It is actually incredible to think how weak RexxS' support was, given the claims being made in the post-mortem. Properly weighted, it could be as low as 135, if not lower. As such, to promote RexxS the Bureaucrats need to explain how they could have possibly found 18 oppose votes to discount by 100%, or 36 at 50%, etc, to see consensus on a weighted strength of argument basis. Unpossible. To get to 65% with such a weak support base, RexxS needs the opposition to be downgraded to 74 to still pass. To put that into perspective, one possible route to 74 is to chuck out 10 oppose votes
completely, then discount
every single remaining oppose by 10%. Will the Bureaucrats ever DARE to admit that is what they did? I'm thinking no, if they don't want a riot in their hands.
So, how did I get there?
We already know the actual figure of 163 is below average in the watchlist notification era, explained quite easily by the fact 92 people crossed the aisle. But the Bureaucrats, and the history revisionist supporters, have been claiming the support voters themselves made good arguments. Indeed, the primary reason they give for ignoring the fact that he finished so incredibly low in percentage terms, which of course has as much to do with his poor level of support than it does the relatively huge level of opposition, is that an RfA is a discussion not a vote, and so we are meant to believe the way RexxS got over the line was by having supporters who made very good arguments and in sufficient numbers.
Since it has become their key point, overshadowing any sense they want RexxS to be promoted for the same reasons he does (just say yes if you trust me), I decided to test their claim in detail. What I found, unsurprisingly, is that quite a significant number of RexxS' support base made weak arguments and/or weren't treating the process like a debate at all. There are so many, it has to be asked, if you were properly weighing the votes, as a Bureaucrat should, did RexxS even make it past 50% in the final analysis? The desired target to find consensus to promote still being 65% after weighting, because nobody would stand for any idea the current target is 50%+1.
People who said nothing (8 votes)I am still waiting for anyone to explain why these people, who said literally nothing, just voted support, should not be weighted ZERO. The convention that such support votes are implied agreement with the nomination statement does not hold in this case, because the nomination was a joke. The idea they imply agreement with the nominator carries no weight, because RfA requires nominators to provide a statement for a reason, and Wikipedia is not meant to be a personality cult (the fact RexxS is now an Administrator being good evidence that it is).
Gog the Mild (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
~SS49~ {talk} 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Peter James (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
{{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
People who might as well have said nothing (4 votes)If you support a candidate it is implied you think they are a good candidate, i.e. they are qualified. Therefore, the following people, who admittedly said something, but nothing which could not merely be implied by their support vote, should carry little weight. Being generous, you could say they are worth 0.5 of what a strong support should have looked like in this RfA, given they don't really acknowledge the controversy at all, they could have been voting in any RfA. It has to be asked, did these people even bother even reading the RfA?
Good candidate, meets my criteria. Vermont (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like a good candidate. TheEditster (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Will make a good admin. Bellezzasolo Discuss 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Support qualified, experienced and competent. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
People who only noticed the date (8 votes)Let's be generous and give these people a weight factor of 0.75, since while they apparently managed to pick up on the date or the fact the while the nomination statement was a joke the RfA was real (one may not even have got that far!), but other than that, nothing can really be read into their support other than they support the candidate. No specifics are given as regards their individual merits, and no acknowledgement of the concerns of opposers is evident (other than the implied complete rejection, the same as you assume is the intent of any other unexplained support vote).
a serious moment on a silly day.WormTT(talk) 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
APRIL FOOLS (just kidding) Seriously, if the mopper's good enough for the rose, then the mopper's good enough for the tools... and for me! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 19:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The date of the nomination (and the nominator neither) doesn't play any role at all. And to some of the opposers, in the still lingering spirit of April 1st, I say ma gavte la nata (and yes, that's meant to be humorous). Lectonar (talk) 12:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Good candidate. I hope this is not an April Fools' nomination. Jianhui67 TC 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
No joke, Rexxs is qualified to become an administrator. However, for daring to ruin our fools day with serious topics (we are serious cats) [FBDB] I oPpOsE. Thanks,L3X 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Joke nomination or not, Rexx is a good dude for real. Absolutely zero concern. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a good qualified candidate. Won't hold unorthodox nomination against them. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
if this is not a "1st" (so to speak) and only if RexxS will have the time to continue helping editors (particularly me
) with templates & various other tech issues. Atsme Talk 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
People who mentioned tool abuse (4 votes)It has always been a Wikipedia canard that evidence of "abusing the tools" is the only way to determine if an Administrator is guilty of misconduct. It is both a general principle, and proven very well in this RfA, that the high standards required apply to things that have nothing to do with use of the tools. For not appreciating that, these votes should be severely downgraded as very weak votes, perhaps as weak as 0.3, since they either said nothing else, or what they did say regarding competence/qualification has to be measured against their inability to show they know how Administrative competence is actually measured.
I see no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Helpful, trustworthy editor. No reason to expect this person to abuse the tools. Net positive for the project. --valereee (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I would have picked any other day to do this, but he doesn't seem like he would abuse a mop/bucket —Amiodarone talk 19:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
RexxS will not abuse the tools, has a high level of competence and is dedicated to improving the wiki. Clear net positive. -- Begoon 03:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
People citing the canard of perfection (3 votes)The following votes should have been discounted to at least 0.8, because their support was based solely on the entirely false belief that opposers were expecting perfection. So they were either constructing a straw man, or didn't read the debate (one opposer specifically modified their vote to remove any possibility that they could be construed as expecting perfection). They are arguably weak for not realising (or accepting) that on the numbers alone, this was not a case of promoting someone who was "good" as contrast to perfection. In contrast to "good", nobody can dispute RexxS was promoted based on the community's new understanding of what is "minimally acceptable", no candidate ever having done this badly and still got promoted.
In promoting editors to admin, we have done worse. We could do better. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. We will never get perfection. And this is good enough. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Perfection is the enemy of the good; clear net positive. WBGconverse 06:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Good is the enemy of the perfection; clear net positive. Lourdes 08:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
People voting out of pity, spite or point making (3 votes)It seems pretty obvious these votes should carry little weight, perhaps as low as 0.2, for being motivated solely out of pity, or a desire to balance out opposition, or worse, make a point about RfA. It is unimpressive in particular, given all the talk of needing evidence to back up the opposition case, that no evidence was provided that a significant amount of the opposition was merely score settling. At best, that described only two votes, on the face of it, namely Pppery and Geogene.
even though his nomination seems to be failing. Eschoryii (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
of course. The ammount of petty attempts at score-settling in some of the oppose !votes exmplifies what is wrong with RfA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
in fact, strongest possible support. If this longstanding user (who many of us thought should have become an admin 10 years ago) can't get the mop, the whole RfA system needs to be reworked. Montanabw(talk) 20:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
People who simply said net positive (5 votes)These votes can arguably be treated as 0.8 of what would be a strong vote in this RfA, since you cannot really be sure they have even bothered to read the debate. They are exactly the sort of cookie cutter votes you can see in any RfA, including those which register zero opposition. If we assume they really did know what was going on, well, it is hardly a ringing endorsement of a candidate who so many opposers though was not fit to serve, many emphatically so.
I think the candidate will be a net positive with the tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Likely a net positive. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
he'll be a net asset, and we need more admins. schetm (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
A likely net positive. SemiHypercube 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
People who made arguments unrelated to Adminship (9 votes)These votes should have been downgraded to at least 0.5 of a strong vote, since while they said things, when you really think about it, they said nothing that implies they really know what Adminship really is, or were properly engaged with the concerns of opposition. It is inarguable that RfA is not about giving the tools to people who have merely been around a long time, are committed, are respected, or have been helpful, or are generally experienced. They are extremely weak given the opposition were bringing evidence that even after all his long service, he still lacked experience in several areas, not knowing stuff even ordinary editors are supposed to know. The two people who dismissed the civility concerns as mere occasional grumpyness, absolutely need to be downgraded harshly, given they have clearly and obviously willfully ignored evidence of personal attacks, or worse think personal attacks can be dismissed as mere grumpyness. All the references to trust are supremely weak arguments, for the same reason merely saying you think the candidate will be a good Administrator is weak - these beliefs can merely be inferred from the fact you are supporting (because quite obviously Adminship is not for untrustworthy candidates, or indeed whose trustworthiness has not yet been established by means other than simple long service).
Obviously can be grumpy in argument, but very experienced indeed, and strongly committed to the project. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Occasionally grumpy ≠ untrustworthy. Clear and long-standing commitment to the project. RexxS will do fine. Katietalk 03:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
for being helpful. Good luck!--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Having been around here for more than a decade, with over 30K contribs, he can definitely be trusted as an admin. Woshiyiweizhongguoren 15:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
a candidate who's making strides to make Wikipedia more accessible. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Has been a benefit to the project. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, although not without hesitation. An experienced, trusted contributor. Llwyld (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
RexxS is clearly dedicated to the project, encouraging and supportive. I have no doubt that he will be an excellent administrator. Poltair (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Rex is one sharp dude. He knows what he's doing and would be a great admin. Tex (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Finally, there was this support....
because it's a few extra buttons and nothing else, and RexxS has shown no inclination towards using them in any detrimental way. It's not the nuclear football, for goodness sake. The Blade of the Northern Lights 18:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Whether you believe the person or not, given it was the only vote to arrive after the RfA was due for closure, and indeed was lodged in the same minute it was protected pending closure, thereby making their claim "RexxS has shown no inclination...." unchallengable, you have to discount this at least by half, if you count it at all. If this is the vote that supporters are happy to argue means RexxS finished on 164/64.1% rather than 163/63.9% or somewhere in between, then whatever they have claimed since, they are basically admitting this process was literally just an exercise in voting, or they are admitting they have not looked at what happened in any great detail at all (so why should anyone believe anything they say about this RfA about strength of arguments or consensus or the good work of the Bureaucrats in coming to the "right" conclusion?).
In the final analysis, it is inarguably that it would have been justifiable and justified, to consider RexxS' post-weighting level of support as
135.
Showing my working.....
164
-8*1.0 (-8)
-4*0.5 (-2)
-8*0.75 (-6)
-4*0.3 (-1.2)
-3*0.8 (-2.4)
-3*0.2 (-0.6)
-5*0.8 (-4)
-9*0.5 (-4.5)
-1*0.5 (-0.5)
You can hopefully see the point now about the weakness of RexxS' support. If not, believe me when I say I was more than generous in not including other voters I probably could have on the same grounds as above, but I instead chose to interpret one or two extra words in their statements as evidence they had properly engaged in the debate, had properly considered the opposition, and nonetheless chose to support based on a reasonable and justifiable understanding of what the RfA process is actually there to test for.
For example I chose to interpret "trusted with the tools" in this vote.....
RexxS and I don’t always see eye to eye, but I respect him immensely and am more than willing to trust him with the tools. We need more people like him on board, in my opinion. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
....as evidence they had indeed thought about what the impact of RexxS being considered to be meeting (and maintaining) the higher standard of Adminship might be (i.e. not harmful to Wikipedia), rather than it arguably having been just another case of a supporter thinking RfA is only about the risk of 'tool abuse', as opposed to the unedifying sight of an Administrator abusing other contributors, if not for no reason, then merely only because they felt it was justified. Which, of course, per the standards expected of Administrators, it never is. Which was obviously uppermost in the minds of many opposers.
Note also that our of an abundance of generosity, I haven't even bothered identifying all the voters who, many probably having been canvassed, merely voted support with words to the effect, I have worked with him (or met him IRL), and he seems fine. People like Ched, who remains an Administrator only in name, because he proved to be ill-equipped for the role. Nor have I bothered identifying those who couldn't be bothered to offer a specific reason to support the candidate, only that they were not persuaded but the opposes, or were only supporting because of who else was supporting. These are all weak votes in the context of such a controversial and divisive candidacy, where supposedly specific evidence and specific (on-wiki) merits were at issue. Here is an example......
I see a number of editors I greatly respect in this column, and I don’t see a reason to oppose. Pawnkingthree (talk) 08:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, considering it was precisely RexxS' total misjudgement in still believing RfA was no big deal and deciding to nominate himself when and how he did to test that premise is what caused the whole thing to come to resemble a trainwreck, you have to be extremely generous to have found no irony whatsoever in the presence of support votes like this apparently being needed to find a consensus to promote....
despite differences on some subjects – no big deal, net positive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Adminship is no big deal. The candidate ain't gonna break the pedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it is obvious that the same level of good faith I have shown in selecting what votes to downgrade, was not extended to the opposition's concerns and indeed presumed competence in the task of voting in an RfA. In the context of the above, how weak for example was an oppose vote like this considered to be?
based on civility concerns. GABgab 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)