RexxS for Adminship

[CrowsNest]

Support I dont know this editor, but I suspect that they may feel on occassion that the need to be diplomatic with others runs the risk of making them seem inauthentic to themselves — a move against the idealized, unconventional version of what we see ourselves as being. This unconventionality — warts and all — can be the source of an editor's greatest strengths, and also their greatest weaknesses. For those that think outside of the box, their responses to others can also seem outside of the box — in other words, outside of the bounds of what a majority of editors in a leadership role feel is diplomatic. The requirements of a sysops demands responses to others which are more politically correct — in other words, inside of the box. Telling a frustrating editor where to go and how to get there may feel emotionally authentic, but it delivers little else and certainly no favors from others. There is a limit to unconventionality — respecting that boundary lets the best parts of your character stand out. Spintendo 20:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I just, well,..um, ......what?

[CrowsNest]

This guy. Seriously. Like, do you think people are thick. Proper fucking thick? You know people can do their own research, right?

Additional context: A year ago, Geogene posted an RfC notice "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" at WP:Medicine's talk page; it was removed by a member of the project (not Rexx) as "wrong wikiproject"; Geogene reverted the removal; Rexx removed it again; the ensuing discussion was closed by a fourth editor (not by Rexx) as "Not relevant to this WikiProject"; Geogene reverted the close then self-reverted but restored the RfC notice, which a fifth editor (not Rexx) reverted, writing from what I can tell, everyone else agrees this is spam to this wikiproject. ......Leviv ich 23:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

I've already covered this upthread, but just to demonstrate what an absolute ARSE this guy is being with his laughable attempts to summarise and contextualize, here's what he left out of the above....

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

I restored this notice because mass shootings and gun control policy are recognized public health issues. Geogene (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

But not recognised by this WikiProject as in scope. You ought to show the courtesy of letting the members of the project decide what their scope is for themselves, rather than arrogantly deciding on it for them. --RexxS (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's just a pointer to an RfC. It's not the end of the world if it's here when it shouldn't be or isn't when it should. A bit of assuming good faith would go down well now. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It was politely removed by a member of this WikiProject, and edit-warred back by the original poster, who hasn't any other contribution to WPMED in my recollection. When "please go away" doesn't work, you'll usually find that "fuck off" gets results. --RexxS (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

It's generally frowned upon to remove talk page posts without a compelling reason. @RexxS: should voluntarily strike their aggressive remarks, or there's going to need to be some dispute resolution on this. Geogene (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Rubbish. Editors are given huge leeway to manage their own talk pages as they see fit. The same applies to a WikiProject. Are you a member of WPMED? Didn't think so. Considering you've been around a while, you don't even have naïveté as as an excuse for your lack of clue about how talk pages work. At your current rate, your behaviour is indeed going to be under examination at DR. --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not "your own talk page". Do you not understand that? And as far as I know, you're not the Glorious Leader of Project Medicine, either. Obviously, something about gun policy (which relevant to public health) triggered you. That's nobody else's business, so keep your outbursts to yourself. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't be a prat. This is WPMED's talk page. I've been a member of this WikiProject for over 8 years and you've no association with the project at all. As far as you know, I'm not the Glorious Leader of the NRA either, but you know nothing, do you? Don't try to second-guess my motives. As it happens, the thing that annoyed me was when you re-inserted your notice after another member had politely removed it, noting "wrong wikiproject. You just can't take no for an answer, can you? --RexxS (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You can be a "member" of any Wikiproject you like by posting four tildes on the respective page. Now, if you want to explain your page ownership over at AE (because this falls under Arbitration Enforcement guidelines) AN/I, or wherever else you want, then go ahead. Nobody is making you participate in an RfC, and nobody is making you participate in this thread. Geogene (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to shoehorn in an issue that has nothing to do with WP:MED. Natureium (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. The guidelines on RfCs explicitly state they should publicized on relevant WikiProjects. And reliable sources explicitly state that gun control is a public health issue [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. So I'm following accepted procedure to the letter, I don't see what the problem is, and I view this opposition as disruptive editing. Trying to hide this serves no purpose other than to hinder solving a relevant content dispute. Geogene (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Well feel free to disagree somewhere else. The purpose of this talk page is discuss improvements to WP:WikiProject Medicine. The question of "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" is so far removed from that purpose that your persistence in trying to force your unwelcome notice down the members' throats is very clearly tendentious editing. You will answer for that at ANI if you continue in this vein. --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This is not a private club, and it's not your private club. I'm fine with AN/I (or AE), but you don't have to participate if you don't want. And you can stop replying whenever you want. But, again, you don't own this page, and I'm going to post whatever is on topic for it. Geogene (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to post on any subject that is on topic here - there are some clues in the edit notice. All you need to do is realise that "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" just isn't one of those subjects. --RexxS (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. And this is on topic. Weird that you're still arguing this. Go file at AN/I, or go home. Geogene (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I think an RFC notice would be less disruptive than this kerfuffle. No editor WP:OWNs this talk page. — soupvector (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

It's getting boring now. Anyone who thinks RexxS doesn't have SERIOUS ISSUES with how he interacts with others, serious enough to ring loud alarm bells at the prospect of giving him a ban-hammer, is deluding themselves. This isn't grumpiness, this isn't bluntness, this isn't mere rudeness, this is everything we have seen in those other examples, namely a massive tendency toward ownership, escalation, intimidation, and yes, personal attacks. Not rudeness, but direct insults, just because someone won't bend to your will. How many times does he call people prats? Does it happen every time he gets into a big fight? It seems like it.

The sheer fucking arrogance is what is unbelievable. And all over the most trivial of things.

Needless to say, his thoughts and ideas about the supposed sovereignty of WikiProjects and their members is pretty much nonsense, so there we have a great example of how this supposedly qualified and competent editor actually seems to talk quite a lot of crap about the basics of Wikipedia governance and collaboration.

All these people who want to testify to RexxS' character and competence "in their experience" , well, where the fuck are you when this sort of shit is going down? Do you maybe only ever see the good side of RexxS?

How often does he pull this tactic of repeatedly threatening people with a trip to a noticeboard unless they comply, while never actually reporting it? The other guy did it for him, and unsurprisingly, the feedback was not great for either party.

This was only a year ago. And I honestly have no idea if all this is covered by RexxS' promise that as an Administrator he will be more passive, or whether this is the sort of needlessly combative shit that he says he's just going to keep doing as an Administrator, because he feels it was entirely appropriate, per Q14.

[CrowsNest]

Black Kite now doing what he used to do for Eric Corbett....

Geogene: Not that it really makes any difference, but just to note that "persistent little bugger" in British slang isn't using the dictionary definition of "bugger". It's a very throwaway remark and would be taken as jokey or certainly inoffensive, the sort of thing I might expect to hear from, say, a friend who I was repeatedly nagging to do something they didn't really want to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

As a Brit, you can rest assured that, just like "prat", the dictionary definition is spot on....

a person or thing considered to be contemptible, unpleasant, or difficult.
.....
used as a term of abuse, especially for a man.
......
a person who has done something annoying or stupid.
......
a silly or annoying person

You can debate how offensive it was intended to be, but you simply cannot argue it was meant to be inoffensive, and it most certainly wasn't a joke, except in the sense that the people who are meant to be laughing is everyone except the person being called it.

More to the point, it is that an Administrator's mindset should be a million miles away from even using language like this at all, but especially not in an edit summary. That it happened at all, is absolutely the mark of an intemperate and thoughtless person.

[CrowsNest]

Daily midnight totals..

24/6
60/43 (+36/37)
88/52 (+28/9)
106/61 (+18/9)
124/65 (+18/4)
142/73 (+18/8)

+1 oppose today already.

I am thinking the Bureaucrats are just going to do something crazy, something that makes sure they don't drown in the floods of tears or go deaf from the screaming that will inevitably ensue if they dared to deem this a failure.

I am thinking RexxS has probably already been tipped off to hang in there, help is on the way in the form of some creative reasoning. Seems more plausible than him being dumb enough to hope there was some prospect of a late swing.

It's a shame really. From here, it would only take 6 more opposes to deny the Bureaucrats even the chance of stitching this up, but it would take 75 more supports to promote him without a discussion.

[CrowsNest]

#'''Support'''. I find myself in the position of some of our colleagues who had the strong urge to just pretend we hadn't noticed this, but as I read ever more deeply into this RFA, I realized it's time to step up. RexxS is the example of how difficult it is to become an admin after a very extended, committed run as a community member who's worked in many areas including multiple controversial ones. He's not perfect - but then neither are any of the rest of us. He's made mistakes and missteps, and I disagree with him as often as I agree with him. But I know that even when we disagree about something, there is still mutual respect for each other's opinion. I think {{u|Iridescent}} sums it up well. And frankly, some of the cherry-picked opposes below are illustrative of the very behaviour they claim to be opposing, which I find to be very concerning all by themselves. I hope the 'crats will see their way to deprecating those that have been largely debunked. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Poor old RexxS, being judged on his entire eleven years of editting.

I hope the Bureaucrats will debunk this utter tripe - many of the incidents raised are very recent, the sort of recent that would disqualify anyone who has simply put two years in and then turned up at RfA. I checked the last month, only looking at comments left to other users, and I still found plenty to concern someone prepared to open their fucking eyes and look.

These people really are showing their desperation. It is blindingly obvious the debunking of opposition diffs is being done by partners of DoWeCheatEmAndHow.

On a point of fact, there seems to be only one controversial area RexxS has worked in, namely infoboxes. And that has barely come up in comparison to how he has apparently been acting in mundane areas of the project, where you would expect absolutely no controversy.

Other than being an old white British dude, to whom privilege and inflexibility is a default, after eleven years on the project, RexxS has no fucking excuses whatsoever for why he still can't do basic things like not insult people, not be an arrogant oaf, not be an elitist prick, not needlessly escalate situations, and not learn the very basics about things like copyright.

There is merit to the idea he has been encouraged to think he doesn't need to do the basics by people who have been blowing smoke up his ass, people like Risker and Littleolive oil. Being under Bishonen's wing probable also massively reduces your sense of obligation to the wider community.

[CrowsNest]

Now 149/77/16. Absolutely no sign of a late swing coming to RexxS' aid. Remaining neutrals now seem happy to remain neutral - even if they all switched right now, he would still only be at 68.2%. I thought he might at least make 67-68% even yesterday, but the seemingly inexhaustible supply of opposition to counterbalance the continuing but meagre flow of support (at 149 with just over a day to go, can he even reach the bang average total of 170?), means he is firmly rooted at the lower end of 66%.

What can realistically turn this around? Nothing that I can see. People are seemingly waking up to the idea a 'crat chat calling this as a victory, would be highly controversial. Even if Bureaucrats assumed every single support is valid (and there must be at least ten with no given reason!), and even if they totally ignored twenty opposes for whatever reason they like, and twenty far exceeds the number displeased by the manner of the nomination, then RexxS' apparent level of support is still only 72.3%, which is telling.

There is no sign anyone is unfairly judging RexxS, at least not in greater numbers than those apparently prepared to come to RfA to only bear witness to their positive personal experience, completely ignoring the contraindications. There is absolutely no sign this myth of the five worst incidents having been found to discredit an entire editing career, has any legs. By contrast, there are plenty turning up to support solely to counteract that unicorn, or just to argue his long service somehow entitles him, just not enough to get him over the line, in a system where comments like "support, why not?" are usually sufficient if registered in large enough numbers.

Just as supporters have tried to reinforce their support, with an eye to influencing the 'Crats, the opposition are starting to do the same. There seems no point in extending the process now, participation has been low (notably low for such an allegedly popular, dedicated and clueful volunteer), but not so low that a clear picture of the collective view hasn't been formed. Two days ago, someone crossing the aisle from oppose to support, would have swung the needle by 0.07%. Now, it would be just 0.04%.

Concerns continue to be specific to the candidate's identified merits and flaws, even in the neutral camp......

I do not think the nominee has sufficient patience and temperament, unfortunately. Maybe they could undertake to limit their admin work to technical issues only?

His answers to questions means we already know what RexxS thinks of that, and it seems like he isn't in the mood to offer anything but that which he has always offered - a trust based appeal offered as a one time deal. That was arguably his biggest error of judgement, but it was a early necessary error so he could try to prove his point to Redrose, given he obviously thinks he is a qualified candidate and therefore him passing RfA should have been a breeze.

[CrowsNest]

I continue to be amazed that Bishonen wants absolutely no part of owning her role in this farce. Not that it was unexpected, just that she has gotten away with it. People really are afraid of her.

Indeed, it only now occurs to me that I have been remiss in pointing out one rather amazing fact.....

SHE DIDN'T EVEN ENDORSE HER OWN CANDIDATE.

This may seem irrelevent, you would think it is just assumed that a nominator supports their candidate, but you would be wrong. For various reasons, that implication is not granted, and rather obviously, if you don't lodge a support vote, typically "support, as nominator", then you have no effect on the outcome unless it numerically becomes an edge case.

It is just another reason to question the status of her nomination statement. If she doesn't endorse it, she can arguably later claim that of course voters weren't meant to see it as an official nomination, that this farce should be properly seen as a self-nomination.

But that then obviously calls into question the true meaning of support voters who said nothing, who have literally just voted. By convention, they are to be seen as endorsing the nomination. But whose nomination? Are they endorsing a self-nom, with Q1 serving as the statement? Or are they endorsing the mere fact Bishonen thinks RexxS should be an Administrator, and that should be enough for anyone, so fuck your rules and procedures.

It wouldn't be the first time she's interpreted IAR this way, and followers of the Queen have happily acquiesced to her wishes, like the drones they so often are. But it does rather show that RexxS' answer to question 6. is perhaps an example of someone knowing the theory, but not putting it into practice. If the joke nomination really was a case of IAR, not something rather more pointy, strategic or self-interested, then where is the clear and robust case it was done with the utmost of good intentions, for the improvement of Wikipedia? If it was a simple mistake, why has he not rectified it?

I fear the truth is likely to remain hidden from the community. Despite all claims of transparency and integrity on the part of RexxS, I can't see him ever admitting that Bishonen might have nominated him simply to avoid the baggage of being a self-nom, without her having to bother going through the hassle of writing a proper nomination, as would be expected of literally any other nominator. That would cut rather too close the bone of the true nature of her status in the so called community. Loyalty would compel him to sacrifice himself to protect the Queen.

Whatever the truth, the vote only supporters (and by extension the ones whose reasoning only continued the joke) cannot be assumed to be endorsing a joke statement, no matter how hard they might insist it is their sincerely held belief. Those prats might not care, or indeed even know, but I expect the Bureaucrats to appreciate that the perceived legitimacy of the RfA process has legal implications for the WMF. Just one of the many wierd things about the cult that you really do wonder if the wider world truly appreciates is even a thing.

[CrowsNest]

The ultimate humiliation, endorsed by Andrew Davidson, opposed by AGK.

Andrew is (rather unfairly) routinely pilloried by some of RexxS' most ardent supporters as nothing but an RfA troll.

The candidate is evidently competent, experienced, mature, responsible and has a strong personality.

AGK of course, is a Wikipedia Arbitrator.

The oppose voters have documented so much ill-judgment that I am sure giving adminship would be wrong.

The people who know. Right, Kudpung?

[CrowsNest]

Ritchie isn't giving up.....

All editors are capable of being mentors, arbiters and consensus builders; simply having some extra tools for technical maintenance (which is how WP:RFA describes it) gives you no more rights to decide what to do than any other editor. If, say, three IPs and an admin had an argument, and the IPs turned out to be subject experts who just weren't familiar enough with the technical side of editing, then consensus should side with the IPs and against the admin. This is really important stuff - it's really what WP:NOBIGDEAL is getting at; not that RfA should be easy, or that being an admin bears little real-world responsibility, but simply that having the tools gives you no authority over content and policy whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This exact premise is being tested in this very RfA, Ritchie. Do keep up, there's a good chap. Oh, I forgot, you are......

he's already explained that in depth twice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

[CrowsNest]

Now 65.8%

Only 5 more opposes needed to avoid a 'crat chat and send RexxS packing.

Would be hilarious if five Bureaucrats turned up to oppose.

Busy time of year, April.

Shit to do, y'know.