RexxS for Adminship

[CrowsNest]

Wikipedia really is in trouble......

Your recent comments on the Pppery SPI are also a classy touch [2], and given the huge strain of this RfA, to make such a calm and fair comments on the Pppery SPI, shows you have admin qualities. regards, Britishfinance (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Does it really take a genius level IQ to realise what RexxS said at that SPI is the basic standard required of all editors? When did it become the case that meeting the basic standard, equals Administrator? Do these people seriously never read their own manuals?

Begoon made a snide accusation of sock-puppetry for the sole purpose of altering the course of an RfA that wasn't going the way he wanted it to. Totally ignored procedure. Didn't give a fuck. He doesn't need to give a fuck, because that's Wikipedia. The only thing you need to be able to break the rules with Administrators like Drmies on on the force, is the giant brass balls to break the rules.

It helps that their target wasn't an established editor of course. Accuse one of those, as Sashi did to Bishonen, and of course you get a blackshirt at your doorstep double quick time, issuing threats, and generally being a condescending prick (hence why people, alas not enough people, are getting to be a little more choosy in who gets the lifetime blackshirt).

Nobody said a peep to Begoon, nor attempted to shut any of the ensuing gossipmongering down, as policy demands, because they all clearly, desperately, want it to be true, so they can weasel RexxS out of any responsibility for treating that editor like shit, treating a topic area like his fiefdom, and basically kicking off the bandwagon that, to no particular amazement, found this wasn't exactly unusual behaviour.

We only got an SPI filed when someone finally realised, shit, we need to get our acts together and follow the rules, this one's gonna be close.

Why are they even bothering?

Noting that the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13 may be an important factor for me in reaching a determination, as interactions with Pppery form a significant proportion of the opposition to this candidate. I ask those in a position to action that request to please do so as quickly as possible, so that this discussion is not needlessly prolonged. WJBscribe (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It seems that the SPI is unlikely to reach a conclusion. Nevertheless, on balance, I find myself agreeing with the reasoning of others, and Xeno/Primefac in particular, that there is a narrow consensus in favour of promotion. The opposition is largely concentrated on one issue in relation to which limited evidence is presented despite the candidate being a longstanding contributor....... WJBscribe (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm. Try and pick that apart, if you can. Was the SPI important for him, until he realised it wasn't going to give him what he wanted? Or has he decided to just assume the accusation is true and that is what helped him decide there is limited evidence presented? If not, then if he now thinks there is limited evidence while including the Pppery interactions on the basis innocent until proven guilty, then how could it have possibly been the case the result of that SPI was going to be important?

The fix is in.

They think you're stupid. Anyone who voted oppose in good faith in this RfA, probably was.

[CrowsNest]

I challenge anyone to figure out what the 'crats think the community expects to see in an RfA that successfully demonstrates a long standing contributor is too rude/combative/arrogant/disrespectful to be an Administrator.

Imagine if Eric Corbett did run for RfA tomorrow. The same defenders would be saying the same things, because they've always said it - when it comes to WP:CIV, they're the see no evil speak no evil people. 'Eric is as much if not more so a saint sinned against than sinner' they would say, just as they cast RexxS to be. We literally heard all the same excuses this time around - frustration, rarity, not suffering fools, blunt and direct, best of intentions, stewardship not ownership, net positive, context, phase of the moon, blah, blah, blah. It's a successful hymn sheet.

But when it comes down to it, how many incidents would actually get discussed? Five? I'd say five. Just like RexxS, they'd probably skew to recent examples, and have their origins in people bringing it up because they were the victim, with everyone else eventually seeing the pattern, building to a record setting level of opposition.

For all the talk of their supposed experience and indeed jadedness over civility debates, I don't think these 'crats have the first idea what a successful RfA of a long standing editor with serious civility issues looks like. I think RexxS might be the first one to be stupid enough to try it. I think they're meaning to set the precedent here and now - we know civility is a pillar, but hey, we also know it is a pillar of tissue paper. If you know what I mean. If you get my drift. Nudge, nudge. Just hang in there.

I can only imagine the sort of scumbag looking at this and thinking, y'know, it might be worth a crack after all, if not to pass, then to piss people off. People who like making WP:POINTS.

The Rambling Man, your carriage awaits. You shall go to the Ball.

[CrowsNest]

Just adding that I hope this is decided based on the nominee, and not based on the nominator, or what they wrote, or from which account, etc., or anything else outside the nominee's control. Leviv ich 16:56, 8 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)

Two contradictory statements, each containing a fundamental misunderstanding of Wikipedia.

This guy is so dodgy, it is impossible to decide if this is just the simple act of a simple n00b, or something more sinister, deliberate fuckwittery designed to dazzle and confuse a process already shot through with spin, flim flam and false promises.

He could be a random letterbox stuffer, or a campaign manager. RexxS may not even know he ever even had a campaign manager.

It's time we got the almighty Bishdollar out of wikipolitics.

[CrowsNest]

These people are pathetic.....

After RfA closure:

Numerical totals don't matter, it's strength of arguments!!!!!!

Day one of 'crat chat:

Numerical totals don't matter, it's strength of arguments!!!!!!

Day two of 'crat chat:

Don't resign now RexxS, you have a 6 out of 10 'crats seeing consensus to promote!!!!!!

Hypocritical asswipes, the lot of them.

[CrowsNest]

But hey, strength of argument. Hmmm. What makes a weak argument? Untruth? Hypocrisy? I think so...

Here's what Swarm thought of RexxS during the RfA.....

RexxS has always proved to be a reasonable and amicable person with an even temper, even in heated circumstances.
........
I respect RexxS standing up for what he feels is right. That will be a valuable trait to have in an administrator.

Now that RexxS has said he wants to withdraw, here's what Swarm thinks of him now.....

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)

Strong stuff. To be clear, that's a supporter. Try and find the same level of vitriol and naked aggression in the opposition. Whatever it is about RexxS that attracts some of the most unstable and vicious people in the ranks of the Wikipedia Administration to rally to his banner, the likes of Kudpung and Ritchie and now Captain BlackHeart here, I would advise him, again, to do everything he can to distance himself from it.

There were a couple of nasty comments in the opposition, sure, but it is really noteworthy (as well as their sparsity overall in a group of 90+ passionate Wikipedians) that they came from regular editors, not Administrators, and they all came from a place where the anger was clearly the result of how RexxS had treated them. That's a far more authentic portrayal of Rexxs' likely impact on Wikipedia, than the sight of Administrators like Swarm claiming they came away from disputes with RexxS totally chilled, but then absolutely lose their shit when he doesn't remember to be sufficiently appreciative of what they did for him.

You would expect RexxS was probably keeping track of how many people didn't like him as a result of his travels through the 'pedia, and ran anyway, but I rather doubt he was aware at all, that all those people who walked away from disputes with him apparently happy at their amicable resolution, had marked his card. They owed him. One in the bank. I mean, he will have been acutely familiar with the concepts of fear and favour, nobody in Bishonen's court is naive to the dark truth of it all, but this is next level long game. This revenge is not cold, it's positively frozen. As dark and cold as the depths of space, only exploding now with all the nuclear firestorm of a stellar event

The raging fury of the aptly named Swarm, is doubly remarkable when you look at the actual withdrawal statement that triggered it.....

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.

It is absolute telling what the rather a lot of the supporters' philosophy of Adminship was all about here - the one time during this whole process that RexxS showed genuine reflection, selflessness and self-awareness, the one time he has done so during this process when there could be no question in doubter's minds that there was no ulterior motive, no political angle or attempted point being made, they are absolutely furious. Genuine integrity and sincerity (if it holds).

They absolutely hate it. Anathema to the way Wikipedia Adminship really is nowadays - a Very Big Deal. A Seal of Office that you can only take from them from their Cold Dead Hands, or if they commit wiki-murder. Swarm is such an objectively crap Administrator that he could quite easily be desysopped for cause in a No Big Deal Wikipedia. Who apparently doesn't see it this way? RexxS. For this betrayal, he is cast by Swarm as worse than the scum who would dare deny him his place in the Inner Sanctum.

If RexxS pivots now, if he goes back on this statement and simply takes advantage of the fact the Bureaucrats seem quite happy to do everything they can to persuade people there is a consensus here, up to and including repeatedly ignoring the stated wishes and intentions of the canddiate, he will be only confirming the worst fears of the opposition.

------

Right on cue.....

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)

An instinct to ignore your better self. An instinct for self-advancement. An instinct to retract your sincerely held beliefs when it is politically convenient. An instinct for needing to be seen as strong by your loyalists.

An instinct to let the forces of evil embrace and protect you.

Unbalance in the Force, he will bring.

He truly is perfect Wikipedia Administrator material. Kudpung saw it. He knows.

Cue the Imperial March.

[CrowsNest]

So, to summarise, what has been required to get RexxS the tools?

-fudging the logic of calling it in anyway (did he actually clear 65% or is it not relevant?)
-pretending a massive outlier result of 90+ opposers is less relevant than the arguments
-depreciating several oppose arguments for debatable reasons (ignoring the candidate's own wishes)
-deliberate misrepresentation of some very basic facts (how many people said what, how many incidents were discussed)
-extremely generous interpretations of what counts as debunking
-obfuscation of the disparity of the strength of support (fractured between strong, weak, and qualified)
-silence on the weakness of the numerical support (not even reaching the average for the watchlist era)
-silence on the status of the several per nom supports (arguably inadmissible, unless joke nomination statements are now a thing)
-silence on the thoughts of neurals
-silence on the observable trends
-silence on the importance of the experience and status of many of the opposers (arguably irrelevant, but not when it formed such a big part of the support reasoning, focusing on those who know, and indeed seems to have directly influenced the decision to call this in for a 'crat chat anyway - plenty of Administrators, Arbitrators and Functionaries can be seen in the oppose column)
-silence on the illogic of a candidate promising to do better, and supports on that basis getting him over the line, if consensus is supposedly that he has no need to do better
-interpreting no consensus (on the civility divide) as not defaulting to the status quo (not trusted)
-other more general depreciation of civility concerns (not sufficient as a reason on its own?)
-an apparent emphasis on a sock accussation, quickly reimagined as unimportant when the result didn't erode opposition (and silence on the obvious policy based fact that a confirmed result could only have affected the numerical outome, already considered less important, but not the strength of arguments)
-silence on the candidate's refusal to consider running again
-worrying statements that even some Bureaucrats see this as being more about proving a point about the ongoing community divisions over civility and lack of Administrators (not remotely in their wheelhouse to influence) over and above the narrow consideration of did RexxS get consensus or not?
-flat refusal to extend the RfA (recommended procedure when consensus is not clear)
-a last ditch call for every available Bureaucrat to turn out and opine.

I can't foresee any problems, can you?

No Big Deal has been ratified, for shhuuuurreee.

[CrowsNest]

The biggest lie of all, of course, is this idea RexxS has had his entire eleven year career gone through with a fine tooth comb. And now apparently he is due sympathy for this, like an Administrator candidate isn't supposed to be examined? We know from his own statements, now ignored (sporting the pattern?) that he already had a pretty good idea of what an RfA entails, and he went for it anyway. And he deliberately chose to make it appear he wasn't taking it seriously at first, letting people just guess what his experience, credentials and general offer was, opening himself up to a very wide and very cautious reception.

He later clarified, no, I am not here to merely maintain protected Lua modules, I'll be reporting for duty at AE, even though I've given you no sign dispute resolution outside of my own topic interests is really my area of interest, and the first opposers have already shown I do not handle myself well in my own disputes, despite my book answers to standard questions. So you better fucking believe anyone with good sense considers his temperament and judgement is now on the table, for forensic examination.

If RfA isn't supposed to be a rectal examination even in that scenario, then why the insistence on needing to see more evidence before you are prepared to believe 90+ opposers? We are not being told how many incidents need to be brought up to properly be able to assess an editor's eleven year career, and we are being denied any real clue as to how and why the ones that have been found and discussed are not considered persuasive of a problem on grounds of strength of argument (if passionate and obstinate belief they are bunk was enough of an argument, then by all means, consider this RfA to be a wonderous success).

So we really cannot be surprised if the next long standing but even slightly controversial candidate to come forward, someone who prior to RexxS might have passed easily for lack of any evidence of fire beneath the smoke, has an experience so intrusive and muck-rakey, even the KGB would be embarrassed.

Truth is, he got off lightly, all things considered, perhaps because the devil was already buried in the detail after a day or so. And they fucking know it. The likely continued reluctance of people to come forward for examination after RexxS, is on the supporters who have tried, and will probably succeed, in pulling a fast one.

It will only stop being such a daunting experience, when you come up with a way to remove an Administrator that is as easy as it was here to promote them. Because let's face it, it takes no effort to do what most of the supporters did, which was practically nothing. Takes no effort even to cherry pick the best lines from a handful of AN/I reports, and stand by them, against 90+ doubters. Not remotely comparable to what we are told happens in an ArbCom case.

Can you imagine the screaming if what you actually had to do to gain Adminship, was an ArbCom case in reverse? Put yourself up for a sweeping "Conduct of the Canddiate" Case, and come out with it with no Admonishments or worse. I mean, Opabina would try her best to do what she does best, but not even she could influence the outcome of such a thing.

[CrowsNest]

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)

Um, yeah. OK.

I wonder, have you ever actually considered just how many active Wikipedians who have never uttered a personal attack?

Proper research on this has been done, just FYI. It's a pretty low figure. Low enough that doing something as extreme as making a single utterance of a personal attack in the last year an automatic disqualification at RfA, would not really significantly impact Wikipedia's pool of available candidates in any given year.

People posed the perfectly legitimate question based on the evidence - is RexxS capable of not calling people prats for just six months or even a year? They wanted to believe him when he said he's got this under control, especially now his eyes are opened as to how unacceptable the majority (the clear majority, because plenty of supporters chose to believe him anyway) see it as.

They got their answer. He's got his answer.

He didn't have to make that promise. Maybe he shouldn't have. Maybe RexxS simply standing before the community asking them to judge him as he is, warts an all, would have got a clearer result. He pretty much did that, with the emotional blackmail of this being a one time offer, and he still ended up only squeaking through to a run off on the bones of his arse. With the help of a bit of creative accounting.

People know the score. Nobody is unaware as to what principle the Bureaucrats are trying to get nailed down here. Civility is being downgraded, at the highest level. And yet, of course, we will still have to put up with the farce of it still being described as a Pillar of the Wikipedia community.

[CrowsNest]

Let's give the Bureaucrats something to really choke on their cornflakes about. Let's flip this on its head.

Let's generously imagine "I thought I told you to stop messing about with things you don't understand" was the worst thing discovered about RexxS during this RfA. Note I have edited it to remove any suggestion misuse of bad language is in play.

This settles any argument about whether or not he is being unfairly judged about momentary slips in an otherwise long track record of good conduct. Why? Because first of all, he was quite clear this is not one of those things he considered to be bad and as such covered by his promise of improvement if he passes, and second of all, it was about as fresh an example of his current approach to Wikipedia as you can get, occurring just days previously.

He was quite clear in his mind, even after being given a chance to reflect, that he would say the same thing again in the same situation, were he an Administrator. It also settles the issue of relevance, because we know it occurred in an area where he intends to Administrate, the area which by his own admission, is now pretty much his main topic area. So it is going to happen again at some point, if he were promoted.

The policy position of its unacceptability, as being both incivil and ownery, is clear, and that was arguably what brought 90+ people to the table to oppose. The comment does nothing to deescalate tensions, it is almost guaranteed not to achieve the intended affect, and it cannot in any conceivable way be considered a warning that an uninvolved Administrator can enforce if and when the thing RexxS thinks is being done wrong, happens again. It is a warning that can only ever be applied and enforced by RexxS. It cannot even realistically called a warning in that sense, namely an instruction a user can follow to avoid further sanctions.

People said there was context, but even when specifically asked for it, not only did we not get any link to show where he had apparently similarly warned this used before, explaining his apparent frustration, all we did see was a rather alarming narrative where the dispute was framed as pretty much a content dispute not a conduct dispute, a difference of opinion on the best way to code modules, and a long running one at that, where thoughts of recruiting help from colleagues had only occured to RexxS after he had said the above. And we just have to trust that was even his intention.

Supporters disagreed, but arguing against policy, whether 2 or 200 editors are doing so, is by definition, the weakest of weak argumentation. RexxS happily agrees policy is descriptive, so the error is clearly in his judgment that current policy deems this approach as acceptable for a Wikipedia Administrator.

So, what are we left with? Where do you draw the support for the idea RexxS becoming an Administrator is a net positive? Well, the fucked up thing for Wikipedia appears to be that the only sources are the terrible conclusions that the community already has Administrators who are far more clueless at the basics of conflict resolution and disruption prevention, and were RexxS to do this as an Administrator, he will not be sanctioned. Warned maybe, but a warning that could and would be immediately ignorable as other Administrators would deem it invalid. So fuck it.

Do you want that on your record?

This is the RexxS that you're about to promote. The guy who is almost guaranteed to increase the workload at AN/I, where case after case will be extended into pointless drama over the merits of his reports and the suboptimal approaches of RexxS. And that is the best outcome, that there might be some oversight and feedback for RexxS. The worst outcome is that it never gets the sunlight it deserves, and therefore the technical spaces RexxS the Administrator will be inhabiting, become a place where nobody does do anything RexxS doesn't what them to do, because his apparent wish to own the area down to the last comma, and use threats and intimidation to achieve it, will have persuaded everybody else to get the hell out of there and do something less stressful.

[CrowsNest]

The Bureaucrats are now 7 promote 4 piss off, or to put it another way 63.6% support for the idea of RexxS being an Administrator. Nobody really changed their minds, not much discussion happened, they are split on what the discussion revealed and the relevance of civility, they seemed to argue more about process than substance, and a few seem more concerned with their stake in the process than the candidate's, ignoring his statements where convenient. A last minute appeal for more input, only worsened RexxS' situation, but he was never at a stage where he had persuaded more than 75% of their number.

If you are feeling like you have seen this all play out before, it is because you have, last week, just with more people, with less good clothes and worse teeth. All that money, all that training, all that dancing around naked virgins reciting the magic words, and it turns out the Bureaucrats are just as good at this decision making process as the regular plebs.