say about successful RFA candidates, Nihlus. I went back to the beginning of 2017 and found only one that passed with a support level below 70%, and I've not be aware of any complaints about that individual. If that's not the "bar" you are talking about - and given the context, it's the only obvious bar related to RFA - then I think you need to clarify. Otherwise you're smearing an awful lot of administrators as being "tragic". Risker (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

      Risker, I've no intention of naming names as that is entirely irrelevant to the point I am making. Further, "some" does not mean "an awful lot," unless you wish to infer a meaning that is not there. Nihlus 04:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

      Your statement above tars them all with the same brush, whether they succeeded with 99% or were at the low end of the discretionary range, Nihlus. That's worse than naming names. Please reconsider your words, because that's just plain mean. Risker (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

      I will not as it does not tar them with any brush, so, please, stop making my comment bigger than it is. Your escalation of rhetoric is unhelpful and unwanted. Thanks. Nihlus 04:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The RfAs that Nihlus supported in the past 12 months that passed are Sro23 "Should have happened a while ago.", Justlettersandnumbers "Additionally, the opposes are unconvincing", Sir Sputnik "The concerns about content creation are overblown and, frankly, irrelevant." and Enterprisey "Easiest vote in recent memory". I can't think of anything to object over, except possibly that Sro23 probably shouldn't call a banned user a twat, even bowlderdised, but that's really picking nits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Nope. TAWT stands for The abominable Wiki troll. Sro23 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah right. I didn't know that, and given the human's brain to perceive words even when the letters are in the wrong order ... you can guess the rest. Anyway, my point stands that that is a silly and spurious reason to claim that "even one I supported because I felt they would become better turned out to be mistake". Anyway, I think I've worked out that Nihlus is actually talking about Lourdes, ^[4] and more specifically User talk:Lourdes#Edit warring, and even more specifically "I personally suggest that you tone down your crusade against the phrase "fuck off" for the time being as it is seriously clouding your judgment." and "Excuse you? I get off of my computer for the night and you want to turn around and call me ignorant for not responding to you fast enough? Are you serious? This is laughable coming from an "administrator" edit warring before discussing and while a discussion is taking place." Discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

😄 Ritchie, I am actually sorry for toying with him. He's aggressive, but I guess his intent is in the right place. Lourdes 14:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Except it's not intent which makes a difference in the real world though. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It also means that complaining that "The bar continues to be pushed lower and lower", and then citing an WP:RFX200 candidate passing with 99% support, is somewhat strange. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• • Risker You appear to imply above that incivility to banned users is not worthy reason to oppose? Is that what you meant? Cause if the candidate did say what they said: why would it matter who they said it to? Crazynas ^t 05:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    You're putting words in my mouth, Crazynas. My comment was that I don't know how the 'crats would parse the vote of a banned user and any other "per x" votes that appear to follow it. And I still don't really know. There was a point in time where someone accused checkusers of routinely scanning RFAs for "socks" but that wasn't the reality then and it isn't now; however, it might have been helpful if the SPI had been filed sooner, regardless of the outcome of this particular RFA, since the allegation appears to have been on the minds some people even before the RFA started. Risker (talk) 21:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    Risker, I'd suggest if it is found that a banned user managed to influence the outcome of the RfA (which they did if the SPI report finds that pppery is Technical 13 then users are given 24-48hrs to review their votes where the RfA would be re-opened including to brand new votes. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    We're not about to re-open an RfA. Maxim_(talk) 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    Maxim, I understand it would be highly unprecedented but I think crats should monitor the situation and if a banned user's actions affected the result then the potential effect of that and how that influenced votes should be looked at. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed a head-scratcher: there are experienced editors, including admins, both opposing and supporting, and some in support and in opposition seem to have had directly opposed experiences of the candidate's willingness to consider arguments on the other side. However, another way to view the numbers is that throughout the RfA, as editors made support votes, others steadily made oppose votes, and while the percentage climbed into the discretionary range in the latter part of the week, it then declined again and continued to do so until the end, despite continuing large participation. Since the reason we have enshrined civility as a policy is that in a diverse volunteer community, individuals will have differing perceptions and tolerances, I would urge the crats not to discount the votes of those who shared personal experiences that they found had a chilling effect, in addition to the arguments of those who made arguments weighing civility/temperament concerns more seriously than those in support. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't believe any opinion should, or would, be discounted, but I felt a number of the civility/temperament/behavioural example didn't really stand up to scrutiny, and a couple appeared to me more uncivil than some of the diffs provided. One editor opposed on the basis that RexxS accused him of posting a "lie", then in a self fulfilling prophecy included a not-quite-factual statement in their rationale. Surprised no one opposed on the basis he has long hair (at least never declared such) Would be quite entertaining if it wasn't a tragic reflection of RFA's dysfunctionality. No wonder some admins are opposed to recall; if they were to fight for the integrity of the encyclopaedia to half the degree this guy does, they'd all lose their tools. ClubOranje^T 12:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: I believe you have it the wrong way round. To promote a candidate in a borderline case—falling below the discretionary range, and with several experienced editors arguing both for and against considering the candidate as having demonstrated an undesirable temperament for adminship—would set a precedent for discounting civility concerns, especially in the reference to a numerical minority—any reason given in either a support or an oppose is unlikely to be cited by more than a minority of participants, and if we are to regard RfA as a discussion not a vote (it seems to me that outside of the discretionary range it long ago passed into "vote with discussion to sway others"), counting percentages mentioning one issue against a numerical yardstick seems inimical. Also the allusion to a grandfather clause surprises me as it implies we have earlier admins who are recognized as being uncivil/abusive, which is an insult to them; in any case if that were the perception, it would make all the more concerning a candidate in today's environment, when the Pillars have been established as policies, being perceived as uncivil. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Pass this RfA

I've been away for a few weeks and I saw this RfA just a couple of hours ago. If I had seen it when it was still open, I would have certainly supported it.

RexxS is an experienced editor of more than 11 years. He has a strong history of contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He has never been blocked. He works hard to make Wikipedia more accessible. He already holds almost every user right it's possible to have without actually being an admin, including template editor which he has used well and which requires a very high degree of trust.

I got rid of my "admin criteria" long ago in favor of the only thing that should really count: Is this editor a net positive? If RexxS doesn't qualify, I don't know who does.

I proposed the new 65-75% discretionary range that has now become crucial in this RfA. Some people who opposed that proposal at the time are now arguing the most vehemently for its precise enforcement down to the last percentage point. But Wikipedia has only guidelines, not laws. If some "rule" gets in the way of doing what makes sense, it should be ignored. Even if you insist on being so legalistic about it, Rexx's support reaches 65% once you discount the silliest oppose votes and the possible sock vote. The bulk of the opposition is a one-issue obsession with a couple of diffs.

More fundamentally, what good reason is there for the opposition to count 2 to 3 times more than the support? Even a 2/3 requirement is quite ludicrous. Keep things in perspective. Wikipedia is just a website. Adminship is just a few extra menus and links. We're not amending the U.S. Constitution. There is a very little an admin can do that cannot be undone. This place takes itself way too seriously.

Are we going to show such a lack of respect for Rexx's long history of service and throw out his candidacy just because some people can't tolerate a little humor? Or because of something like 0.01% of his 33,710 total diffs as an editor? As it is, we're already on track for another record-low year at RfA. Again.

Enough already. Bureaucrats, please take a stand for sanity and pass this RfA.

Biblio (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

There is a very little an admin can do that cannot be undone. In terms of technical changes, this is correct. In terms of scaring off newbies and wearing down experienced editors until they reach breaking point, these are very much actions that cannot be undone. We all have responsibility in making sure we don't act like this but admins have significantly more responsibility than non-admins. (This is a general comment, not intended to be specific to the candidate.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

While I'm very sympathetic to Biblioworm's argument, the fact is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley was closed as "no consensus", under broadly similar circumstances but with a substantially higher support percentage. I don't think that was the right call either; but given that closure, I don't see how this can be any different. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

In that crat chat, there was very little mention of vote numbers or percentages; more mention of the opposition having two grounds (lack of content and conduct) and being "clear and unified", while supporters had "reservations". Leviv ich 04:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

More fundamentally, what good reason is there for the opposition to count 2 to 3 times more than the support? The fact that this is not a vote. On Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity, but it implies something approaching unanimity. When a third of the participants explicitly object to an outcome, there must be extraordinary circumstances to find a consensus for that outcome.

As for the rest, I trust the 'crat's won't give any more weight to this attempted supervote than to the views of those who gave a reasoned oppose. – Joe (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I am exceptionally disappointed to see this admin urge the Bureaucrats to ignore the opposition, heck, ignore the entire discussion "and pass this RfA." That is an attempt at a practice to be decried; i trust that such behaviour is not to be found in any of the admin's own closures. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep things in perspective. Wikipedia is just a website. Adminship is just a few extra menus and links. Tell that to someone that has spent countless of volunteer hours here and is unfairly sanctioned and abused by an uncivil admin (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda). Adminship is a big deal to us ordinary editors, and behavior like civility are big concerns. --Pudeo (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Diff count fallacy

I need to point out that if as many as 1% of RexxS's edits had been flagged here by opposers, that would be no less than 300 diffs in a one-week RfA. How many diffs is it reasonable to expect opposers to produce in order to fairly represent a long-term editor's history? There are editors here with >100,000 edits. So these arguments that are effectively, "what a tiny sample of the corpus of his work", are fallacious, because if we take them seriously that means that there is some edit number that will make an editor impossible to oppose in an RfA because it would take too many diffs. I would suggest supporters/RfA reformers take a different track, and start an RfC that puts an expiration date on diffs. That would be a valid way to make RfA's feasible for long-term editors. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The request for more diffs isn't about getting more evidence for its own sake. It's about establishing whether a particular incident was a one-off or part of a pattern. Everyone has bad days; if we expected perfection, we'd have no admins left. The question to ask at RFA isn't "was the candidate uncivil that one time?" it's "is the candidate uncivil on a regular basis?" Answering the latter question in the affirmative requires more diffs. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with that. But if that's what people are intending to say, then that is what they should say, without implying that an RfA from someone with 30,000 edits needs more diffs than someone with 10,000 edits. Geogene (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

"Discounting weak opposes"

@Avraham: Why are you discounting weak opposes yet ignoring the more numerous weak supports? Nihlus 04:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I was not discounting oppositions without supports, even though that is the accepted tradition. I discounted the April 1st only opposes and the fisked oppose. And discounted still gave > 50% weight. Lastly, that was combined with the other points I mentioned. It is the three in combination (range of supports, community mandate, and discounting clearly sub-standard oppositions by a haircut) which informed my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I should clarify, I am inquiring about this statement: If the weak opposes are discounted from full value, this RfA would cross the 65% threshold. Am I not to read it as ignoring the weak supports? Because it would be false if you discounted them as well. Thanks. Nihlus 04:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear. When I say "weak opposes" I don't mean how people prefaced their support or oppose; I meant the handful of oppositions I identified as substandard as being disproven or based solely on a WP:POINT concern. There are no analogues among the supports. My apologies for any unintended confusion. -- Avi (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Nihlus 04:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, which oppose do you consider fisked? I do agree (and suspect most oppose voters would agree) that at least one oppose was based entirely on an incident where the opposer himself was 100% at fault; and if you're applying the description to that oppose I have no objection to it. But if you're applying it to Wbm1058's oppose I don't think it's an appropriate label; yes, it was cherry-picking quotes and taking them out of context, but the same goes equally for the rebuttal. Sideways713 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Avraham, I would say I'm absolutely satisfied by the way you've explained your assessment. The point Nihlus raises above is valid; and I would probably say thanks to them for putting the question as it was the same question in my mind. Thanks for giving the exhaustive explanation. Lourdes 06:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Given this logic, why write something that might be disprovable or taken as pointy when you can just put "#'''Support''' ~~~~" like #s 27, 28, 44, 103, 120, 138, and 149 did, or something equally empty like #82? What, precisely, would a discountable support vote look like? Even explicit "moral support"s for a candidate under 50% at the time it was written have been weighted at full face value in cratchats in the past. —Cryptic 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  While it's always better to provide a rationale for any opinion, accepted tradition is that naked supports are considered per nom where naked opposes are not. That is why providing a rationale is more important for an oppose opinion. Naked opposes aren't discounted out of hand, but well-reasoned opposes (and there were many here) have greater impact in helping to determine consensus. Anyway, one can oppose per User:X (e.g. #45) and those will usually be treated as User X would be. To address a particular issue, in general if someone thinks that a user violates WP:POINT on a regular basis, that's as good a reason as any to oppose. In this particular case, there were a scant handful of people who used POINT to oppose by considering the entire nomination a joke that was eventually turned real. I don't think that is what happened; rather, some self-deprecating humor (which may have fallen flat) was used but the nomination was always intended to be real. Therefore, I don't think those are as strong opposes as the civility opposition. Weighting them as less than one full oppose each gets this into the 65% zone. So the combination of the three elements I list on the chat page is guiding my thinking. Of course, I expect many to disagree; I know at least two bureaucrats do as of now . Maybe they will be overwhelmed by my logic tomorrow; maybe they will explain and I will be overwhelmed by theirs. That's why we have discussions and not just "statements of bureaucrat opinions". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  These are !votes and unless made in obvious bad faith they should not be cherry picking "out" so-called "weak" opposes to disregard, any more than the numerous wordless supports. The community set the discretionary benchmark at 65% for a chat. This was 64% so it is not clear where the additional discretion is allowed. What was the point in specifying 65% if random crats' can call it at lower than 65%? Maybe it should be better described as "65% ish." Leaky caldron (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You do realize that "!vote" means "nonvote", right? The whole point of calling it a "!vote" is that the strict numerical tally doesn't matter, and that the underlying argument is all that matters, just like in any other discussion. Suggesting that crats should rigidly abide by "!vote" tallies and not factor in strength of arguments is very straightforwardly paradoxical and nonsensical. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I realise everything, "right?" and you calling my opinion nonsensical makes not one bit of difference and I suggest you keep your carefree insults to yourself, thanks. That fact is that that the community set a discretionary limit of 65% which replaced the previous arrangements. There is no "strength of argument" in 75% of the supports in any RfA. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The community did not introduce 65% as an absolute rule. It replaced the old 75/70% boundary with 65%. Nothing in the discussions around that change established an expectation that bureaucrats would treat an RfA that ended up just short of the new marker any differently than they would ones that fell just short of the old marker. If someone wishes to introduce a hard rule that >65% = automatic no consensus, you will need to have that approved by the community via an RfC. WJBscribe (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You mean "<65% - automatic no consensus" and yes, that is exactly what my interpretation of the RFC is. For exactly this reason, to prevent 'crats having to put there own interpretation on matters. The discretionary range is big enough without 'crat added fuzziness at the bottom end. It was supposed to bring an end to this sort of situation. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Advocating for strict vote counting over weighing strength of arguments goes against every basic and overarching community ideal relating to consensus that has ever been established. You may not like it, and you may even call it "insulting" to dismiss such an argument as nonsensical, but that is the truth. Your argument quite literally does not make sense in the context of Wikipedia norms and values. We do factor in "vote count" or "percentages" in determining consensus. It would be a lie to suggest that we didn't, just as it would be a lie to assume that the percentages don't matter at RfA. But to argue that vote counting trumps strength of arguments, now that truly is nonsensical by every standard we have ever established. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:42, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I'm in agreement with Nihlus. Many of the early supports contain statements similar to "I can't tell if this is a joke". The !votes of those who didn't come back to clarify their support (though some did) should be given less weight as their !votes were not based on solid information ("is this RfA genuine?") and had the user unequivocally known that the RfA was serious then they would have almost certainly given their !vote more thought or researched the candidate in more detail, though of course they may have come to the same conclusion. In contrast, the five opposes which are based around the RfA starting on April 1 are nothing of this sort—they are by users who think that starting a serious RfA on April Fools' Day is an indicative act of immaturity which demonstrates that a candidate is unfit for the mop. I disagree with this but why should their opinions be discounted? They are based on full knowledge that the RfA was serious, and relate to a quality required for adminship (maturity). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Also, supports along the lines of "we've met him face-to-face and we know he's a good sort" – though this may well be perfectly true – should be discounted as of little relevance to admin tasks, which are carried out online on a keyboard. You see something similar with some car drivers: nice as pie when you meet and have a friendly chat, but get them alone at the controls and they can become aggressive and horrible. RfA judgements should be based on the record of online contributions: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  We can't make this kind of suggestion. We can't take an argument to some fictional point and imply this kind of behavior is a possibility. And we shouldn't be threatening either. (Not directed at Bhunacat). Just no and beyond the pale. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’m in agreement with Nihlus, Leaky caldron, Bilorv and Bhunacat10. ‘Crats, please speedily close this as no consensus, as we have slipped into pathos. Jusdafax (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  We are not going to speedy close a discussion in which opinion is currently split 50/50 in favour of either position. WJBscribe (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I did not participate in the RfA, and if I were speaking personally, I think I would like RexxS' RfA to sail through but it did not. Virtually, all the opposes have weight because 1) the diffs are recent; 2) the opinions are strongly held; 3) the neutral section backs up the opposes; 4) It's RexxS who decided to run the RfA his way, and the opposes are plainly reasonable in taking the application for admin, itself, into account in judgement and temperament, especially when the issue is around so-called, maybe, joke to protect candidate ego (Admins who do odd things with ego issues? Come now.). WP:CONSENSUS still does hold out unanimity as the most desirable state of affairs, and we are not even close, here, and barring unanimity that all reasoned concerns be addressed by the outcome itself is what WP:CONSENSUS is. In RfA, there is a very well processed way for actual WP:CONSENSUS to be achieved, and it is second, even third or fourth RfA. The present RfA, though, has not reached wp:consensus or real consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Your last sentence is the exact question being discussed. There is clearly disagreement among wikipedia editors, and there will always be. We are not going to please everyone; we are trying to perform our duty as we best can, understanding that everyone involved, including the bureaucrats, are flawed humans. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  My last sentence follows from all the preceding sentences. Duty? The community explicitly rejected lowering the discretionary range to between 60% and 65%. Do you think the community is unaware of human failings? There is no reason to think the community is not well aware of human failings, and does not wish, 'doing duty' in response, when they have rejected it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Hi, Alan. Please see Scribe's comments above. Furthermore, these discussions not being pure numerical votes is a much older and more well-entrenched principle than 2015. I have made an argument that this discussion does pass the newly revised community range for consensus; other bureaucrats disagree. You clearly disagree. However, with enough time, I hope to be convinced to change, convince others to change, or have bureaucrats who have not chimed in yet to support one side or the other. -- Avi (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  It's the community who expressly decided the percentages, not you, nor any bureaucrat. Your defense is bureaucrats are fallible, so, it is perfectly reasonable that the community would try to ameliorate bureaucrat's fallibility by expressly rejecting lowering to between 65 and 60, not to mention a large part of the support for lowering it to 65 was actually for 66%. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)And I have made the argument that this request passes those limits. We will agree to disagree, I guess. I mean the following in all serious, if you feel that the current class of bureaucrats do not reflect the consensus of Wikipedia, you have two options. First, you may open an RfC to help even better clarify what you feel needs it. Second, undergo an RfB and help shape these discussions. We have lost a number of bureaucrats due to inactivity; the project will benefit from intelligent discourse from those who have its best interest at heart. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Odd, that you want the community to adopt and reject proposals and when the community does you find reason not to follow them. So what if a person runs promising to follow the community's considered judgement and then does not. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• WJBScribe: 1%? The community gives 65%, and several candidates this year, alone, have been able to comfortably manage well above it. They have been able to manage with 80% or greater. Do some here think that is some kind of miracle? It is not. Have you looked at the RfC? The community explicitly rejected 60 to 65%, entirely, because you have already all the discretion you need below 70%, no need to go grasping for more. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

New section, lads

I don’t come out of hiding much and probably have little to no say in what goes on around here. But if you really think RexxS cannot be trusted with “the tools”, then what is all this about? There are few users more dedicated to the project, and he shouldn’t be denied over a couple of cross words. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Joining you in coming out of hiding. I've frequently disagreed with RexxS, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether he can be trusted with tools. He's dedicated to this project, as my sister-in-hiding above mentions, eminently trustworthy, has clue, is mature, and yeah, like a lot of us, sometimes grouchy. He garnered support from editors who admitted to disagreeing with him, which says something. My feeling is that if we are to put the project first, then it's the RexxS's of the place we want as admins. FWIW. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Liz and Victoria, may I join you in the women's corner?

This user trusts RexxS
(pictured, and it
doesn't matter who he is)
to be an admin.
I had the same trust first
in 28bytes (2011),
and - best remembered -
in Opabinia regalis,
and in some others
who also didn't disappoint me.

I posted the above on my talk on the last day the RfA was open, but think the picture of the candidate and some people who supported might be better here than in my archives. The message this whole process sends me is: you better be a saint if you want to be acceptable without reservations for the cleaning job on Wikipedia. I don't know what can be done to heal that. Listen to the woman bureaucrat? Listen to those who recused because they voted. Thoughts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Well said, Gerda Arendt. It is so easy to forget, with online interactions, that there is a human being on the other end of the wire. People say things on Facebook, Twitter, and indeed here as well, that they would never dream of saying if they were face-to-face with the person in a room. I didn't participate in the RfA but from the evidence presented RexxS looks to me like a committed experienced Wikipedian who knows the ropes, wants the best for the project, and yes, occasionally loses his cool. That's certainly regrettable, but as noted in the crat chat, that is the only major issue levelled against him in the RfA. And, to use a religious allegory in a secular context, perhaps the person who is without sin should be the one to cast the first stone? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the last, - it was last Sunday's gospel, and I thought of this situation, but didn't want to preach ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I would just be offended if the bar didn't have Guinness. --qedk (t 桜 c) 12:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

No clear 'crat consensus

It seems odd that this RfA, still being considered despite being below the community agreed range for discretionary discussion, could be decided by a majority of 1 'Crat. support / no-consensus opinion. Surely there should be broader agreement among 'crats rather than a simple majority? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@WJBscribe, Avraham, and Xaosflux: I'm not sure if it's simple majority or this consensus needs a supermajority, the 'crats know better. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Keep in mind, that just like the RfA itself, the 'crat-chat is also not a "vote" - as some of the analysis are presented, 'crats can change their mind - or just acknowledge that while they think the consensus is in one direction, the strengths of the discussion in the other direction are stronger. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict):We are having a discussion now. It may be that the next bureaucrat to chime in will provide persuasive enough arguments for one of us to change our minds. It has hapened before. We are trying to distil a discussion into our best understanding of the communities consensus, which will not necessarily be the understanding of any one or a dozen editors. But that is what we are tasked to do, and that is how we approach it. We try to be as open as possible in our explanations to allow for constructive criticism and comment from other editor. We value the constructive criticism on this page. Those who opine later have the benefit of reading earlier responses. Those who opine earlier want the benefit of the later responses. We understand that dragging this out isn't the best for RexxS or Wikipedia, but we respect the charge and the trust the community has given us, and we want to be faithful stewards thereof. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• As I've queried below, if it's a close call and an equal number of crats support and oppose (or even if it's slightly positive either way), would the closing crat use a simple crat-vote count to decide or would the closing crat try and read consensus amongst the comments of crats (and probably promote the candidate even if a simple majority of crats voted not to promote)? Lourdes 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'd hope we would talk it out enough until we believe that we have distilled the consensus or lack thereof. If that is impossible, I believe that we consider that if we cannot come to a consensus as to whether or not the community came to a consensus, there is no consensus and the candidate does not get access to the toolkit. -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Supervoting

Is it just me, or do some of the comments from 'crats saying civility concerns can be ingored feel like supervotes? Take this for example "As there was really only one concern raised about the candidate, I’d argue that this tips the scale in their favour. A single issue is easier to remedy, monitor, or address. In matters of civility, aministrators are held to a higher standard; the candidate is now “on notice”, and has committed to examine their own behaviour and make changes." Calidum 15:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• When it's a borderline case, any stand of any crat (for promotion or not) may probably be seen as a supervote by editors supporting a stand opposite to that of the crat. What would take the cake is when we have an equal number of crats supporting and opposing the candidate. Would a crat then summarize the comments of other crats and say that despite an equal number supporting and opposing, they see consensus to promote because they view some of the crat comments as not being backed with good reasoning (and therefore these crat comments carry lesser weight) and that consensus was never about numbers?! Heh. Lourdes 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I see that my oppose has been called "cherry-picking" and that some view my cherries as having been "fisked" (a term I had to look up). Well, when I was composing it, I thought that pointing to half a dozen noticeboard discussions, all of them quite lengthy, was sufficient, and a felt a little badly when I added a couple more for good measure to drive home the point. In another RfA someone commented about my oppose something to the effect "that must set a new record for the longest opposing statement." If you don't feel that I've picked enough cherries, you should know that I stopped looking for them and left several pages of noticeboard search results unexamined. The signal you are sending is, "next time you should work on filling your entire basket with cherries; you never know for sure whether you have found enough, even if you think you have." Even if you personally think the score is 49–0, keep your starters in the game, keep piling on the points, in case they "discount" or "fisk" some of your points. I don't think this approach would be helpful towards improving the "toxic" or "hazing" nature of the process.

  ...But maybe all the piling on of excess civility points is pointless. Now we have a new bureaucrat openly spitting on the civility pillar. That clearly signals that I should stop picking cherries because these cherries, depite their figurehead presence in the "pillars", simply do not matter. I could pick three dozen more, and they would still just be "cherries". We all know there are only certain cultivars of cherries that matter. As Fred Bauder found out, you only need pick ONE of those cherries, and you don't even need to pick it on a high-profile controversial political article. You can pick it in the user's own space. wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  I think the problem is, as Eric Corbett once said, "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce". Consequently, everyone's got different opinions of civility, and one diff that one editor thinks is "incivil" may appear innocuous to another. You're unlikely to get this issue if you lodge an oppose with, say, ten recent declined CSD tags. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Athletic competitions are not decided by consensus, and I think it's not so much the number of cherries, but their quality. Being taken to ANI is not a sign of wrongdoing–it matters what the issue was and what the outcome was. Being taken to ANI frequently is still not a sign of wrongdoing. Some of our best admin have a ton of (unfounded) ANI complaints in the archives. It's more of a sign of activity in controversial areas than a sign of wrongdoing, in my view. Leviv ich 16:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I hope my comments were not construed as "supervoting" because that is one thing I particularly strive to avoid. Yes, I feel, as an editor, that a civility-related oppose due to a comment or two out of eleven years is bordering on asinine. But, as a bureaucrat, it is still a civility-related oppose and I endeavor to treat it as such. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• My approach is similar but I reached a different conclusion... What I try to consider as well is the longer-term view of the community on the issue, and instead of just a diff or RfA in isolation. Maxim_(talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• We need admins. So what we have here is a person who has qualifications way beyond most to do the job, and which includes outreach work. We have a person who by many accounts is generous, thoughtful, patient. We also have those who have had run-ins with him, and those who see incivility in some interactions. I have made the point that the longer you are around the more likely someone somewhere will see something not to like. The question is, is the perceived incivility and context, and it is perceived because uncivil for some may not be for another, enough to blot out the qualifications Rexx brings to the table. The crats' job is to unlock the question at this point and it's their job to make this determination and has nothing to do with what their vote is worth; it's their job. I think its simpler when we remove emotional attachments to our own votes- shouldn't we let them go once we vote-and the sometimes emotional response to the candidate and look at the logics. The base line of behaviour in an RfA that was accusatory in many areas and even nasty was maturity, measured, thoughtful responses, and an honest appraisal of himself as someone who could better in terms of tone. What has to be determined is if perceived objectional tone is the baseline of the personality. If it is we have problem; if it's not and I'd say its not-its really hard to hide in a RfA like this one-then like all behaviors we aren't happy about we fix it. We are here to make admins not to throw up obstacles. If the material and substance of the person is of good quality, we have to trust that the person will correct the more superficial aspect of behavior. We have no reason to believe he won't. If we don't we will have very few admins 'cause no one is with out shortcomings. We have to look for the the weight of the personality, not a shortcoming. Shortcomings when they appear can be fixed. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• What I think on supervoting in general: while we do discussions that end by weighting of arguments, you will have a percentage of editors, who supported a position that did not succeed, that will call the close a supervote. If the community as a whole has a interest in increasing the amount of admins (or running reconfirmation RfAs en masse), it may be beneficial to consider 50%+1 straight SecurePoll votes. It might cut down on the stress and drama of RfA. Maxim_(talk) 16:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim: I have mulled over the idea of changing RfA so the pass mark is 67% (supermajority), a crat chat is a straight majority (50-67%), everything else is probably a fail. It makes support and oppose votes equal, so whoever talks the best argument wins the debate, it would (in my view) make no material difference to the quality of admins we got as there doesn't seem to be any relationship between a RfA support percentage and how good an admin actually is (I think there's a thread somewhere that says all the admins desysopped in the last 10 years got very high levels of support in their RfAs). More thoughts here. I suppose I could start an RfC, I just don't really have any confidence that anyone else agrees with this right now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

We would cut down on the mess, even eliminate it, if the initial votes were secret. This is a terrible process which hurts many, the candidate and even the voters. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with such a proposal, but I can confidently say a lot of people don't. --qedk (t 桜 c) 16:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

The principal argument against it (and one that is perfectly logical and reasonable) is that there's no community desysop procedure. So an RfA is the only way most people have any influence over someone's adminship. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That would be a tectonic change in the process, Littleoliveoil. Right now, RfXs are supposed to be discussions, where editors make their case for or against the candidate, and try to convince enough people to their side. Yes, in practice it's horribly flawed, but the principle remains. Secret voting is optimal for votes but highy suboptimal for discussions. To turn RfX into a true vote would require a site-wide RfC with clear consensus to change the last 15+ years. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Votes could include a section for a comment. I'm not convinced the system as is was meant for the size of the community as it is these days. Anyway just thoughts. So tired of seeing the distress this process causes and given our admin numbers so are others. I believe it has to change. Success might be measured in the number of qualified admins we have with the least amount of trauma to the community. Its hard to accept trauma as the norm 16:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 16:52, April 9, 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you there, and putting on my greybeard curmudgeon hat, imagine how it was when the ranges for RfA and RfB began at 75% and 90% respectively. . -- Avi (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

But at the same time there were far less participants, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 17:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

True. But no shortage of interactions. I still have nightmares! -- Avi (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure how my comment can be construed as a Wikipedia:Supervote: 1) it is not a closure of a discussion; 2) it echoes sentiments existing in the discussion; and 3) it does not overturn a majority (in fact it endorses the existing supermajority). –xeno^talk 16:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawing

I'm posting here because I can't post on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS. I wish to withdraw my candidacy for adminship with immediate effect.

I have already said that I didn't want to place 'crats in an invidious position, and I hope that my withdrawal will remove some of the pressure that seems to be being generated here.

I'd like to apologise to my supporters, whom I feel I am letting down, but I think you reach a point where whatever the outcome, it can't be the right one because of how it may be perceived.

I'd like to apologise to those opposing me, and those who were neutral but took the time to vote. What became clear when reading your votes is that when I direct invective at another editor – no matter how justified I feel it is – other editors observing feel some of the impact, to an extent that I had not expected.

I'd also like to thank my supporters for their kind words; they sustained me through some very frustrating and sometimes hurtful times over the past week or so.

And I thank my opposers and those neutral (why isn't there a simple noun?) for helping me to further my self-awareness. It's quite a gift you've given me, and I do appreciate it.

Finally, I will confirm that I have no intention of ever putting myself through this process again. At my advanced years, life is literally too short. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: Firstly, never say never. Life is literally too short and uncertain to be so certain . Secondly, please do not feel that you are pressuring us. At least speaking for myself; this is what I volunteered to do to help EnWiki, and I have no qualms. Lastly, I'd recommend waiting 24 hours before actually withdrawing like we do for people asking for there bits to be removed on Meta. RfX is emotionally draining to the candidte, and I would not want you to regret a decision made more out of pain than reason. Please reconsider or at least reconfirm after a while to think over it. -- Avi (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I feel you have not placed me in any negative position, nor added any pressure, problems, etc. I can't think of any precedent that allows us (as bureaucrats or as a community) to overrule a withdrawal, but I agree with Avi in hoping you reconsider. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@RexxS: I think given that it's gone to 'crat chat, you should wait it out. Or atleast, take a full 24 hours to reconsider your withdrawal. RfX is hard for any candidate (I will not presume to say I understand) and while I was one of the neutrals, I do feel how it might be on you and would therefore implore you to wait given that it's come this far. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone take RexxS to the pub for the night? Preferably turn off the WiFi while there  :) ——SerialNumber54129 18:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, As others have said, I urge you to reconsider whether you would like to withdraw from RfA, and as suggested enjoy real life for a day or so then confirm your view. As said at SPI, I would like crats to consider suspending discussion until that matter is settled and then consider whether the RfA should be reopened for 24-48hrs to allow editors to consider whether they think their votes were influenced by any misconduct. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Didn't vote in the RfA but the more I see of Rexx the more I'm inclined to support his RfA RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 21:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor RexxS: as someone who has withdrawn from an RfA and who has sworn never to go through that again, I would have to say that this comes as no surprise. Unlike me, though, you stuck it out for the entire seven days, plus more time while this process became a part of it. Reminds me of the story of the guy who has spent so much money on equipment and workers to dig a great mine for gold. He gave up and went bankrupt, so another guy bought the rights and started digging. Just a few inches from where the first guy gave up, the second guy struck a huge "mother lode" of gold. "Never give up, never surrender, and never let 'em see you sweat!" Beginning to wish I had followed that advice. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  19:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To editor RexxS: I have already said that I didn't want to place 'crats in an invidious position, and I hope that my withdrawal will remove some of the pressure that seems to be being generated here. The position your RfA (not you, but the community as a body whole) has put the bureaucrats in is what the bureaucrats signed up for when they submitted their own RfBs. They knew they could expect the occasional RfA where things would be complex and people would demand their head on a plate. If we're being honest, this is actually the only real reason we actually need bureaucrats now, anything else could be handled by a bot. I therefore join the chorus which asks you to withdraw your withdrawal and allow the closure of the RfA to occur following the 'crat chat. Nick (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hi RexxS. First let me extend my deep appreciation for your work on the project, including your stepping up at RfA. Secondly, my own RfA was contentious so I can say that I do understand the pain and injury from criticism and unkind comments. (Near the end, I had also privately resolved in the event of failing never to go through the process again.) That said, and speaking as one who landed somewhat reluctantly in the oppose column, I hope that with time you will reconsider. The only issue for the vast majority of those unable to support was your sharp manner of communicating with others. If you were to return in a year or so with this issue resolved I believe you would likely pass comfortably. In the end though, the decision is yours and I will respect it whichever way it goes. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Please don’t withdraw just to lighten the bureaucrat workload, we’ve barely any as it is. As for any perceived pressure being place on us, this is the position for which we applied and we (most of us anyway, the two newbies might be feeling it a bit!) are used to the cratchat grinder.
  On a procedural note, the last time a candidate indicated a desire to withdraw during a bureaucrat discussion was Cyberpower678. I moved to close, but the discussion still ran the full course and had an official close. –xeno^talk 22:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Echoing others above, please don’t withdraw for our benefit. This is what we’re here to do and we don’t mind continuing the discussion. It’s entirely a matter for you. WJBscribe (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I want to thank User:RexxS for withdrawing. In my opinion, this is the right evaluation of the consensus. Just below the bar, is not a success. Some supporters are proposing to twist the process in order to force the result. But this is a logical failure. If you trusted the candidate, then trust his decision. Pldx1 (talk) 22:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

RexxS, I think you should reconsider your withdrawal. 5 Crats want to promote you as admin though I first oppose you in RfA Hhkohh (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

To be precise, it's six bureaucrats who believe the EnWiki community demonstrated sufficient consensus that he should get the bit. -- Avi (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

And in addition to those six, there is also this one that, as an editor, thinks RexxS should be an administrator. I'm not going to be the one to close the chat because closing it as "no consensus" would look like a power play and closing it as "successful" would look like a supervote. Useight (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I’m sure the withdrawal advice on your talk page was well intentioned but I don’t agree with it and I hope you didn’t feel unduly pressured by it. You’ve come this far, please reconsider. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• I know I'm new to this process, but my head is twisted around. Cutting through the noise, editors voted almost 2-1 in favor of giving the bit; bureaucrats voted 3-2 (so far); and the nominee is considering withdrawing?! In any other election in the history of the world, there would be champagne and balloons by now. Leviv ich 01:34, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  No one point Lev to when RfB needed 90%+ please -- Avi (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I hope you reconsider withdrawing. I'd like to see a positive ending to all of this. It saddens me to think you'd give up now, especially with 6/11 'crats in your favor. There's some really convincing arguments on your side. —Amiodarone ^talk 02:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  @RexxS: While I respect your choice either way, I have to echo what has been said above and effectively request you reconsider your withdrawal. The odds right now are in your favour that there is consensus to promote. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see this differently. I see RexxS as having wanted to let this thing draw to a close, uncontroversially, and with dignity. I don't see that as a problem which requires remedies or a looming disaster which must be prevented. I like dignity. It's a pleasure to see it. – Athaenara ✉ 04:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• @RexxS: You have a fairly strong majority of crats who are reading a consensus in support of promotion, reflecting a fairly strong majority of the community that is in favor of your promotion. It's by no means a "gimme", but to withdraw at this final hour? To cave to the utterly superficial pressure of a small handful of malcontents, who are emptily clamoring to alter the results of an independent crat chat? This is an insult to everyone who has had your back over the past week. I vouched for you, as did 163 other members of the community. We took this seriously. To have you throw in the towel after all that, just because some opposers are trying to generate enough heat to sway an independent reading of consensus by the crats is insane. Your RfA has never been in uncontentious promotion territory, so it makes no sense to give up in the crat chat. The only possible reading of your doing so is that you're caving to the shameful people who are trying to sway the result of the RfA ex post facto. Your suicide here is without honor or dignity. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• The community were not satisfied to the minimum established standard of 65% for the discretion to kick in AND the community, at the same time as agreeing to introduce lower level 65%, firmly rejected reducing the discretionary range minimum to 60%. The close decision on 65%-75% is silent on yet further fuzzy discretion below 65% mark. The arithmetic must kick in somewhere and as far as I can see it is 65%. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We get it, you think <65% should be a quick-fail and that this crat chat should not even be taken seriously. How many times are you going to say it? Will saying it more change the outcome? If you think it will, that's called bludgeoning. We consider it to be disruptive. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Clearly, Leaky shouldn't concern themselves with the process operating outside of community consensus. You've decided to ignore norms and you don't want to be rebuked for your conduct, which is totally understandable. Chris Troutman (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Definitely don't withdraw to make the crats' lives easier - they've got bugger all else to do and they need to be made to feel important! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• In this RfA, none of the 164 pro ever used "per nom" as a rationale for support. And now some of them are so vocal about discarding all of the 94 con that could be suspected of using, openly or secretly, "per nom" as a rationale for oppose. Moreover, the shameful people who are trying to sway the result of the RfA ex post facto is indeed a strong worded comment. It remains to see who are the people deserving this comment. At least not User:RexxS, thanks to him, once again. Pldx1 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Give up the bit, after you've bit' the tip

• Rexx, like I've mentioned on your talk page, why don't you give up the bit right after you've got 'em, and reconsider taking them back later? If it's a value call, then you'll be on similar grounds either way – with the advantage that you can reconsider your choice later on at your ease. Well, repeating what I've told you, I gave up the bit on the day I got it (of course, for different reasons), and requested them back a few months later. You can too; it's quite easy actually. Lourdes 02:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  A lot of people put a lot of thought and effort into evaluating this RfA. I'd encourage him not to do this. – bradv🍁 03:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I posted a reply to this idea on RexxS' talk page. The short version is that this is a really bad idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have to agree with Ad Orientem and bradv in this case. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  As one opposed to the candidate's RfA I hope that they will stick by their decision, for the sake of showing consistency of thought. The pleadings in the previous section are a sympathy vote and should be disregard. We are not re-running the RfA on this page. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  Don't give up now. Stay until the end of the process.--Mona.N (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

In response

I'm sorry I've not replied sooner, but I've been under the weather for the last couple of days with the 'flu. I logged off yesterday evening with a profound sense of relief and eventually slept for 14 hours. I logged back in a while ago to see I had 23 notifications, and I've now read all of the discussion here and on my talk page. To be honest, I have no more idea now what to do for the best than I had when I started reading, so I'm going to go with my instinct that the process might as well play itself out. I'll strike my withdrawal and hope folks won't think too badly of me for stumbling at this late stage. --RexxS (talk) 12:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Get well soon RexxS, flu sucks. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)