RexxS for Adminship

[CrowsNest]

Wow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ucrat_chat

Starting off what perhaps is an anticipated chat. The final closing percentage is a sliver under 64%, which is under the new 65% discretionary range. It has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project. RexxS has been highly active for over 10 years, and I feel it would be the best course of action to start a chat even though we're at 64%.

Fair enough if you had cited one of the more unusual aspects of the RfA to justify a special exemption, such as the confusion caused by Bishonen's (RexxS') joke, but this? To kick this off by endorsing one of the supporter's main arguments, simple length of service, even though it is arguably a weak if not irrelevant argument in an RfA, shows where this is headed.

Might as well have said, let's have a 'crat chat because I too have met RexxS in real life.

The fix is in.

[CrowsNest]

The fix is already in, but to demonstrate just how much of a fix it is going to be, let's pre-emptively expose one of the biggest myths, before they start saying things they're really going to regret.

Was the (deliberate choice) of RexxS to present this nomination as an April Fool, a significant factor in the opposition he received?

Well, the simple truth is, the numbers don't lie. There are only four people who mentioned it as the only reason they were opposing - Softlavender (and by extension Yintan), and Anthony Bradbury (and by extension Lepricavark). There are only seven people who mentioned it along side other reasons - Fastily, Xaosflux, Ajraddatz, Pudeo, Stephen, Grandpallama and Crazynas.

If you want to assume this was a factor in anybody else's vote, then you basically have to admit you are trying to read minds. And that, AFAIK, is not permitted.

That is a pathetically small number given the final total of opposition, namely 92 editors. Even taking the generous view that you can discount all fourteen people, and you generously assume all of RexxS' support is valid, then he still only ended up with an extremely pathetic result of 67.7%.

But let's back up a bit. Why would you even consider these votes to carry less weight? Why should people who see this as a disrespectful move, a sign of the candidate's unfitness to be an Administrator due to either a lack of judgement of even a lack of respect for the process of the individuals expected to vote in an RfA without a nomination statement, not be taken seriously? I can think of no reason.

What other factors are relevant here? Well.....

1. This small tranche of opposition had every chance to change their vote once they realised that while the manner of the nomination was a joke, the actual nomination was a serious one. Some did indeed choose to reconsider. The remainder, did not. Some even hardened their position. So they are not mistaken or ill-informed votes, no matter how much you might disagree with their reasoning. If they do not count, then you are absolutely making a definitive statement about their reasoning. You are also the effectively endorsing the idea a nomination statement is not required.

2. It is pretty clear that, despite the claims of Littleolive oil and others, the purpose of the joke was not merely to inject some levity into proceedings, to make it a little less volatile even. It was a deliberate attempt to make a point about how the candidate believes RfA should be no big deal. He had done it to test that premise. Therefore, opposition who said they do not like the idea of RfA being used in such a way, is opposition that fairly and frankly judges the candidate on his true intentions.

3. The candidate has specifically said he does not want these votes to be downgraded by the Bureaucrats. That statement has got be respected, otherwise Wikipedia will be in the farcical situation of ignoring the clearly stated judgement of the candidate (to take the foreseeable consequences of this joke on his chances of passing RfA) to promote him, endorsing the supporter's view that he apparently has good judgement, and ignoring the large swathe of opposition who argues he does not, and not only because of this joke.

4. Perhaps because of 3., the candidate made a deliberate choice to not immediately withdraw and restart with a proper nomination once it had become clear that his joke was causing significant issues (and it should be noted, much of the confusion was on the part of the supporters, who just said fuck it, let's support anyway), nor submit a substitute statement once it was becoming clear this was a problem for some people.

[CrowsNest]

Hilarious that RexxS' biggest supporters don't even try to hide their attempts to completely derail and disrupt the process......

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)

[CrowsNest]

That's just cruel.....

You got more supports than I did Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

(Boing! registered 1 oppose)

[CrowsNest]

I hadn't even realised this crazy stat......

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)

This particular user, really needs help......

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)

Could she be any more biased?

What other context is there to consider, than the user this person described as a "highly-respected" editor "who is known for fairness and neutrality" not only registered that whopping oppose total, they also couldn't attain a level of support that resembles even what the average support at RfA has been in recent years (about 170), which is far higher now that RfA's are advertised.

If this guy is highly respected, what the hell is Cullen? At 316 supports and only 2 opposes, he must be Wikipedia's answer to The Pope. In numerical terms, Cullen registered four and a half times the net vote RexxS managed. Cullen has been on Wikipedia a decade, and didn't run for Admin until 2017. All this whole 'suffered for his long service' argument is complete horseshit. The apparent difference? He's polite. Go figure.

There is no context that helps RexxS. He rolled the dice, he lost. He should have done then decent thing when he admitted he wanted the April Fool based opposes to be counted, thereby accepting he finished outside the discretionary zone. He said he didn't want to put the Bureaucrats in the position of dismissing their votes just so he can be an Administrator. That is the position they're now in.

As for the Bureaucrats, it's already hard to respect people who ignore the usual guidance (discretion applies at 65%) for a reason that doesn't really suggest he is an exceptional case, and certainly isn't a reason that affects an RfA. Wikipedia's boom year was 2007-8, so it is hardly surprising to find users of that long tenure nowadays.

[CrowsNest]

She really does need help.

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)

Does she seriously think the 92 opposers are just thick? Does she seriously think RexxS is the first person with long service and who works in contentious areas to run for RfA? I just named one above, and they absolutely smashed RexxS' result. And what are these contentious areas RexxS supposedly works? The collection of diffs all came from utterly mundane areas barring infoboxes (and most consider the whole incomes dispute inexplicably lame), with RexxS behaving like a real arse over some of the most mundane things. She should know, she was the person present during the cited lame dispute over an RfC notification, carrying this same water for Saint RexxS.

She really is rather ridiculous. Her bias could not be more obvious.

[CrowsNest]

More desperation.

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)

Any suggestion RexxS gets a free pass for being a dick to a banned user, when they didn't know that they were a banned user, is obviously bogus. It's not even permitted if you do know, but that at least does get routinely filed under 'meh, understandable'.

Maybe if RexxS has did what he claimed he usually does, and brought this long running issue between them to the attention of Administrators, he might have been noticed sooner, assuming they are a banned user. If RexxS knew they were banned but did nothing about it (except feud with them), then that obviously won't help his case at all.

If he is a banned user, and we are only now finding out how weak that case is, the best that can be hoped for is to strike their vote. So 92 becomes a 91. It's not an elephant eating competition, at some point you have to confront the literal elephant in the room and find a way to discount what is a historically large block of cohesive opposition who coalesced around one very serious issue.

That people are even trying to knock off an oppose here and there, like it makes any difference to the substantive difference of opinion of this candidate's credentials this RfA exposed, only makes it look even more desperate.

[CrowsNest]

Now they've just gone batshit crazy.......

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)

I just don't get how anyone thinks what will get this guy promoted, is yet more bullshit.

There was no conspiracy. There was no sudden full moon that changed people's perception of what makes a good candidate, or altered their ability to read evidence. Nobody got together and decided this RfA was going to be the one where they only look at two diffs, and ignore eleven years worth of edits.

It is utterly insane what these people are trying to argue. RfA has seen long serving candidates who worked in genuinely controversial areas before, and they managed to pass.

Yes, you precious fuck, you could have voted support had you noticed this was going on. You might have also noticed your reasoning was not exactly original, and was totally failing to convince. You want 60% to be the new 65%? Fine. The trend was clear. Reopen the RfA for one more day, and that is where he will have ended up. Christ, make it 50 and he still might have failed.

RfA is not a mystery. RexxS lost because, out of all the people who usually vote, and will typically turn out in a landslide for a candidate as good as RexxS was claimed to be, in his case, for reasons very specific to him, many of them stayed away, and many opposed.

You can wargame any proposed reforms you like, unless they are Earth shatteringly transformative, the dude will lose each and every time.

[CrowsNest]

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. ....... Risker (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2019

Here's a suggestion - look at how sitting Arbitrators actually voted?

Oh no, that won't work, it doesn't give the right result does it?

Jesus.

[CrowsNest]

A lot, and I mean, a ''lot'' of the opposition focused on just a few edits. A few edits out of about 30,000 over 11 years. In fact, many just about four letters in one comment.

Plenty of RfAs of younger candidates have gone down in flames over one incident, enough to establish the precedent that the number seen in this RfA is about right when considering their longer service.

Another inconvenient fact of course, is that of those that were highlighted, plenty seemed to be from recent times, suggesting people saw no need to go back further, not when they have seen so many other RfAs fail based on the freshness of evidence.

What the supporters were most annoyed about of course, busting their theory of a few bad incidents in a sea of good behaviour, is that it only took the discovery of a few highlighted incidents, both recent and further back, to demonstrate an emerging pattern, enough to then snowball further opposition.

They weren't a bunch of disparate incidents, they all spoke to his temperament and judgement, and crucially across disparate topic areas, suggesting it has a root cause within the candidate.

Like it or lump it, there's zero reason to think RexxS was treated any worse to the other candidates who turn up with several years experience. So it seems unwise to choose a single RfA that is already coloured by its apparent premise testing purpose, to start doing things which are more properly advertised in advance as being part of the rules of the proceedings. I rather think any attempt to codify what is being suggested, namely a lower bar for longer serving editors, would never be accepted.