It says a lot that he has even bothered to drag this out to see if anyone could breathe life into what was very dead dog. If this is supposedly about gaining the trust of a group of pseudonymous people in an internet collaboration, he should feel quite embarrassed if he only scrapes through, and only with the help of people who have met him in real life, in the process setting new records for how poor you can poll at RfA, and still pass.
See here for the potential historical comparisons....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ip_by_year
The excuse that he is being denied because he is a long term editor is weak, since, to belabour the point, there is absolutely no proof anyone has done a deep dive into his contributions and come back with his top five worst moments. There is certainly little evidence that the majority of the support comes from people who have conducted a broad review of his performance, or even just a detailed review of the last year or so. Much of it is faith based, certainly those who have always though he was or should be an Administrator.
This corrosion due to long service effect argument of course ignores the rather obvious fact that the success measure is a percentage, so a long term editor who is as good as many are claiming RexxS is, could surely have gathered more than just over a hundred supporters, certainly enough to offset however many detractors you might attract in a long career. He didn't participate in all those disputes without anyone being there to agree with or admire him, if the supporters are to be believed. Even those who disagree with him, are impressed by him, or so we are told. So where are they?
RexxS for Adminship
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Even the shortest review of previous 'crat chats offers no real hope for poor little user, if assuming a level playing field and it finishes where it is now. He suffers badly due to the unanimity of opposition, also due to how low down the range he will likely finish, plus the fact many of the things cited by the opposition, are very recent. Add to that the fact he had a way he could ameliorate their concerns, and chose not to, leaves little room for coming up with a defensible closure.
It is alarming to think how likely it is a Bureaucrat discussion might be thoroughly tainted by bias. Thankfully existing Bureaucrats 28Bytes, Aclamari and Worm have already laid their cards on the table. Can you imagine them pretending they were capable of sincerely weighting the opposition in this RfA? One of them thinks if RexxS doesn't pass, it shows RfA is broken, another thinks RexxS is the best candidate there has ever been, while one couldn't be bothered to even explain why they were supporting (thereby endorsing a joke nomination!).
It is alarming to think how likely it is a Bureaucrat discussion might be thoroughly tainted by bias. Thankfully existing Bureaucrats 28Bytes, Aclamari and Worm have already laid their cards on the table. Can you imagine them pretending they were capable of sincerely weighting the opposition in this RfA? One of them thinks if RexxS doesn't pass, it shows RfA is broken, another thinks RexxS is the best candidate there has ever been, while one couldn't be bothered to even explain why they were supporting (thereby endorsing a joke nomination!).
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Five more supports, the mythology now being he has promised to do better. But why would he even bother, with that many people saying there is no issue, nothing he has to work on?
I can remember an RfA from a few months ago, the verbally challenged JCM, and he started ignoring the feedback he had been given and doing things he had appeared to say he would not, straight out of the gate. After literally hours.
Nobody gave a shit. That's the real RfA. You can promise whatever you like, it literally means nothing.
I can remember an RfA from a few months ago, the verbally challenged JCM, and he started ignoring the feedback he had been given and doing things he had appeared to say he would not, straight out of the gate. After literally hours.
Nobody gave a shit. That's the real RfA. You can promise whatever you like, it literally means nothing.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
It's all coming out now. I had forgotten about this one......
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... User:RexxS
It saw Ritchie shutting things down before serious questions could be asked about the competency of an editor he is clearly a fan of, but hey, what's new?
There is no way you can read the utter bullshit RexxS was saying, and more importantly how he was saying it, and even more importantly why he was saying it, to be able to predict what sort of spectacular drama he might trigger if he becomes capable of doing more than just adding and removing tags.
Does he know now how his wrong he was? Has he figured out yet the difference between licensing an image and the text on a Wikipedia page? It sounds awfully similar to the way he has tried to Wikilawyer the AE rules into a status of non-officiality. Or is everything copyright yet another thing we'll just have to trust RexxS the Administrator stays the fuck away from? Because that's how stupid this was. Copyright 101 stuff.
For a guy many people claims is eminently qualified, there sure are a lot of Administrator specific things he doesn't seem to have a clue about, at all.
You'll note not one of the questions in the RfA cover copyright, and he has not mentioned it at all. Strange this wouldn't have come up already under 28Byte's too much scrutiny theory, because I for sure would have thought being this wrong about something this important would make any editor's top five worst moments list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... User:RexxS
It saw Ritchie shutting things down before serious questions could be asked about the competency of an editor he is clearly a fan of, but hey, what's new?
There is no way you can read the utter bullshit RexxS was saying, and more importantly how he was saying it, and even more importantly why he was saying it, to be able to predict what sort of spectacular drama he might trigger if he becomes capable of doing more than just adding and removing tags.
Does he know now how his wrong he was? Has he figured out yet the difference between licensing an image and the text on a Wikipedia page? It sounds awfully similar to the way he has tried to Wikilawyer the AE rules into a status of non-officiality. Or is everything copyright yet another thing we'll just have to trust RexxS the Administrator stays the fuck away from? Because that's how stupid this was. Copyright 101 stuff.
For a guy many people claims is eminently qualified, there sure are a lot of Administrator specific things he doesn't seem to have a clue about, at all.
You'll note not one of the questions in the RfA cover copyright, and he has not mentioned it at all. Strange this wouldn't have come up already under 28Byte's too much scrutiny theory, because I for sure would have thought being this wrong about something this important would make any editor's top five worst moments list.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Desperation......
By calling it polite, you either don't know what this word means (so why are you even commenting?), or you are taking the absolute piss.
RexxS, step up dude. These people, they're doing you more harm than good. If you don't speak up and disavow these assesments, if you don't make it known you can see these people are lying just so you can become an Administrator, then what choice to people have but to assume you condone the acts, and everything else that implies about this nomination?
Calling someone a prat is incivil. Period.Well I could be bothered to read it, and I see robust discussion on improving the article and ensuring balance and verifiability, with a couple of polite requests to observe indenting for the visually impaired and some Wikipedia etiquette advice. Enough to make me wonder if any of the civility opposes have actual foundation. ClubOranjeT 23:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
By calling it polite, you either don't know what this word means (so why are you even commenting?), or you are taking the absolute piss.
RexxS, step up dude. These people, they're doing you more harm than good. If you don't speak up and disavow these assesments, if you don't make it known you can see these people are lying just so you can become an Administrator, then what choice to people have but to assume you condone the acts, and everything else that implies about this nomination?
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Another example of the futility of even attempting a deep dive analysis of a candidate.....
In February 2017, a dispute apparently got so bad, Fram proposed blocking RexxS. It didn't happen. Indeed it was opposed unanimously. Which is probably good for RexxS, since it would have ruined his pristine block log.
This information has finally found its way to the RfA, after five days. Again rather disproving the theory that we have been told pretty much anything about RexxS history, much less a deliberately cherry picked selection of the most damaging diffs.
No sooner was it revealed, the supporter Levivich, who, and this is cute, has already reminded people "Diffs can be deceiving" in his efforts to counter opposition, has purportedly looked into this matter, and unsurprisingly, in his findings, has only mentioned the aspects I already said. Cleared unanimously. Yay.
But if you're smart, like Peter Southwood and Bri wants us to be, you probably realise not getting blocked when another Administrator asks them to be, even if it was a terrible act of misconduct itself (not so terrible because Fram is still an Administrator), is hardly what RfA is looking for in candidates.
So you look deeper. When you do so, you get somewhat closer to the truth (this is selectively quoted, but only to show you what was glossed over)....
As an aside, all things Fram, of course, is seemingly another area of Wikipedia that RexxS the Administrator will have to stand down and slum it. The places he can work a beat just gets smaller and smaller......
In February 2017, a dispute apparently got so bad, Fram proposed blocking RexxS. It didn't happen. Indeed it was opposed unanimously. Which is probably good for RexxS, since it would have ruined his pristine block log.
This information has finally found its way to the RfA, after five days. Again rather disproving the theory that we have been told pretty much anything about RexxS history, much less a deliberately cherry picked selection of the most damaging diffs.
No sooner was it revealed, the supporter Levivich, who, and this is cute, has already reminded people "Diffs can be deceiving" in his efforts to counter opposition, has purportedly looked into this matter, and unsurprisingly, in his findings, has only mentioned the aspects I already said. Cleared unanimously. Yay.
But if you're smart, like Peter Southwood and Bri wants us to be, you probably realise not getting blocked when another Administrator asks them to be, even if it was a terrible act of misconduct itself (not so terrible because Fram is still an Administrator), is hardly what RfA is looking for in candidates.
So you look deeper. When you do so, you get somewhat closer to the truth (this is selectively quoted, but only to show you what was glossed over)....
Do you see any indication from this RfA that RexxS appreciates he has this issue? Or that his supporters are prepared to admit his issues perhaps go a bit deeper than "grumpy", itself a laughable characterisation of the temperament issues found? What's the net positive to a career path that takes an editor from here to Administrator in just over two years? Not a new editor, but someone who at that time was already nine years on the project. That's some turnaround if true. What changed? I hope it wasn't that he finally realised he will always be at a disadvantage during these sort of disputes because he is not an Administrator.Oppose unless BOTH parties are blocked, as it takes two to continue a dispute. .... We hope (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
.... Also +1 to Fut.Perf.'s comment above ("There's nothing either of you has to gain from continuing it"). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Oppose we probably should have a WP:LAME block criteria but we do not. Both editors should just let it drop. Neither is exactly covering themselves in glory here. Jbh Talk 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
There does seem to be a degree of disruption going on. I still Support an at-least temporary topic ban on any enwiki edits that involve or relate to wikidata. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment- I'm not sure what RexxS is playing at here, but on this issue it is clear that Fram is right. I'm not sure a block is really called for quite yet, but I'll quickly change my mind if RexxS does not drop the silly games, ABF, and circuitous wikilawyering immediately. Reyk YO! 15:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
As an aside, all things Fram, of course, is seemingly another area of Wikipedia that RexxS the Administrator will have to stand down and slum it. The places he can work a beat just gets smaller and smaller......
Re: RexxS for Adminship
To be honest, a Fram or a Ritchie seems to be the more likely model of what kind of Administrator RexxS will be, than any that even really comes close to the theoretical ideal. I see the exact same tendencies toward intransigence, arrogance, snark, lawyering, and occasionally just formulating a policy position so stupid you just wonder if the zero on the number of years served is a typo. I am sure, like them, he will be capable of going long periods without doing anything controversial and will say and do things that look eminently for the good of Wikipedia. But also like them, much of what he does do that is unambiguously sub-par Administration will go unremarked or will just be hushed up. And also, like them, the calculation of net positivity is destroyed when you consider both the impact and time wasted arising from the occasional massive screw up, plus ten more lesser AN/I clusterfucks, as well as the long term bitterness that sets in as everyone realises he will be just as immovable from the role as they are. He already fits the bill in a way - Ritchie and Fram are essential already WP:INVOLVED wrt each other, and it seems like RexxS the Administrator would also already be considered involved with both, one for excess enmity, the other excess love. A very weird triangle. Odd when you think all three are supposed to be the top of the line models of the cult, the ones that can talk and everything.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
Seriously, how does a Bureaucrat ignore an oppose vote like this (which ended RexxS' brief moment in the sunny uplands of 66%)....
I was wondering if RexxS was going to benefit from an extension, but honestly, this is exactly the sort of vote I expected to see once the log had just began to be shifted, as it was by the immediately preceeding two opposes, which probably made this guy's mind up.
Not that it should matter, but supporters are being pretty elitist, so the 'crats looking at their claims have to take note of the fact that this voter has been on Wikipedia longer than RexxS has, three quarters of their edits are to main space, and he has two FAs under their belt. So if they don't know just as well as Kudpung and company claims to, who does?Oppose, after reading this discussion and the diffs several times over the last few days. While I agree with the candidate on the merits of many of the disputes mentioned, the confrontational manner and demeaning tone he employed in some of them is inappropriate for an administrator. It accomplishes nothing but ill will. Kablammo (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I was wondering if RexxS was going to benefit from an extension, but honestly, this is exactly the sort of vote I expected to see once the log had just began to be shifted, as it was by the immediately preceeding two opposes, which probably made this guy's mind up.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
The brass balls of the most ardent supporters is hilarious.
So far, RexxS has only admitted to having a civility problem, he has shown no awareness of issues like his copyright ignorance or tendency to do things during disputes that lead actual Administrators to ask for him to be blocked. Indeed he has given a characterisation of his approach to disputes that makes a mockery of that evidence, and he has talked about the AE rules in the same bizarre way as he has about copyright.
There has been a catch all admission that he knows he doesn't always meet the standards of Administrator, but is he really aware it includes these things? From his answers it is debatable if he thinks incidents like calling that person a prat, in that scenario for that reason, is covered by his promise to do better, or is one of those times where he is not going to change, because sometimes people (fools) just need to be insulted, because Wikipedia accessibility is just that important.
All the evidence supports the suspicion RexxS is pulling a fast one. He knew he didn't have a chance if he rocked up to RfA claiming to be perfect. But he's also been around long enough know that if he was contrite in a very generic way, if he steered clear of any details, if he promised to do better if they just trusted him, and crucially if he blackmailed people by letting it be known this was a one time offer, then there are enough gullible people on Wikipedia to get him over the line.
We know exactly what Ceoil means by "no nonsense". Virtually everyone he meets on Wikipedia is a fool to him. He's just too much of a chicken shit to tell the people who are approaching this with an open mind and a definite appreciation that being an Administrator does require higher standards, what he really means.
The core support base RexxS has, are old white dudes who think they're smarter and better at Teh Wiki stuff than they really are. As is well known, these are the people least capable of honest self-assessment and personal growth, the least capable of accepting responsibility for their actions, because in real life, and on Wikipedia, they never have to give up their privelage. Ritchie doesn't even have to strike his "honest and frank" comment, he gets to save face by apologising in a less visible place to where he did the thing he is apologising for.
If RexxS can't stop calling people prats after nine years, in the heat of the moment when it's an issue important to him, then he probably never will. If he refuses to prove to you he can, cogniscent as he is that this is not the example required from Administrators, not even for six months, you can assume he knows he can't. So all those people claiming RexxS will be a net positive, are showing how seriously they take civility, or as it is better described in these circumstances, temperament. Those calling him perfectly competent, are only revealing their likely incompetence. The fact the likes of Ritchie and Ceoil would be prepared to claim black is white for a fellow traveller, and face no consequences for it in the current Wikipedia environment, is a given.
About the best you can say about RexxS, that although they share familial similarities, he is at least not as bad as Ritchie or Ceoil. This is not the standard required of Administrators. Check the manual.
Thank you Levivich. This is a significant feat of debunking, that I hope the crats will consider in their likely chat. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I haven't even begun to analyse those diffs, but already I found one where RexxS showed he knows nothing about copyright, one where he thinks calling someone a prat is how you defend the rights of readers with accessibility issues, and one where he escaped a block but was clearly being disruptive, for reasons that echo similar incidents.Per Levivich above "Diffs can be deceiving"; many, on closer inspection, in fact indicate somebody who would make a fine, no nonsense, admin. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
So far, RexxS has only admitted to having a civility problem, he has shown no awareness of issues like his copyright ignorance or tendency to do things during disputes that lead actual Administrators to ask for him to be blocked. Indeed he has given a characterisation of his approach to disputes that makes a mockery of that evidence, and he has talked about the AE rules in the same bizarre way as he has about copyright.
There has been a catch all admission that he knows he doesn't always meet the standards of Administrator, but is he really aware it includes these things? From his answers it is debatable if he thinks incidents like calling that person a prat, in that scenario for that reason, is covered by his promise to do better, or is one of those times where he is not going to change, because sometimes people (fools) just need to be insulted, because Wikipedia accessibility is just that important.
All the evidence supports the suspicion RexxS is pulling a fast one. He knew he didn't have a chance if he rocked up to RfA claiming to be perfect. But he's also been around long enough know that if he was contrite in a very generic way, if he steered clear of any details, if he promised to do better if they just trusted him, and crucially if he blackmailed people by letting it be known this was a one time offer, then there are enough gullible people on Wikipedia to get him over the line.
We know exactly what Ceoil means by "no nonsense". Virtually everyone he meets on Wikipedia is a fool to him. He's just too much of a chicken shit to tell the people who are approaching this with an open mind and a definite appreciation that being an Administrator does require higher standards, what he really means.
The core support base RexxS has, are old white dudes who think they're smarter and better at Teh Wiki stuff than they really are. As is well known, these are the people least capable of honest self-assessment and personal growth, the least capable of accepting responsibility for their actions, because in real life, and on Wikipedia, they never have to give up their privelage. Ritchie doesn't even have to strike his "honest and frank" comment, he gets to save face by apologising in a less visible place to where he did the thing he is apologising for.
If RexxS can't stop calling people prats after nine years, in the heat of the moment when it's an issue important to him, then he probably never will. If he refuses to prove to you he can, cogniscent as he is that this is not the example required from Administrators, not even for six months, you can assume he knows he can't. So all those people claiming RexxS will be a net positive, are showing how seriously they take civility, or as it is better described in these circumstances, temperament. Those calling him perfectly competent, are only revealing their likely incompetence. The fact the likes of Ritchie and Ceoil would be prepared to claim black is white for a fellow traveller, and face no consequences for it in the current Wikipedia environment, is a given.
About the best you can say about RexxS, that although they share familial similarities, he is at least not as bad as Ritchie or Ceoil. This is not the standard required of Administrators. Check the manual.
Re: RexxS for Adminship
"No nonsense" Administrator.....
It reeks of the issues already identified - far too confrontational, far too cock-sure of himself, far too willing to pit Administrator against Administrator. Most importantly, it shows he really doesn't know the difference between what works, and what doesn't work.
Sarcasm is a pretty feeble retort. Vandalism here shows up on watchlists here, and we have plenty of editors to fix it. When you've created anti-vandalism filters, or even bothered to enable your watchlist here to show changes on Wikidata, you'll be able to comment from an informed position. Spend a bit of time at the Wikidata vandalism dashboard as I do, and I might be a bit more willing to take your suggestions seriously. --RexxS (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Now, you may not think there's any problem with having unsourceable content in our articles; you may think there's no problem with vandalism on Wikidata; you may even think it's ok to describe a living person as "loves dick" or to describe someone who does not self-identify as a particular race or ethnicity. However, the community doesn't agree with any of that, and we are trying to circumvent those problems. So I'd be really grateful if you'd stop making our job harder by indiscriminately removing {{short description}} from articles for no very good reason at all. --RexxS (talk) 16:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Even after filing the enforcement request, I've been called "dishonest" by an administrator on the RfC page. Sooner or later, I'm going to give in to the baiting and lose my temper with them. It needs to have somebody wiling to impose sanctions on those who have no regard for ArbCom's requirements of decorum, civility and not turning the discussion about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general. Hope you can help. --RexxS (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
That's what I found when I went "digging for dirt". My search criteria? What has he said on other user's talk pages in the last month?I'm not interested in you doing any me favours: I expect you to use your admin tools for the benefit of the encyclopedia and I don't need nonsense like "subverting the usual process and unilaterally renominating the discussions did you no favor here". That's not why the community grated you those tools. I assumed that a simple renomination which addressed the objection would have been a less bureaucratic route than DRV, but it seems I was mistaken. --RexxS (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It reeks of the issues already identified - far too confrontational, far too cock-sure of himself, far too willing to pit Administrator against Administrator. Most importantly, it shows he really doesn't know the difference between what works, and what doesn't work.