59.
RexxS for Adminship
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Think you Ikjbagl!
60.
60.
Yup.Nobody in this community takes WP:Civility seriously. At this point, it's more of a joke than a pillar or rule.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
The comeback is on! Well, not really. He briefly touched 64%, with the help of rounding. Put it this way, he is going to need a miracle, as the first person to ever test just how low down the range you can be, and still slide in. To put it another way, he is going to need bureaucrats who think "I know him in real life" is a strong argument, and think "oppose, temperament concerns" is a weak one, and everything else is irrelevance. It will no doubt disappoint Ritchie, but they really won't get away with trying to pretend the opposition are fucking mentally challenged idiots who don't know shit about shit.
I for one am eager to know what they do about those people who have literally only voted support. I want to know the official status of a nomination statement written by a user pretending to be a talking dinosaur. Can it be endorsed by implication?
It will be a complete joke if they don't take into account his unwillingness to even entertain coming back in six months with proof of his claims to convince doubters, or the fact he has been consistently reluctant to provide specific examples to back up his claims, and indeed would only engage with the primary reason for the opposition, temperament, via a set up question provided by Ritchie, who then proceeded to use it to lie his ass off about what he claimed it all showed in his reaffirmation. Something RexxS has not corrected him on, so must be assumed to be behaviour he endorses.
Ultimately, the Bureaucrats will have to ponder why, despite a laudible effort at appearing willing to engage, ultimately he just seemed intent on continually circling back to this idea people just have to trust him, and the entire exercise for him seems to be more about proving the point it is still possible to gain Adminship that way, than demonstrating he either has the need for it or the proven ability to use it well.
In previous cases, Bureacrats have put a lot of weight in uniformity of position. The opposition is remarkably uniform. The support is anything but, with the claims made about RexxS's competence and temperament ranging wildly from the plausible to the ridiculous, with not one of them seeming all that bothered that they couldn't get their stories straight amongst themselves about who RexxS really is when viewed from the theoretical neutral observer, and didn't even take care to factor in what he himself said about who he thinks he is.
I for one am eager to know what they do about those people who have literally only voted support. I want to know the official status of a nomination statement written by a user pretending to be a talking dinosaur. Can it be endorsed by implication?
It will be a complete joke if they don't take into account his unwillingness to even entertain coming back in six months with proof of his claims to convince doubters, or the fact he has been consistently reluctant to provide specific examples to back up his claims, and indeed would only engage with the primary reason for the opposition, temperament, via a set up question provided by Ritchie, who then proceeded to use it to lie his ass off about what he claimed it all showed in his reaffirmation. Something RexxS has not corrected him on, so must be assumed to be behaviour he endorses.
Ultimately, the Bureaucrats will have to ponder why, despite a laudible effort at appearing willing to engage, ultimately he just seemed intent on continually circling back to this idea people just have to trust him, and the entire exercise for him seems to be more about proving the point it is still possible to gain Adminship that way, than demonstrating he either has the need for it or the proven ability to use it well.
In previous cases, Bureacrats have put a lot of weight in uniformity of position. The opposition is remarkably uniform. The support is anything but, with the claims made about RexxS's competence and temperament ranging wildly from the plausible to the ridiculous, with not one of them seeming all that bothered that they couldn't get their stories straight amongst themselves about who RexxS really is when viewed from the theoretical neutral observer, and didn't even take care to factor in what he himself said about who he thinks he is.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Plenty of them cast doubt on his sincerity, and that only becomes clearer when you read them all in one go. Why did he run for Admin, what exactly will he be improving to live up to its higher standards, why is he so unwilling to come back for another run when he has proven himself capable of those standards, how can he possibly have any objections to an RfA process he thought he could disrespect with a joke nomination? Etc. And if it is specific knowledge/ability you are after, the questions on wit's end, AE and deletion, are not so great. Downright bizarre, as it happens. You certainly don't get credit for knowing what IAR is, not as an eleven year veteran, and certainly not as one of Bishonen's crew.Just to add that I think RexxS's answers to questions are some of the best I've seen, and amply demonstrate his sincerity, his knowledge, his abilitiy, and above all his commitment to the cause of education. If you !voted before he'd answered them all, can I possibly suggest you have another look? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone can write a cohesive 200 word summary of what RexxS will do as an Administrator from a digest of those questions, then they are a miracle worker. Save your time and just repeat to anyone wondering, all you have to do is place your trust in him. You don't even need to know this answers to be the sort of idiot who votes on that basis.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
The supporter's strategy of presenting a pretty unbelievable, almost unicorn-like, narrative seems to be working, nudging him back up to 64% (63.9%). If you believe these people, RexxS is practically a saint, and is simply a victim of the following RfA phenomena....
The RfA phenomena in play is actually the one where those with personal experience have remembered what a fuck-stick he is, and are informing people of their truth. The candidate admitted he didn't bother to change his style in preparation for RfA, so it is perhaps no surprise that plenty of the examples brought by the oppositon have come from just mere months, in one case, days, previously.
Nobody has kicked the log (and if you believed the supporter's testimony of his character, this would be akin to asking Bambi's mother about her sexual history), never mind done a forensic study to locate the five worst diffs of an eleven year career. The truth of this RfA, like so many that have come before it, is that we're four days in, and only now does an incident like this (from December!) come up...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... and_revert
....and only because someone who was there happened to stumble on the RfA.
Nobody can look at what RexxS has said about his own history of conflict, his own admissions that he often falls below his own standards, to realise these things are probably not rare. On the balance of probabilities, given what this RfA has already exposed about how he behaves when involved in issues he is deeply connected to, it is probably not rare for RexxS to do what he did there.
That newbie editor, btw, was the person on the other side of the infamous Jytdog is a creepy stalker debacle. It doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibilities, that a small part of why they were so angry at their treatment, had something to do with RexxS' involvement, which in context, doesn't make what Jytdog did seem quite so much of an outlier, but more of an accepted part of Wikipedia culture.
And lest anyone be unconvinced by the arguments that even occasional fuck-stickery in a sea of otherwise acceptable edits still has a terrible impact on community health, you need only look at the names of the people who were so obviously annoyed by their experiences, that they have remembered the experience for years, and have come to this RfA to bear witness.
These are not randomers, but the very established editors and establishment figures we are meant to believe wouldn't have a dim view of RexxS, because they know what makes a good Administrator. Yeahright. Good one Kudpung (who has never been seen or heard of again in this RfA, obviously).
When a candidate admits he has been in hundreds of conflicts, and admits he doesn't suffer fools gladly and can be acerbic, then it should ring alarms bells at how easy it has been to learn of examples of disputes where what he says is his aimed for approach and philosophy, is manifestly not how it went down.
The candidate himself also admits "I sometimes find myself falling below the standards that I want to see upheld." Sometimes is a great word there, because it is very vague, covering a wide range of what the true rate of instances could be, for a highly active editor. He could have used a word that more closely resembled the supporter's narrative that these things should be pretty rare in absolute terms, and so finding a collection of five which rise to the level of opposes worthy, would surely span a decade.
Their actual argument, the one so weak many dare not even make it (but idiots like Ritchie happily do), is that what you have learned of, without anyone having done a deep or even shallow dive, is not remotely a valid reason to oppose, and there must be some other reason for you believing what you do.
It can hardly be an accident that the two people who have mentioned Dunning-Kruger, are Peter Southwood, RexxS very good wikifriend, who is the most recent example of someone breaching 60+ opposes (and was probably canvassed to the RfA, but isn't admitting it), and Bri, who was so unsuited to being (temporary, co-) Editor-in-Chief of the SignPost, he was totally unprepared for the shitstorm he unleashed when deciding to give the transohobe Stanton McCandlish a platform, as "humour". "Game on", were his words. You think he would know a good Administrator when he sees one? Are you mad?
Arrogant condescension seems to be a trait of those who rally to RexxS' banner, and he isn't exactly pushing back on it, so he's either similarly afflicted, or not sufficiently alarmed by who his natural allies are, to speak up. I can't think of a worse thing for him to do, when his platform is essentially, trust him to do the right thing when it matters.
For those with the actual intelligence required to participate in an RfA (the Dunning-Kruger effect has inevitable been mentioned), it should be rather obvious that people have barely even bothered to go looking for actual diffs.editors, especially long-term editors who've had years and years to make both exemplary contributions and missteps, tend to be judged by the worst 5 diffs someone can find
The RfA phenomena in play is actually the one where those with personal experience have remembered what a fuck-stick he is, and are informing people of their truth. The candidate admitted he didn't bother to change his style in preparation for RfA, so it is perhaps no surprise that plenty of the examples brought by the oppositon have come from just mere months, in one case, days, previously.
Nobody has kicked the log (and if you believed the supporter's testimony of his character, this would be akin to asking Bambi's mother about her sexual history), never mind done a forensic study to locate the five worst diffs of an eleven year career. The truth of this RfA, like so many that have come before it, is that we're four days in, and only now does an incident like this (from December!) come up...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... and_revert
....and only because someone who was there happened to stumble on the RfA.
Nobody can look at what RexxS has said about his own history of conflict, his own admissions that he often falls below his own standards, to realise these things are probably not rare. On the balance of probabilities, given what this RfA has already exposed about how he behaves when involved in issues he is deeply connected to, it is probably not rare for RexxS to do what he did there.
That newbie editor, btw, was the person on the other side of the infamous Jytdog is a creepy stalker debacle. It doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibilities, that a small part of why they were so angry at their treatment, had something to do with RexxS' involvement, which in context, doesn't make what Jytdog did seem quite so much of an outlier, but more of an accepted part of Wikipedia culture.
And lest anyone be unconvinced by the arguments that even occasional fuck-stickery in a sea of otherwise acceptable edits still has a terrible impact on community health, you need only look at the names of the people who were so obviously annoyed by their experiences, that they have remembered the experience for years, and have come to this RfA to bear witness.
These are not randomers, but the very established editors and establishment figures we are meant to believe wouldn't have a dim view of RexxS, because they know what makes a good Administrator. Yeahright. Good one Kudpung (who has never been seen or heard of again in this RfA, obviously).
When a candidate admits he has been in hundreds of conflicts, and admits he doesn't suffer fools gladly and can be acerbic, then it should ring alarms bells at how easy it has been to learn of examples of disputes where what he says is his aimed for approach and philosophy, is manifestly not how it went down.
The candidate himself also admits "I sometimes find myself falling below the standards that I want to see upheld." Sometimes is a great word there, because it is very vague, covering a wide range of what the true rate of instances could be, for a highly active editor. He could have used a word that more closely resembled the supporter's narrative that these things should be pretty rare in absolute terms, and so finding a collection of five which rise to the level of opposes worthy, would surely span a decade.
Their actual argument, the one so weak many dare not even make it (but idiots like Ritchie happily do), is that what you have learned of, without anyone having done a deep or even shallow dive, is not remotely a valid reason to oppose, and there must be some other reason for you believing what you do.
It can hardly be an accident that the two people who have mentioned Dunning-Kruger, are Peter Southwood, RexxS very good wikifriend, who is the most recent example of someone breaching 60+ opposes (and was probably canvassed to the RfA, but isn't admitting it), and Bri, who was so unsuited to being (temporary, co-) Editor-in-Chief of the SignPost, he was totally unprepared for the shitstorm he unleashed when deciding to give the transohobe Stanton McCandlish a platform, as "humour". "Game on", were his words. You think he would know a good Administrator when he sees one? Are you mad?
Arrogant condescension seems to be a trait of those who rally to RexxS' banner, and he isn't exactly pushing back on it, so he's either similarly afflicted, or not sufficiently alarmed by who his natural allies are, to speak up. I can't think of a worse thing for him to do, when his platform is essentially, trust him to do the right thing when it matters.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
It's not escaped my notice that some of the comments directed at the candidate are far less kind than the diffs for which he's being criticized, yet he is handling those comments in stride with dignity. I predict this will be an example people will point to in the future when they talk about how RfA is broken. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This is what a real life good admin candidate looks like. If it failed it would show how RFA is broken. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
RfA is broken? Yes, yes it is.I became an admin on other wiki-sites without anything like this broken process RexxS (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
We have a nomination here written by someone pretending to be a dinosaur. Not even Arbitrators give a shit, except to openly piss on those who were first understandably confused, then annoyed. We will only learn what this means for a Bureaucrat discussion, if or when it happens. Process, schmocess.
We have a candidate whose contradictory narrative of himself and his Admin philosophy has barely been tested (having a dinosaur write your nomination, weirdly helped him achieve this goal), much of the questions being wasted on the issue of is this a joke, establishing the necessary background and disclosures, and other random irrelevance and softball shite.
We have a candidate who says his use of profanity is deliberate and targetted at the fools he encounters, but trust him, he is fully intending to change his approach when he becomes an Administrator. But no, you can't have a taster of his skillz, this is a one time offer. And still somehow the outcome is not "get the fuck out of here with this shit, and come back when you've read not only the policies but the thing you already said which directly contradicts this garbage, and corrected all those supporters who apparently don't know you at all."
We have Administrators on the support side openly lying about clear and indisputable facts, literal cases of misquoting opponents, with no evident reaction from anyone. Higher standard indeed.
We are given lots of contradictory accounts of the precise nature of the nominator's flaws, or claimed lack thereof, by the supporters. These supporters are not remotely concerned at their inability to agree who this fucking guy really is, how a genuinely neutral observer with the benefit of being all seeing, would describe him as, all while they ironically charge opposers of being subjective, or worse. A thorough audit would help. Even a brief review. Good luck with that.
We have countless support arguments that merely reflect the candidate's primary case - you either believe RexxS can be trusted to do the right thing at the right time, or you don't. There's no point in trying to persuade you or giving you evidence based reassurances, because most of you are too stupid to even be taking part. Why are you people even here? is the not so subtle sub-text of many a Wikipedia grandee. The candidate, who has been pegged by some as a beneficiary of and enthusiastic participant in the Wikipedia penchant for elitism and social networking, stands by and says nothing about this obvious case of elitism and patronage in action.
We have a guy looking to work at AE, opposed by one of the few Administrators who work at AE. At the same time, we have countless people assuring us there own zero chance of tool abuse. Zero. Other than between the two parties, there has been no effort to unpack that potential disaster. Discussion, or vote? It's a vote.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
He's now officially scraped into the crat chat zone, by one vote (115/63/15).
How did he get there? With a slew of supporters offering quality arguments like he is dedicated and has made lots of edits. Y'know, like past outstanding Administrators like The Rambling Man. Stuff that obviously has absolutely no bearing on the quality of an Administrator, since they don't give the role to anyone who just arrived or is just dabbling in this whole Wikipedia thing.
There is of course also the continuing claims he is qualified and competent and won't abuse the tools. I hope the Bureaucrats realise these votes were made even after there is an almost record level of opposition which is unified in the belief he lacks one very key competency, so key it is one of the five pillars, and mentioned in the very first line of Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct.
If the crat chat isn't going to be a crooked stitch up, I expect there to be some discussion as to why all of the support has seemed quite allergic to addressing the oppose rationale of Fastily, which strikes at the heart of the main theme of opposition, cannot be dismissed on any of the bullshit grounds offered up to explain away the opposition, and frankly cannot be explained unless he is lying. Which means NewYorkBrad's guy, is a fucking liar. You really want to go there, Mr Bureaucrat?
Also up for debate is how the supporters don't seem prepared to ask GoldenRing why he opposes, even though it seems bizarre he would if such a competent and trustworthy candidate is offering to ease his burden in a critical and volatile area of Administration. That interest in AE is what makes this candidacy so bizarre in of itself, beyond his alarming statement about its rules not being policy. RexxS turns up with an AE hating woman pretending to be a dinosaur as a champion, admits his interest in Wikipedia has drifted away from writing articles and into the technical side, admits he is less than bothered about having the tools and not having them doesn't hamper him in any way, but if trusted with them by the community, his first thought is to help out at AE? Frankly, if he isn't up to no good, if he isn't trying to pull a fast one, then what explains that? Alarm bells should be ringing, and unless Bishonen has everyone's kid locked in a basement, someone, somewhere, other than GoldenRing whose concern is understandable, has to ask the obvious question, what the fuck?
How did he get there? With a slew of supporters offering quality arguments like he is dedicated and has made lots of edits. Y'know, like past outstanding Administrators like The Rambling Man. Stuff that obviously has absolutely no bearing on the quality of an Administrator, since they don't give the role to anyone who just arrived or is just dabbling in this whole Wikipedia thing.
There is of course also the continuing claims he is qualified and competent and won't abuse the tools. I hope the Bureaucrats realise these votes were made even after there is an almost record level of opposition which is unified in the belief he lacks one very key competency, so key it is one of the five pillars, and mentioned in the very first line of Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct.
If the crat chat isn't going to be a crooked stitch up, I expect there to be some discussion as to why all of the support has seemed quite allergic to addressing the oppose rationale of Fastily, which strikes at the heart of the main theme of opposition, cannot be dismissed on any of the bullshit grounds offered up to explain away the opposition, and frankly cannot be explained unless he is lying. Which means NewYorkBrad's guy, is a fucking liar. You really want to go there, Mr Bureaucrat?
Also up for debate is how the supporters don't seem prepared to ask GoldenRing why he opposes, even though it seems bizarre he would if such a competent and trustworthy candidate is offering to ease his burden in a critical and volatile area of Administration. That interest in AE is what makes this candidacy so bizarre in of itself, beyond his alarming statement about its rules not being policy. RexxS turns up with an AE hating woman pretending to be a dinosaur as a champion, admits his interest in Wikipedia has drifted away from writing articles and into the technical side, admits he is less than bothered about having the tools and not having them doesn't hamper him in any way, but if trusted with them by the community, his first thought is to help out at AE? Frankly, if he isn't up to no good, if he isn't trying to pull a fast one, then what explains that? Alarm bells should be ringing, and unless Bishonen has everyone's kid locked in a basement, someone, somewhere, other than GoldenRing whose concern is understandable, has to ask the obvious question, what the fuck?
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Recognising the threat of another incident having been raised, Ritchie of course goes into scramble mode....
With friend like these......
Naturally, Ritchie was of course LYING HIS ASS OFF.......
Who were they talking about Ritchie?some of his opponents there said worse things, such as "Drop the snark. It serves no purpose when building an encyclopedia" or "And the sanctimonious lecturing of regulars regarding talk page formatting is doing nothing". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
With friend like these......
Naturally, Ritchie was of course LYING HIS ASS OFF.......
As a native Brit, Ritchie has no excuse for not appreciating that this is worse.....About the worst thing RexxS said is "[user] is an SPA" (mild casting of aspersions, but possibly an accurate one) and "Now if you have anything useful to add in way of improving this article, why not go ahead and raise it?" (forthright but perfectly within the civility policies).
For non-Brits, the dictionary definition of "prat" suffices.....@Petrarchan47: First, please review WP:INDENTGAP, as you were previously politely requested, and stop being a prat to screen-reader users.
Examining RexxS's answers to questions, you struggle to determine if this sort of discourse is what he recognises as a problem and would avoid as an Administrator. In terms of sheer condescension and likelihood to inflame, it is not much different to "I thought I told you", which he said he won't stop doing, because fools need to be given their fair warning of a trip to AN/I (that never happened), right?an incompetent or stupid person; an idiot.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
They're persistent....
A deep dive would reveal things like that which Gender Desk has blogged about (from 2016)....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 624277#AFC
TO THE BATMOBILE, RITCHIE!
I have some sympathy. That sort of incident wouldn't even make Ritchie's list of top ten worst things he ever did on Wikipedia. But there is another rather more obvious way you rectify that problem with internal standards.
People haven't even scratched the surface. If there had been a deep dive search for the worst he has ever done, the examples would not be coming from as recent as mere months or even days ago.Like Bri, Tryptofish, and 28bytes I think we need to not judge a candidate who has been around forever solely on the worst things that can be found about them. ..... TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A deep dive would reveal things like that which Gender Desk has blogged about (from 2016)....
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 624277#AFC
TO THE BATMOBILE, RITCHIE!
I have some sympathy. That sort of incident wouldn't even make Ritchie's list of top ten worst things he ever did on Wikipedia. But there is another rather more obvious way you rectify that problem with internal standards.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Love it.
.......
Yeah, I didn't fucking think so.
That "monster" discussion is so lengthy in part because RexxS wasn't prepared to admit fault for anything, and wanted to argue every single point, and in a very sanctimonious and confrontational manner. It is the polar opposite approach to a dispute that he claims is his normal practice in his answer to Q3. And on this occasion, I struggle to see whether there was any reason for it, it not being about coding, infoboxes or accessibility. Are we to now add medical articles to that growing list of things RexxS just feels too passionate about to effectively operate in as an Administrator?
If reading that one debate is beyond most people, then this idea opposers have trawled through his entire eleven years of verbiage (hundreds of disputes by his own admission) and picked the five worst examples of his conduct, must be utter bullshit, right?
Come on supoorters, speak up. You're the ones trying to sell this nonsense.
Well, why not tell everyone what you think of it, John?....That's a monster discussion you've linked to, but not everyone who can be bothered to read it, and RexxS's lengthy contributions to it, will feel the same way about his edits. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Is that what you call grumpy? Come on, don't be shy......Support Obviously can be grumpy in argument, but very experienced indeed, and strongly committed to the project. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
.......
Yeah, I didn't fucking think so.
That "monster" discussion is so lengthy in part because RexxS wasn't prepared to admit fault for anything, and wanted to argue every single point, and in a very sanctimonious and confrontational manner. It is the polar opposite approach to a dispute that he claims is his normal practice in his answer to Q3. And on this occasion, I struggle to see whether there was any reason for it, it not being about coding, infoboxes or accessibility. Are we to now add medical articles to that growing list of things RexxS just feels too passionate about to effectively operate in as an Administrator?
If reading that one debate is beyond most people, then this idea opposers have trawled through his entire eleven years of verbiage (hundreds of disputes by his own admission) and picked the five worst examples of his conduct, must be utter bullshit, right?
Come on supoorters, speak up. You're the ones trying to sell this nonsense.