if nominations haven't updated. |
Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC) |
Requests for adminship (RfA) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become administrators (also known as admins or sysops), who are users with access to additional technical features that aid in maintenance. Users can either submit their own requests for adminship (self-nomination) or may be nominated by other users. Please be familiar with the administrators' reading list, how-to guide, and guide to requests for adminship before submitting your request. Also, consider asking the community about your chances of passing an RfA.
This page also hosts requests for bureaucratship (RfB), where new bureaucrats are selected.
About administrators
The additional features granted to administrators are considered to require a high level of trust from the community. While administrative actions are publicly logged and can be reverted by other administrators just as other edits can be, the actions of administrators involve features that can affect the entire site. Among other functions, administrators are responsible for blocking users from editing, controlling page protection, deleting pages, and editing elements of the site interface that can appear on every page.
About RfA and its process
Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
S | O | N | % | ||||
DeltaQuad | RfB | Successful | 13 Mar 2019 | 229 | 6 | 2 | 97 |
Evad37 | RfA | Successful | 18 Feb 2019 | 212 | 15 | 6 | 93 |
Enterprisey2 | RfA | Successful | 26 Jan 2019 | 253 | 2 | 2 | 99 |
De la Marck | RfA | WP:SNOW | 4 Jan 2019 | 0 | 11 | 1 | 0 |
Ammarpad | RfA | Withdrawn | 3 Jan 2019 | 64 | 40 | 9 | 62 |
JJMC89 | RfA | Successful | 1 Jan 2019 | 183 | 42 | 16 | 81 |
Galobtter | RfA | Successful | 7 Dec 2018 | 208 | 46 | 12 | 82 |
The community grants administrator access to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Administrators are held to high standards of conduct because other editors often turn to them for help and advice, and because they have access to tools that can have a negative impact on users or content if carelessly applied.
- Nomination standards
- There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. The community looks for a variety of factors in candidates and discussion can be intense. For examples of what the community is looking for, you could review some successful and some unsuccessful RfAs, or start a RfA candidate poll.
- If you are unsure about nominating yourself or another user for adminship, you may first wish to consult a few editors you respect to get an idea of what the community might think of your request. There is also a list of editors willing to consider nominating you. Editors interested in becoming administrators might explore adoption by a more experienced user to gain experience. They may also add themselves to Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls; a list of names and some additional information are automatically maintained at Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls. The RfA guide and the miniguide might be helpful, while Advice for RfA candidates will let you evaluate whether or not you are ready to be an admin.
- Nominations
- To nominate either yourself or another user for adminship, follow these instructions. If you wish to nominate someone else, check with them before making the nomination page. Nominations may only be added by the candidate or after the candidate has signed the acceptance of the nomination.
- Notice of RfA
- Some candidates display the
{{RfX-notice}}
on their userpages. Also, per community consensus, RfAs are to be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages and Template:Centralized discussion. The watchlist notice will only be visible to you if your user interface language is set to (plain)en
. - Expressing opinions
- All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account.
If you are relatively new to contributing to Wikipedia, or if you have not yet participated on many RfAs, please consider first reading "Advice for RfA voters". - There is a limit of two questions per editor, with relevant follow-ups permitted. The two-question limit cannot be circumvented by asking questions that require multiple answers (e.g. asking the candidate what he or she would do in each of five scenarios). The candidate may respond to the comments of others. Certain comments may be discounted if there are suspicions of fraud; these may be the contributions of very new editors, sockpuppets, or meatpuppets. Please explain your opinion by including a short explanation of your reasoning. Your input (positive or negative) will carry more weight if supported by evidence.
- To add a comment, click the "Voice your opinion" link for the candidate. Always be respectful towards others in your comments. Constructive criticism will help the candidate make proper adjustments and possibly fare better in a future RfA attempt. However, bureaucrats have been authorized by the community to clerk at RfA, so they may appropriately deal with comments and/or !votes which they deem to be inappropriate. You may wish to review arguments to avoid in adminship discussions. Irrelevant questions may be removed or ignored, so please stay on topic.
- The RfA process attracts many Wikipedians and some may routinely oppose many or most requests; other editors routinely support many or most requests. Although the community currently endorses the right of every Wikipedian with an account to participate, one-sided approaches to RfA voting have been labeled as "trolling" by some. Before commenting, or responding to comments, in an RfA (especially Oppose comments with uncommon rationales or which feel like "baiting") consider whether others are likely to treat it as influential, and whether RfA is an appropriate forum for your point. Try hard not to fan the fire. Remember, the bureaucrats who close discussions have considerable experience and give more weight to constructive comments than unproductive ones.
- Discussion, decision, and closing procedures
- Most nominations will remain active for a minimum of seven days from the time the nomination is posted on this page, during which users give their opinions, ask questions, and make comments. This discussion process is not a vote (it is sometimes referred to as a !vote, using the computer science negation symbol). At the end of the discussion period, a bureaucrat will review the discussion to see whether there is a consensus for promotion.
- Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. In practice, most RfAs above 75% support pass. In December 2015 the community determined that in general, RfAs that finish between 65 and 75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats (so, therefore, almost all RfAs below 65% will fail). In calculating an RfA's percentage, only numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way".[1]
- A nomination may be closed as successful only by bureaucrats. In exceptional circumstances, bureaucrats may extend RfAs beyond seven days or restart the nomination to make consensus clearer. They may also close nominations early if success is unlikely and leaving the application open has no likely benefit, and the candidate may withdraw their application at any time for any reason. If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW and/or WP:NOTNOW. RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6. Do not close any requests that you have taken part in, or those that have even a slim chance of passing, unless you are the candidate and you are withdrawing your application. In the case of vandalism, improper formatting, or a declined or withdrawn nomination, non-bureaucrats may also delist a nomination. A list of procedures to close an RfA may be found here.
- If your nomination fails, then please wait for a reasonable period of time before renominating yourself or accepting another nomination. Some candidates have tried again and succeeded within three months, but many editors prefer to wait considerably longer before reapplying.
Notes
- ^ Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
Current nominations for adminship
if nominations have not updated.
RexxS
(talk page) (81/53/10); Scheduled to end 17:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination
RexxS (talk · contribs) – Pleased to nominate young User:RexxS, also known as T-Rexx or Dino, for adminship. None too soon! The little user extremely clever, has been on Wikimedia board, and done... mmm... stuff in the important field of accessibility. Runs little socks User:Famously Mild and User:Famously Sharp, inspire confidence. Technical skills matchless! Is one of masterminds behind fabulous Insultspout! (Together with Shakespeare.) Also, hmm... mature in years, no feckless teenager. Not as mature as BIshzilla, but that not to be expected. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 16:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I am humbled by the trust the mighty 'Zilla has shown in this poor little user, and I am honoured to accept her nomination. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?
- A: Maintaining and improving fully protected (and cascade-protected) modules and templates would be my most likely use of the tools. I'd apply for interface admin as well to help out in that area. In addition, I'd like to help at Arbitration Enforcement, as I feel that area really needs more active admins. Beyond that, I'd consider helping with any backlogs, although I fully aware of the need to ease into new areas gently, by researching beforehand and steering clear of controversial decisions until I gained experience.
- 2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
- A: Probably Oxygen toxicity, an article I steered through GA and FA. I'm also quite proud of the work I did at Featured Lists, in preparing templates and workflow for when FL first gained a regular spot on Main Page. I was honoured to have the FL that I wrote, List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders chosen as the first list to be featured when it went live. I also work to improve accessibility on Wikipedia – for example, creating the hlist class and giving advice on making content accessible to assistive technology. On the technical front, I've created around 100 Lua modules/documentations, in particular Module:Wikidata and Module:WikidataIB, which read information from Wikidata into infoboxes and similar templates on Wikipedia. Indirectly, I contribute as a trustee of Wikimedia UK (on whose behalf I've trained hundreds of new editors), and as secretary of meta:WikiProject Med Foundation, which aims to improve the development and distribution of health care content on Wikimedia projects.
- 3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- A: Yes, I've been in hundreds of conflicts over the years, but fortunately I don't get stressed, and I believe that in 90% of the cases I've remained on good terms with those that I've disagreed with. I deal with conflicts by seeking reasoned discussion on talk pages to start with (I try to stick to 1RR, wherever possible). If necessary, I have escalated to other forms of dispute resolution, either for content or behaviour, but I find that most disagreements can be resolved amicably by looking for common ground.
- On the other hand, I know that I don't suffer fools gladly and I realise I can be acerbic at times. Looking forward, I accept that administrators have to be held to higher standards of behaviour, so I would be obliged to more passive in my responses if acting in any admin capacity. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
You may ask optional questions below. There is a limit of two questions per editor. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. Follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked are allowed.
- Additional question from Barkeep49
- 4 & 5. You mention that
"I don't suffer fools gladly and I realise I can be acerbic at times"
. This has also been brought up by some editors as a concern below. You acknowledge the higher standards for sysop and say"I would be obliged to more passive in my responses if acting in any admin capacity"
. Two related questions: To what extent do you think that higher standard applies to sysops when they're not acting in an administrative capacity? What would "passive" in an administrative role look like (if you have an example of past actions that would be fantastic, otherwise an explanation for context would be appreciated)? Thanks and Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- A: @Barkeep49: The truth is that if adminship is not a big deal, then we ought to be holding every experienced editor to the highest standards. I acknowledge that I sometimes find myself falling below the standards that I want to see upheld. I keep trying to do better.
- The other part of that is that admins have a built-in advantage in disagreements. Some editors, especially newer ones, regard admins as having a higher status than them, so I believe it's vital that admins should not abuse that trust even when not acting in an administrative capacity. Acting as a good role model is actually one of the few occasions where I concede that adminship has to be a big deal.
- I recently took part in multiple debates over the articles Rapid onset gender dysphoria, Lisa Littman and PLOS One (see the talk pages for the gory details). There are two distinct points of view, and I've tried hard to find common ground and move the debate along to find a conclusion impartially. That requires trying to stay with policy and precedent rather than offering one's own opinions. Those are what I think of as passive responses – they don't inflame debate, and don't make one side feel they are being treated less fairly. Now, I don't always manage to pull that off, but it's a good goal to aim for, whether you're an admin or not. --RexxS (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Amorymeltzer
- 6. WP:IAR is something often brought up at RfA, in both questions and answers, but I'd like to ask about a specific implementation, namely that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. When is it a good idea to skip something typically expected and what are the criteria you currently use as an editor to determine when you might feel justified in doing so? How how might that answer differ as a sysop? I'm after your philosophy and thought process, so concrete examples, whether by you or someone else, are not what I'm asking for (but would of course be welcome). ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- A: @Amorymeltzer: WP:BURO is the application of IAR to our policies and guidelines (PAG). I find myself arguing at times that policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive, that is, they document our accepted best practices, rather than representing a set of rules that set boundaries for editing. PAG are acknowledged to have occasional exceptions; and it is the correct application of IAR that provides those rare exceptions. We would be justified in skipping what's expected when we sincerely believe that doing so would improve the encyclopedia, and that the community would undoubtedly agree with us. The rider is important, because when we invoke IAR, we have to be ready to defend our action to the community. It's not just that we think the action is right; it's that we honestly believe that most others would think the same. I believe that exactly the constraints must apply to admin actions as to the actions of other editors. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Ritchie333
- 7. As you can see, I have supported, but hopefully this question will sway some of those who are as yet undecided. Below, there is some concern about a dispute you had with Pppery over a Lua module. My understanding is that modules require careful testing and good programming knowledge, and the actions here are simply a concern that changing code without a full and thorough understanding and test strategy has the potential to cause widespread disruption on the encyclopedia, and claims of ownership are wide of the mark. Is this a reasonable assessment of the situation? If not, would you be able to clarify your thoughts further?
- A: Thank you for your support, Ritchie333, and for offering me the opportunity to elaborate. First of all, you're right about how we need to handle modules, but Pppery is a good programmer and I don't have a concern with their abilities on that front; it's much more nuanced than that. My concern lies with what I perceive as their need to have everything tidy, according to their own internal scheme of how things should be organised – a sort of "feng shui" programming. They have given me the impression that they are more concerned with reducing the number of modules than with having the best functionality possible. That particular interaction is the latest of several we've had, and it revolves around Pppery's attempt to get rid of a module I was helping another editor develop because they believed it was redundant to an existing module. The existing module could be used to reproduce most of the functionality of the module under development, but not all of it.
- The "ownership" issue needs further explanation. As a consequence of the relative lack of Lua programmers, most modules are not written collaboratively in the way that articles are. They are generally the work of one editor, sometimes two or three, but most of the large modules tend to have a single main maintainer. I hope that is actually WP:STEWARDSHIP, not ownership. The consequence of sometimes only a single editor being truly familiar with the workings of a module is that they can easily be seen as "owning" the module. The only way to alleviate that problem is to increase the number of Lua programmers editing Wikipedia, and I can at least claim to be doing my bit by mentoring young programmers in the Google Code-in programme for the last two years. --RexxS (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from TheSandDoctor
- 8. I realize that this is probably going to be asked, so here it goes: Is this a legitimate nomination or an April fools joke?
- A: @TheSandDoctor: Is it okay to repeat my reply from below? This was to fulfil a promise I made to Redrose64 at the Oxford wiki-meetup in January. My argument at that meetup was that adminship shouldn't be treated as a big deal, and that the key issue was whether the community trusts a user or not. So I agreed to test that premise on April Fool's Day, on the grounds that if it completely bombed I could always tell myself it was "just a joke". Now that the cat's out of the bag, I won't be able to salve my battered feelings when I get 50 opposes on the grounds of "no need for the tools".
- Do you want me to elaborate any further on that? --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Hurricane Noah
- 9. This is kind of expanding upon what has already been asked. As posted below, it has been shown you have had multiple disagreements with an editor within the past month. My question is, roughly how often do disagreements of this magnitude occur? Was this a one-time occurrence? Could you please elaborate? NoahTalk 23:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- A: @Hurricane Noah: that was an interesting trip down memory lane. And somewhat disturbing. First I ought to make clear I've had the same disagreements with Pppery since at least last June, so it's probably a longer-term issue than you contemplated. Looking back over the 11+ years I've been editing, I found two instances of chronic multiple disagreements of that scale. Despite the length of time I've been editing, that's actually quite a lot. The infobox disputes were a source of considerable friction between many editors and I'm sad that we have more or less lost Cassianto, whom I valued as a hugely productive editor and as a wiki-friend, despite us being on opposite sides of the dispute. The other major long-term dispute I was involved in a couple of years ago was over the use of Wikidata in Wikipedia. As you may imagine, I'm strongly in favour of using a central database that smaller wikis can share – the module I wrote to do that, Module:WikidataIB is in use on around other wikis now – but I also am aware of the problems that can arise and do my best to mitigate them by building filters, for example, to keep out unsourced information. I hope Fram won't mind me mentioning them by name, as one of the principals that I had most disagreements with and they may choose to give their own assessment of our interactions. I don't expect them to arrive in the support column, so I guess that ping won't count as canvassing. --RexxS (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 10. As "required to disclose" can you please state whether you have ever edited for pay or any other form of compensation.
- A: @Pharaoh of the Wizards: That's an easy one: I have never edited for pay or for any other form of compensation, and I have a profound distaste for the practice. For extra clarity, I'm happily and comfortably retired and I don't do anything for material compensation any more.
- While I get the chance, let me add that I've never edited under any previous accounts, and I have two "working" alternate accounts that I use for training (as noted by my nom), plus a joke account (whose name escapes me) that I used for teasing Catherine de Burgh/Catherine Bonkbuster. I am also identified to the Foundation (not that that matters for RfA). --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Izno
- 11. What should you do when you are at wits' end with another editor? What not? As an admin, rather than as an editor?
- A: My advice to others in that situation has always been to walk away from it; and not to prolong the dispute. In particular, don't rehash arguments already made in an attempt to convince somebody who isn't going to be convinced. Either somebody else will come along and take the same stance as you did, or it will all fade into the past and be forgotten (well, at least until you start an RfA). That applies to admins exactly as it does to editors, for the same reasons I gave in answer to Q4. The difficulty with taking that advice is knowing when you're at your wits' end; and my advice in that case is to err on the side of walking away. --RexxS (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from GoldenRing
- 12. Since you've said you'd like to help out at AE, can you explain when you think it is appropriate for one administrator to overturn the action of another administrator that is marked as an arbitration enforcement action?
- A: @GoldenRing: I think we disagree on this point, and I'm grateful for the chance to discuss the issue in greater depth. Let's go back to basics: ArbCom serves at the pleasure of the community; it is not GovCom. ArbCom is the (effective) final arbiter of behavioural disputes. It has no remit to take action on content disputes, nor to make or amend policy by fiat. Arbitration enforcement actions were invented to address the problem of editors who were seen as "unblockable". These were hugely popular, prolific content contributors with even less tolerance for foolish behaviour than I have. If they were blocked for "civility" (often for rising to the bait when trolled), they would be quickly unblocked by another admin and per WP:WHEEL, that would more or less be the end of it – a classic example of "second mover advantage". So arbitration enforcement actions were created to remove second mover advantage for those intractable cases. By issuing the threat of de-sysoping if an arbitration enforcement action was undone merely on the second admin's judgement, it allowed blocks to stick. That was the raison d'être for AE actions, and you can't fault the intention, but please understand that I'm describing sanctions against individual editors that must not be reversed, not any other sort of admin action.
- So, where would it appropriate for an admin, on their own judgement, to overturn an AE action? Well, I believe it would be appropriate in cases when the wrong person was blocked and the blocking admin was unavailable to correct their error. I know it's unlikely, but it is possible that an AE admin might mistakenly block User:Stemcell when they intended to block User:StemCell. Blocking established editors is not to be taken lightly, and doing so unfairly or mistakenly ought to be undone as rapidly as possible – we've lost great editors over less.
- There's another category of AE actions where I believe it is appropriate for an uninvolved admin to to undo the action: when the enforcement of the AE action conflicts with the community's policies and guidelines. The example we're both familiar with is when an admin deletes a page as an "arbitration enforcement action". First, I don't accept the legitimacy of page deletion as a sanction against an individual editor. Pages are content and belong to Wikipedia, not to an individual editor. Next, if the page deletion is challenged at deletion review, per our deletion policy, we can't have the deleting admin saying that "you can't review my deletion action using the community's deletion process: you have to jump through the hoops at AE using a process that ArbCom created by fiat". An ArbCom procedure isn't even recognised as policy or guideline by the community; it can't deal with content matters (like deletion); and it can't subordinate community policy to its own mechanisms. Finally, if an uninvolved admin undeletes the page, as is expected at deletion review (so that non-admins can participate), it is antithetical to the way that Wikipedia has always worked to then threaten that admin with de-sysoping. In my view that would be policy-wonkery gone mad. Sorry it took so long, but there's a lot of my thinking that I needed to explain. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Follow-up: You are correct that arbcom is the community's servant; do you recognise that what you have said above contradicts the arbitration policy that the community has ratified? I can easily sympathise with an admin (or candidate) who disagrees with policy; I don't suppose there are any admins who agree with every policy and there are certainly some I disagree with, but I'm concerned that your statement above indicates you would act as an administrator in a way that is contrary to policy and think you were justified in doing it. GoldenRing (talk) 09:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reply to follow-up @GoldenRing: I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #Scope and responsibilities and nowhere does it mention content as being within scope. I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #Policy and precedent and I find
Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #own_policies, it statesThe arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced. The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated.
"The Committee is responsible for formulating its own processes and procedures under this policy, which do not require ratification."
So I'm sorry, but I do not recognise that what I've said contradicts the arbitration policy that the community has ratified, as you suggest. The area of AE actions is governed by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures #Standard provision: appeals and modifications, which is a curious document: it has never been part of our policies and guidelines; it has never been ratified by the community; and Arbitration Policy expressly indicates that ArbCom cannot create new policy by fiat. So I have to ask, where do you think it gains its authority if it were to contradict existing community-ratified policies and guidelines? Please accept my assurance that in the unlikely event that I were granted admin tools, I would never use them in contradiction of the community's policies and guidelines. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)- @RexxS: I was thinking in particular of the text, "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time." This is part of the ratified arbitration policy and is, I think, the policy that underpins the 'no overturning AE actions' rule. But even the part of the policy you point to explicitly says that the committee is responsible for formulating what you call a "curious document". Either way, it's pretty clear; the process for appealing an arbitration enforcement action is at AE, AN or ARCA, not to individual admins. This is not to say that AE actions are unquestionable; but if they are invalid, that has to be established through the processes provided, not on an individual admin's judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @GoldenRing: Yes I can see that there is an argument that the community has agreed that ArbCom can make its own processes and procedures, but I feel that has to be carried out in the context of "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat." It is clearly ultra vires for ArbCom to make new policy as part of its processes and procedures, which is why I consider the document "curious". Now, I accept the reason why ArbCom effectively modified WP:WHEEL without the express consent of the community; that was for a particular, demonstrably valid reason. Nevertheless, I don't find the argument convincing that a content-related action (such as deletion) can be claimed as an AE enforcement, simply because an admin decides to make that claim for their action. That's a step too far. I really don't think it's logical to accept that an admin can call their action arbitration enforcement on their own judgement, yet reject another admin's considered judgement that the action is not valid arbitration enforcement. That tips the balance too far away from the checks for my taste.
- Having said all of that, I assure you that I would not look kindly on any admin reversing a claimed AE action to test the issue (we don't make pointy actions like that), although I would defend an admin who undeleted a page for consideration at DRV, even when the deletion being challenged is claimed to be an AE action. --RexxS (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- @RexxS: I was thinking in particular of the text, "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time." This is part of the ratified arbitration policy and is, I think, the policy that underpins the 'no overturning AE actions' rule. But even the part of the policy you point to explicitly says that the committee is responsible for formulating what you call a "curious document". Either way, it's pretty clear; the process for appealing an arbitration enforcement action is at AE, AN or ARCA, not to individual admins. This is not to say that AE actions are unquestionable; but if they are invalid, that has to be established through the processes provided, not on an individual admin's judgement. GoldenRing (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reply to follow-up @GoldenRing: I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #Scope and responsibilities and nowhere does it mention content as being within scope. I look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #Policy and precedent and I find
- Additional question from Dolotta
- 13. What area or areas of the English Wikipedia do you find yourself to be the weakest?
- A: @Dolotta: Most of them, to be honest. When I first started editing, at least two-thirds of my edits were to articles; now it's down to more like one-third. I ought to review GAs and do accessibility reviews at FA, and I ought to do more new page patrol, and RCP, and so on. I know that's not quite what you asked, but I'm long enough in the tooth to be able to turn my hand to most things on-wiki. My real weaknesses are lack of application and giving in to the temptation to only do the jobs that I'm really interested in at that moment. Please follow up if you think I've misunderstood or side-stepped your question. --RexxS (talk) 22:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from QEDK
- 14. Do you believe
...If I don't get assurances from you that this is the last time I have to complain about such actions on your part, I'll be taking steps to see you topic banned from the area of modules
demonstrates the right temperament for a candidate for adminship? If so, why, or else, why not?- A: I don't think that interaction would have been any different had I been an admin, nor do I believe that it should. I had a genuine disagreement about the other editor's conduct and how it affected me. It was not the first time that I had a grievance with that editor. I complained on their talk page and asked them to stop causing me those problems, as I was at that point getting ready to assemble a case for AN to ask for them to be topic banned from the area where I felt they were doing the damage. I thought it reasonable to make that clear to them. Although you characterise it as an issue of temperament, I felt at the time I was doing the right thing by making clear how serious I was about escalating my complaint. I always prefer to let other editors know when I have an issue with their behaviour first, to see if we can reach a compromise, rather than going straight off to ANI or AN. I don't think I am likely to change that approach. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- 15. Given that this RfA is not a joke, and might as well not be successful at this point, what do you think that you should have done better, apart from doing it as a joke?
- A: @QEDK: I'm going to apologise in advance for my answer, because I just don't don't see this RfA in the way that your question presupposes. Whether this RfA is successful or not isn't particularly important. I maintain that adminship isn't a big deal, and I've managed perfectly well for over 11 years without the extra tools. For me, RfA is just an extra set of functions that I would be able to use to facilitate my work, and that of others on Wikipedia. It's not about status: the way other editors feel about me won't have changed by next week whatever the outcome. It's not about "levelling-up" as if this were a MMORPG: I don't see acquiring the admin toolset as part of a "career path" on Wikipedia. It's about trust. as simple as that. If the community trusts me to use the tools responsibly, then they will grant them; if they don't trust me, then they won't.
- So I don't see that I have "do things better" in preparation for an RfA. How trustworthy would I be if I deliberately kept clear of all controversy and didn't speak my mind for a few months leading up to an RfA? No, I want you all to judge me as I am, warts and all, no pretensions. Some folks don't like me; some folks think criteria other than trust are paramount. That's okay, I'll respectfully disagree with them, and if the balance turns out against me, so be it, I'm no worse off than I was last week. And just to be clear, my criticisms of this process are not a joke, and the community is going to have to face up to how well or badly the present process serves Wikipedia in the not too distant future. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from schetm
- 16. Will you make a promise here and now to refrain from use of any of the seven dirty words in your work as an admin? I understand that this has been an area of difficulty for you in the past, and as a rank and file editor, it's not a dealbreaker. But, as an admin - a person in a position of authority on Wikipedia, such language can be needlessly intimidating.
- A: @Schetm: Actually, avoiding the use of swear words on-wiki is easy, and if you were to look through my contributions you'd find a genuine paucity of swearing. I have only ever used them for effect, and I would have no difficulty in forswearing them (pun intended). Nevertheless, what the last couple of days have clarified in my mind is the degree to which my acerbity can annoy onlookers as much as the intended target. That has given me pause for thought and has also given me some resolve to do better when interacting with those I disagree with. One oppose vote has suggested that it's better to be civil than right, and I think that's an excellent take-away for me.
- So back to your question: Yes I promise you that I would avoid using all swear words if I were engaged in work as an admin. As I said before, it's important to set a good example when the community has shown its trust in you. If it helps to put that in perspective, I taught 11-18 year-olds for 25 years, and I never once swore at a kid. --RexxS (talk) 23:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Discussion
- Links for RexxS: RexxS (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi)
- Edit summary usage for RexxS can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.
Support
- Real support Also unclear if it is real or a joke, but I support for real. Trusted user, won’t abuse the tools. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support – excellent candidate. I hope this is not a joke. Bradv🍁 17:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've reactivated my support. I remain impressed by my interactions with the candidate and by their contributions. While civility is very important, it's also important that we have admin candidates who are willing to engage in tough disputes, and the occasional outburst should not disqualify them from seeking advanced permissions. I also am impressed by the depth of knowledge and the temperament displayed in their answers, and am convinced that RexxS will take on board the feedback expressed here. Bradv🍁 14:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate. I hope this is not an April Fools' nomination. Jianhui67 T★C 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support The "real stats" seem reasonable enough, though I would like to see active BLP work. AfD vote stats seem better than many here. Joke or not - this vote is real. Collect (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support: RexxS does seem to have the correct temperament and the needed skillset to be a qualified sysop. Waggie (talk) 17:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Real support One of our clearest thinkers and knows how to handle a dispute. I often turn to RexxS in some situations. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Real Support Good candidate, meets my criteria. Vermont (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I first thought this was a joke, because I was certain RexxS was an admin already... well, time to change reality to fit my expectations :) —Kusma (t·c) 18:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have approached RexxS for questions about technical formatting of infoboxes and other templates, and he has always been helpful and polite. His experience and assistance at editathons and workshops has to be commended, his content work is easily beyond the level required for adminship, and he clearly understands policy. Give him the damn mop and bucket. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reaffirming support The answers to the questions given have been excellent and RexxS' temperament has been exemplary. Levivich has given a good appraisal of the pile-on oppose votes, which are basically "welp, the candidate said fuck" (which is nothing worse than a truly excellent post by a well-respected arbitrator). Unfortunately, RfA is a vote so unless this gets back up to 70% support, I don't fancy its chances even if the crats unilaterally agree the "support" camp have made the best arguments. (And they are truly arguments, not just meaningless pile-ons). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose 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,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 18:49, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Real support a serious moment on a silly day.WormTT(talk) 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree with RexxS more often than I agree with him but he's one of the few editors on Wikipedia whom I'd trust completely and without reservations, as someone who's willing to listen when others disagree with him. Frankly, I'd consider someone being willing to tell people who are fucking around with things they don't understand to stop fucking around with things they don't understand to be a positive not a drawback; nowhere in WP:Civility does it say we're obliged to accept disruption because it would upset the disruptor were we to point it out. ‑ Iridescent 19:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Throwing NOBIGDEAL in the community's face with a joke nom from Bishzilla on April Fools' Day and seeing if it sticks is one of the best things I've seen here, so successful or not, credit where it's due in that regard. That aside, RexxS is actually trustworthy and qualified enough to be an admin for real. IIRC, I've bitterly disagreed with him on more than one occasion (in fact, I'm not sure if we've ever interacted other than him harshly criticizing me), but rather than leaving a bitter taste, he's only ever left the opposite. RexxS has always proved to be a reasonable and amicable person with an even temper, even in heated circumstances. ~Swarm~ 🐝 {sting · hive} 19:32, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Really and truly support. 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)
- Support - I've seen more that makes this person trustworthy than what makes him not, especially with Tony and WTT's support. Kb03 (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I am disconcerted by the ambivalent reasoning behind the date of nomination. Nevertheless, RexxS is a good editor and will use the tools appropriately. (I worked with RexxS on the article "Oxygen toxicity".) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - 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)
- Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support (real) - trustworthy editor. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support: I have found RexxS to be helpful and level-headed even within one of the most heated debates that I have been involved in. Some concerns have been brought up about the mild edit-warring at the article on Fermat's Last Theorem (first re-revert & second re-revert) and the heat added at this discussion (in particular the collapsed box "Unnecessary discussion") – I agree that these were not ideal but I think that RexxS's judgment as a whole has been very reasonable. A great content contributor, a trustworthy editor with technical ability, and an experienced user with helpful WP domain knowledge. — MarkH21 (talk) 21:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Real support, passes my criteria —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- YES! I don't care if this is an April Fool's nomination or a genuine one from RexxS as this is a candidacy that I have looked forward to for many, many, many years, regardless of format. I've had the benefit of meeting RexxS several times in person and I can say for certain that he is one of the kindest and most generous people I've ever met on here. Incredible knowledge of Wikipedia policies, pleasant temperament with new users and with people who ask for his help, "real deal" attitude, positive outlook and a zero percent chance of abusing or misusing the tools. I don't agree with any of the current opposition - even if he can be a tad gruff on occasions, we honestly have nothing to worry about with RexxS and have an amazing amount to gain. I am delighted to see this candidacy from him. :) Acalamari 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Partly per Iri, partly per my experience that RexxS is generally clueful and helpful. That being said, should this nom succeed I'd urge you to take on board the points made by Yngvadottir and SchroCat. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- For reasons already stated above. I'm slightly hesitant, though, due to the questionable judgment of accepting a nomination on Let's All Be Vandals Too Day. We already have a handful of admins who passed contentious RFAs with some !votes explicitly labeled "moral support"; would you really want your adminship forever marred by passing thanks, in part, to a !vote like "Support, ha ha ha, funny nom"? —Cryptic 00:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Now that all that April Fools nonsense is out of the way... Strong support. Clueful, helpful, long-tenured, deep experience in a wide variety of areas; frankly this RfA is years overdue. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Having seen all the opposes since I put my support here, I thought it best to re-evaluate my position. Civility (or if not civility per se, then kindness, respectful behavior, and empathy towards other editors) is indeed very important, and something we should all strive to model. I've read over the diffs in question, and... I'm still happy with my "strong support." One of the troubling things about our RfA process is that editors, especially long-term editors who've had years and years to make both exemplary contributions and missteps, tend to be judged by the worst 5 diffs someone can find of them being gruff or surly, rather than their wiki-career as a whole. We're all human, and I'm pretty confident you could find 5 diffs for (almost) every one of us that don't reflect well on us. It's a real shame that that's the way the process works, and that (unless things turn around) we're going to be missing out on an extremely competent administrator whose years of dedication to the project are without question. It's not escaped my notice that some of the comments directed at the candidate are far less kind than the diffs for which he's being criticized, yet he is handling those comments in stride with dignity. I predict this will be an example people will point to in the future when they talk about how RfA is broken. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a good candidate. TheEditster (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support, has been incredibly helpful to me and other screen reader users re accessibility over many years. I'm surprised about the opposition, but it doesn't sway my opinion. Graham87 06:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Seems good enough for me.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support precious passionate dedication + patience (explained better by Ritchie above), + Iridescent also said something much better than I could above, required reading, I'd say --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per NOBIGDEAL and Gerda; the opposes are not terribly convincing: as noted above, if one pisses in public, one should expect to get wet. ——SerialNumber54129 08:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support 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)
- Support, absolutely. Can be a little bite-y but very competent overall and I see a net positive. Essentially per Acalamari. Cadillac000 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support, despite issues raised below, I think the candidate will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. A nice surprise to see this. RexxS is one of our best contributors, and a great hands-on educationalist. Is he a little forthright sometimes? Yes, but he does work in some areas that seem to attract controversy and he does often seem to encounter some of our stubbornest and not-listeningest editors. I'm sure he'd be sweetness and light as an admin. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Will make a good admin. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've known RexxS for several years, we've talked in meetups, we've trained together, I have learned a lot from RexxS. I have seen them interact with others in and out of this community. To my knowledge they absolutely have the commitment to the project and the smarts. I have no hesitation in supporting RexxS for admin. ϢereSpielChequers 10:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support As far as I can tell using the mop requires a willingness to wade into the tedious and petty sides of Wikipedia - and having a record of doing that without being a blowhard is a virtue. Spacepine (talk) 10:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Support RexxS is exactly the kind of person we need at the centre of this project. Calm, resolute, loyal and empathetic to others. I can not recommend this guy too much. Victuallers (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Real support. He does good work, not only with articles but with behind-the scenes stuff such as templates. He writes "fortunately I don't get stressed" – I think this is because he's concerned only with the subject of disputes, and does not take them personally. (He's the only experienced editor who has ever come to me with an unexpected and unsolicited apology, offered simply because he'd decided he was wrong about some minor matter.) Maproom (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support per NOBIGDEAL. And the fact that they meet my standards for adminship, which is that I see no evidence that suggests that they would misuse the tools. Guettarda (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support 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)
- Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support One of the few editors on Wikipedia who can deal with all kinds of people. What I look for in an admin is the ability to judge more than the surface. I believe Rexx looks below the surface with people, can judge integrity and can see and understand more than surface level behaviors. There are too many who take for granted what someone else tells them, who can't think for themselves. I'd also mention that in a span of over ten years if an experienced editor appears to always be with out frustration then something is wrong. In my early days I did have a disagreement with Rexx, I've never felt he held that against me. He has a kind of deep seated honesty which Wikipedia needs more of. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I surely disagree with RexxS on some issues and their approach annoys me at times, but that doesn't mean they aren't a qualified candidate for admin or that they lack good judgment. I've gotten hot-headed at times over issues I'm passionate about and can't fault the candidate for the occasional lapse in appropriate rhetoric. --Laser brain (talk) 15:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Diffs can be deceiving. In the Wikidata diffs, Rexx was right and sticking up for accessibility, which I greatly appreciate in an editor and value in an admin. When editors want to do something that makes a page unreadable for non-sighted editors because it "looks better" for sighted editors, it's like taking food from the starving to feed the fat; very upsetting. In the DRV, Rexx was also right, and during the DRV, the closer changed the close from keep to no consensus, leading some DRV voters to think it was the no consensus that was being challenged. I thought Rexx showed calmness in that
clusterfuckdifficult situation. The Lua diffs are horrible (FFS Rexx, you should have been on your best behavior in March knowing this was coming). We really shouldn't be saying things to each other along the lines of (my own paraphrasing) "how dare you mess this thing up I worked really hard on" or "unless you sufficiently grovel, I will escalate". I recognize that everybody's human and snaps sometimes, and these diffs come at the end of a multi-year dispute so context matters, but still, not a good look. Outside of the oppose diffs, in my own experience with Rexx and seeing his contributions on various talk pages here and there (including in the rest of the conversations on the pages of those oppose diffs), generally Rexx strikes me as calm and helpful. Technical proficiency is another plus for me. Finally, I'm persuaded by the other editors supporting, many of whom I believe have excellent judgment. We need more admins and on balance, I think we'd be better off if Rexx had the tools. And I agree with Rexx that RfA is not a big deal: if he ends up being a tyrannosaurus-admin, we can take the bit away. Leviv ich 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - Like several people above, I sometimes disagree with RexxS, but always respect his judgement. I trust him not to do anything adminny in areas he's involved in editorially, and expect he'll recalibrate his patience meter some if he passes this. Fingers crossed this turns around. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam I want this to be true. I want to support RexxS for all the reasons that you and others who I respect are saying. However, my personal experience matches what limited academic research I've seen (ex [1]) which suggests that on the whole user behavior does change after becoming sysop and not in a moderating way. Is there something particular to RexxS which suggests he would be an exception? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: The "not using the tools while involved" aspect is based on his being an honorable self-aware person; but I don't think you're disagreeing with that portion of my comment (right?). I assume you're talking about the "patience meter" aspect, what others are calling a "civility" problem. I can only say that this RFA itself is full of people RexxS respects saying he should probably dial back the aggression a little, and I have no reason (aside from your general academic research that I will just take your word on) to think he won't respect widespread feedback. It's probably a hunch. I've certainly gotten less patient over the years myself (likely due to age rather than adminship), but if I had 20 people I respected telling me "we love you, Floq, but Jesus just dial it down some", I'd listen. I assume RexxS would do the same. If your experience is different, I won't try to argue you out of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam I want this to be true. I want to support RexxS for all the reasons that you and others who I respect are saying. However, my personal experience matches what limited academic research I've seen (ex [1]) which suggests that on the whole user behavior does change after becoming sysop and not in a moderating way. Is there something particular to RexxS which suggests he would be an exception? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. RexxS has been around for a long time, has solved many a technical and other problem, has a great knowledge of policy and a sensible and patient way (for the most part) of explaining it. I trust him, and many others do as well (note the long list of longterm users and admins who are supporting here). I am an admin, and there are many, many ways in which Rexx is more qualified than me. I'd be honored if he got the tools, and I have no doubt that if there's any personal animosity between him and another editor he'd not use the tools, let alone abuse them. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - he'll be a net asset, and we need more admins. schetm (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support A likely net positive. SemiHypercube 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support RexxS is trustworthy. He's incredibly knowledgable and deeply committed to the project. We've often disagreed, but that's irrelevant, though Nikkimaria's advice would be worth taking. Victoriaearle (tk) 19:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support 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)
- Strongest possible support (and that's the first time I've used any qualifiers on my hundreds of RfA votes). One can't expect everyone voting down there in the dungeon and torture chamber to really know what they are talking about, especially when simply piling on. and they almost certainly do not know RexxS personally. I do. Or worked with him off Wiki. I have. One can't expect them to know either what a thoroughly nice and helpful person he is to newbies. I do. RexxS is one user, like me a retired educator in RL, who has often told me that he is Wikibusy enough without wanting to have the mop as well. What is needed however, is precisely admins with his no-nonsense approach, his excellent technical knowledge, and his vast experience and outreach work which most of those with higher edit counts can't/won't match. I join with with Ritchie333, Swarm, Boing, WereSpielChequers, Drmies, and particularly Acalamari who puts it more eloquently than I usually now bother at RfA. These are the people who know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Adminship is no big deal. The candidate ain't gonna break the pedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- RexxS isn't a perfect candidate, but adminship does not require perfection. What it requires is the ability to use the tools productively in one or more areas, and the ability to admit and learn from mistakes. I've seen RexxS around enough to know that they possess both these qualities. I do wish they had not started this RFA on the first of April, and indeed if it doesn't succeed I think a second run fairly soon would be a good idea. I am likewise disappointed by some of the opposition: this may have been initiated on April 1st, but the candidate has clarified that it is a serious RFA, and opposing entirely on that basis isn't reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strongest possible support 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)
- Strong Support - saw some chatter on various user talk pages - and followed it all here. I'm surprised. The timing left me scratching my head - but smiling. Still, all in all I've dealt with Rexx enough to know support is a must. — Ched : ? — 20:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Definitely - RexxS has a solid understanding of policy, is a prolific contributor to article content, and is passionate about making this site better for all of us Zingarese talk · contribs 21:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support RexxS is very productive, has good judgment and knows to not use admin tools while irritated. I prefer that people speak plainly rather than conceal their knives for later use. At any rate, RexxS preempted the issue with "
I would be obliged to [be] more passive in my responses if acting in any admin capacity
". Johnuniq (talk) 23:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - Support Obviously can be grumpy in argument, but very experienced indeed, and strongly committed to the project. Johnbod (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Have had very little interaction with this editor until the last 6 months or so. When I first read the thread, I was like, geez - it's gonna take me a week simply to go through all the oppose votes. But when going through, there are actually very few examples given. Most of those votes are of the "as stated above", or "as per xxxx's comment". Of the ones that are given, if that's the standard being used, then there are probably one or two dozen current admins who need to give up the mop. After about a year or so on WP, I came to understand that civility is a huge component, and yes, there are examples which I wouldn't advise repeating, but on the whole, looking through his other interactions, I think that at many times he shows great restraint. Yes, he can be snarky at times, and yes, I understand that some folks find snarky uncivil, but I am not numbered among that group. In fact, in some of the examples given, I find his responses much more civil than those of the other editors. And outside of that concern, will simply be an asset to the admin corps.Onel5969 TT me 01:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Joke nomination or not, Rexx is a good dude for real. Absolutely zero concern. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Occasionally grumpy ≠ untrustworthy. Clear and long-standing commitment to the project. RexxS will do fine. Katietalk 03:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no reason not to trust RexxS with the tools, clueful responses to questions, and the NOBIGDEAL aspect is really excellent. Yes, there is one or maybe two instance(s) of inappropriate reactions to others. That does not cause any concern for me. --bonadea contributions talk 06:22, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 'Support as a generally highly qualified though perhaps slightly flawed candidate. I admit that the comments by my friend Drmies moved me off neutral. If by chance this nomination does not succeed at this time, then I encourage the editor to continue editing for six months and one day, avoiding grumpiness whenever possible, and work with a nominator who is not a disclosed dinosaur sockpuppet. Perhaps the sockmistress herself might be a better nominator. Avoid Halloween. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support , Per answers, trust, no big deal, no problem with having an admin who might call it like he sees it from time to time as the world is getting pretty screwed up by the whole me-too, I'm-offended and bubblewrapper brigades. It might be A nice change from the underhandèdness that goes on. Pretty confident someone will politely ask him pull his head in if he oversteps. And as far as the "April Fool" nom goes, joke is on all the fools who thought it might be a joke nom as Rex is in UK and posted around 5pm UK time. Wikipedia probably has an article on that. ClubOranjeT 07:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - The oppose comments seem overblown. I think RexxS will be an asset to the project as an administrator. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Has clue, and the "civility" problems really aren't civility problems. Being civil doesn't mean being sweet and light-hearted all the time. E.g. "I'll be taking steps to see you topic banned" is entirely civil; it's a warning (a grace – one need provide none at all) that noticeboard action could be imminent if [allegedly] disruptive behavior continues. Anyway, I find the answers to the questions reasonable, and am not concerned that RexxS is also testing the "adminship should be no big deal" maxim by running on April Fool's Day, which is already over in every time zone. I frequently enough have disagreed with RexxS in content and other disputes, so a) I'm not some "fan" or "wikifriend" come to vote-stack, and b) if RexxS had a habit of actually escalating disputes I would have noticed. Everyone on Wikipedia gets into some disputes and sometimes escalates them with imperfect choices of wording and tone. It's a problem when it's habitual, not when it happens occasionally, or we would not be able to have any admins at all. PS: I also "don't suffer fools gladly and ... can be acerbic at times"; so can many of our longest-term admins. It's not a disqualifier, and we need some straight-talkers around. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 08:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I have had years of helpful interaction with RexxS. I have never seen him misuse the tools he has and no reason to assume he will misuse any others that he gets. From my experience he is amenable to rational discussion and can be convinced with facts, is technically competent and as well versed in policy in the areas he works in as is reasonable to expect. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Support - I have moved to support since I believe in you. That being said, I think this RfA could have been organised a bit better, and your nominator should have probably waited at least 24 hours before nominating you, as some thought this was a joke RfA. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support RexxS is an intelligent, knowledgeable, indefatigable and very helpful Wikipedian whom we can trust with the tools. I strongly endorse this candidacy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support (moved from neutral). I've thought about this quite a bit and looked at many of the other comments, and although I'm not necessarily pleased by some of Rexx's incivil comments, I do not believe that they would misuse the admin tools and thus I am supporting them.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have seen RexxS at many venues in Wikipedia and have always seen him to be nothing less than helpful and clearly trustworthy. All of us occasionally get irritated here, but as Iridescent says, if someone is fucking around with something and breaking it, they need to be told to stop fucking around with it. Also per Acalamari, Carrite, SMcCandlish and many others, and also per some of the terrible opposes. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I think civility is incredibly important and the last thing I would want is an admin who thinks it's ok to give to the users who have it coming. While RexxS might get irritated and short at times it seems to be with users who've provoked it out of him over time. This does not excuse the actions in my mind in the least - and it seems it doesn't excuse them in RexxS' mind either. The self-awareness he displays about this leads me to think it won't be a problem when he's using the toolset - unlike in the disputes which provided troubling diffs here, I believe he would leave the mopping up to a different sysop and thus never reach the point of crossing the lines in a sysop capacity. Even when I don't agree with him, his answers to the questions strike me as a fantastic mix of self-reflective, thoughtful, and knowing of policy and procedures. His tenure and work, both on content writing side and behind the scenes, are deserving of respect. I also would love for having the administrator's toolset to be not a big deal and it would be nice to have another sysop who also believe that - even while his actions here, post-nomination, suggest he understands entirely that right now it is a big deal. I'd have preferred a different way of launching this nomination but for someone who has given years of his time and toil to this project to disqualify them from sysop because of it seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Although I wouldn't have begun my RfA on April Fools' Day (like it or not, adminship today is sort of a big deal), the candidate is qualified and I trust them to keep their temperament in check. Miniapolis 14:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support after seeing the answer to 16. (Moved from Neutral.) --Izno (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I believe civility to be very important on Wikipedia, and based on the number of times in his many years on Wikipedia RexxS has acted uncivilly toward other editors, I don't think this is going to be a problem. I have seen his contributions to the WPMED area, and am impressed by the number of areas on-wiki that he is knowledgable in. Natureium (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion RexxS would be a greater asset to the project if he had access to the admin tools. They could certainly be more patient at times and moderate their language, but this is not a deal breaker for me. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Though at this point it looks like a consolation vote, I am going to land in this section. The candidate is qualified, and I do not find the civility concerns sufficient to oppose, perhaps because English is not my mother tongue, I do not feel the nuances, and people often accused me in incivility where I could not see any. I am more concerned by the answer to Goldenring's question, but still this is not sufficient for me to oppose.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
the RfA nomintor is not an admin. So I cannot believe the candidate will become a good adminReason refreshed but still oppose, see below Hhkohh (talk) 17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- Oppose. I am not convinced that RexxS has a good-enough grasp on the deletion process, as evidenced by a series of events that culminated with Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 March 13. -- Tavix (talk) 18:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're quite right, Tavix. I made a mistake in thinking it would be less bureaucratic to re-nominate rather than challenge your "keep" close that I disagreed strongly with. I won't make that mistake again. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think that a user who told me to
stop fucking about with things [I] don't understand
is fit to be an admin. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 19:14, 1 April 2019 (UTC) - Strong Oppose Per the above... Clearly lacks the temperament of an admin. Given the recency of the incident, I am inclined to oppose this nomination. NoahTalk 19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Discussion moved to the talk page. QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Sir Joseph (talk) 20:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate? —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, do you ask the support votes that as well? I have my reasons and I don't want to get into it, and I don't want to turn this into a debate. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Historically, there has not been the same obligation on supporters to explain their reasons for supporting (assumed to be "per nom" or a confirmation that the candidate is regarded as fully qualified) as there has been on opposers.
-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Could be, but I have valid reasons to oppose, but historically, oppose voters have been badgered. I'm not interested in that. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Your choice, but unless you elaborate no one knows how good your reasons may be. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ironically, they're far more likely to get badgered if they dont't provide a rationale, than if they do... Black Kite (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could be, but I have valid reasons to oppose, but historically, oppose voters have been badgered. I'm not interested in that. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nope, do you ask the support votes that as well? I have my reasons and I don't want to get into it, and I don't want to turn this into a debate. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Care to elaborate? —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Pppery and Hurricane Noah; also, I find the peremptory "I thought I told you" somewhat concerning. aboideautalk 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. I've witnessed tempermant issues with this editor in the past. In addition, not knowing for certain if this RfA is real or an April Fool's joke (per the nomination style) doesn't instill confidence. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- See neutral #1. —Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per recent behavior evidenced in the above votes. Lacks temperament to be an admin.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to reassure you some here. I am confident that RexxS has been evolving in his interactions with editors, and is now way less prone to demolish entire cities and, hence, Wikipedians. I truly believe that now RexxS will only demolish vandals, tendentious editors, sockdrawers, and spammers. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @CorbieVreccan: I hope you realize that outburst posted above was about a week ago. I have no clue how this applicant handled himself prior to that, but it appears he still needs improvement in the interaction category. NoahTalk 22:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Noah: There was similar behavior a month ago (as I pointed out to Amory above). {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Works for me :-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @CorbieVreccan: I hope you realize that outburst posted above was about a week ago. I have no clue how this applicant handled himself prior to that, but it appears he still needs improvement in the interaction category. NoahTalk 22:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to reassure you some here. I am confident that RexxS has been evolving in his interactions with editors, and is now way less prone to demolish entire cities and, hence, Wikipedians. I truly believe that now RexxS will only demolish vandals, tendentious editors, sockdrawers, and spammers. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 22:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't like the guy. Softlavender (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Softlavender, come on. That's below your standards. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Don't like Bishzilla either. Softlavender (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- By the way, of course I like RexxS and have generally always admired his work. I made a joke !vote in what was apparently an April Fool's joke RfA. RexxS later clarified that he is proving a point. Either he wants to be a admin, or he doesn't. Making a joke-like RfA, with a jokey nomination by a joke account, to prove "that adminship shouldn't be treated as a big deal", makes a mockery of RfA and of adminship and of the editors who care about both. Thus my Oppose still stands. Either he wants to be an admin or he doesn't. If he does, in my opinion he should come back in a year and have someone nominate him normally, with specifics and a solid case for his specific qualifications -- or self-nominate with the same solid case. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia's early days Jimbo noted that admin status was not meant to be a big thing. Many editors from early days still feel that way. This shouldn't be confused with don't care or won't do a good job or lack of maturity, experience or responsibility. What has happened is that potential admins applying are picked apart. Very few people apply anymore to become admins because the price is too great–for many the process has become a blood bath, perhaps hyperbole, but several editors I know have tapered off or even stopped involvement in editing following an RfA. The process no longer works very well when the huge amount of good an editor does hold less weight than the points of frustration. Becoming an admin was never meant to be like this; it has evolved into a monster. I don't mind levity when the answers to questions are clearly serious and thoughtful and I prefer levity and a lighter environment to the vitriolic environment too often present. This is not a criticism of anyone here just an observation on history. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Could it be that by this vote you too are mocking the process? (Not that I think it is not worthy of a bit of mockery) · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 10:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Softlavender, come on. That's below your standards. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose In discussions I've seen here and on Wikidata I've noticed that they can be combative in heated discussions, which is not a good thing for an admin. I will pull some diffs should I get the time. --Rschen7754 00:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note these comments [2][3] on Wikidata; while RexxS may be correct on a technical level, these sorts of comments only serve to pour gasoline on the fire - and over such a minor issue as arguing about the indentation of comments on a discussion page. I see more of a tendency to go for being "correct" even at the expense of working with other editors. --Rschen7754 00:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's rather disingenuous Rschen. I read the discussion, and it seems the key problem is RexxS repeatedly said the other editor's contributions caused problems with screenreaders, and politely stated (including an apology that it was necessary!) that the attitude of "I'm not interested in accessibility" was completely unhelpful. Just because your president thinks it's okay to rip disabled people a new one, doesn't make it okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, technically correct but quite abrasive - throwing out "I've been editing here longer than you have" and "You clearly know nothing about screen readers" is quite condescending. (FWIW I blocked that other editor on Wikidata multiple times, so that should speak about what I believe about that other editor's behavior). --Rschen7754 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't agree with that. It seems RexxS made a last ditch attempt to be forthright so the user would understand the problems. You, however, went straight for the banhammer, which isn't an option for him. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- As I said, technically correct but quite abrasive - throwing out "I've been editing here longer than you have" and "You clearly know nothing about screen readers" is quite condescending. (FWIW I blocked that other editor on Wikidata multiple times, so that should speak about what I believe about that other editor's behavior). --Rschen7754 18:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's rather disingenuous Rschen. I read the discussion, and it seems the key problem is RexxS repeatedly said the other editor's contributions caused problems with screenreaders, and politely stated (including an apology that it was necessary!) that the attitude of "I'm not interested in accessibility" was completely unhelpful. Just because your president thinks it's okay to rip disabled people a new one, doesn't make it okay. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note these comments [2][3] on Wikidata; while RexxS may be correct on a technical level, these sorts of comments only serve to pour gasoline on the fire - and over such a minor issue as arguing about the indentation of comments on a discussion page. I see more of a tendency to go for being "correct" even at the expense of working with other editors. --Rschen7754 00:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose. Absolutely not. User is rude, combative, arrogant, and has an unhealthy obsession with instigating drama/starting flame wars. Assuming this is a real RfA, I'll definitely spend some time later compiling diffs, but even as a joke this isn't particularly amusing. -FASTILY 00:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- From the examples both above and below (in the neutral section), I don't believe Rexx has the proper temperament for an administrator. I'm sure he is otherwise a good editor, but interacting with others is (supposedly) an important part of adminship, so I can't support. ansh666 00:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per the cited rude comments left to other editors very recently, this is not the level of civility I expect to see in admins. And it certainly doesn't help that this entire RfA seems to be a bit pointy. — xaosflux Talk 01:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Procedural oppose and restart the RFA because many commentators thought this was a joke RFA due to the April 1st start and general tone. This oppose has nothing to do with the ridiculous opposition over the fact that the candidate has used a "colorful metaphor". I literally work in professional engineering environment and hear "fuck" at least 5 times a day. Obviously, if he said "John Doe is a fucking nitwit", that would be a problem, but the phrase "stop fucking with" a thing literally just means "stop playing around with [and damaging]" the thing. Reaper Eternal (talk)
01:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Reaper Eternal, if you're oppose is simply based on the idea that it started on April 1st, I can confidently say that the crats have the ability to ignore the sillyness in making a final judgement. If they feel they need it, they can extend the RfA an additional day. RfA is a daunting prospect for many and if a fools rfa was the push RexxS needed, then I cannot see the problem. WormTT(talk) 18:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - Concerns with temperament and a POINTy rationale for standing. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, but that doesn't mean that nominations should be a joke. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak Oppose but only because I think (but I'm not 100% sure) that this might be an experimental RfA per nominee's response to Neutral #1. I look forward to supporting the candidate at a future time, though! Chetsford (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- It isn't, he's already explained that in depth twice. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 07:43, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose seems the candidate has a lot of concerns. --B dash (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:ADMINCOND states:
"Administrators should strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors."
I think the recent interactions discussed here, especially Special:Diff/889484079 and Special:Diff/885587498, fall short of those standards. Although the candidate indicates a willingness to hold themselves to"higher standards of behaviour"
, I'd prefer to see these changes before the RfA. The candidate does have the opportunity to demonstrate these changes prior to a future RfA. The April Fools' Day flavor of the nomination is clever, but did not affect my opinion. — Newslinger talk 09:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - Oppose With all the evidence presented of unsuitability, I don't think it's right to support a request for adminship at this point in time. EggRoll97 (talk) 09:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- All the evidence? You're all !voting on two diffs, or the premise of the RfA being a joke (despite being told multiple times it isn't), or ultra-weak rationales like "I don't like him". As WP:RFAV puts it, "And that is the exact problem with having the wide open venue for questions – they promote drive-by voting rather than actual examination of the candidate.", "it's the people that pick one error in an otherwise qualified candidate and oppose over it that discourage potential candidates. More often than not, those ridiculous oppose !votes create a pile-on that ultimately fails the RfA" and "People at RfA love to load up on one particular flaw. It's one of the reasons hardly anyone goes for the mop anymore: they just load up on one thing, and hold it to be worth as much as everything else." I'm sure everyone opposing is doing so in good faith and with genuine conviction, it's just the tragedy of the commons. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Concerns with temperament. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The editors attitude towards others seems be appalling. Not what I would expect to see in an admin. A caring dutiful aspect towards other editors is the first prerequisite for administration and it is lacking here. scope_creepTalk 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose This editor has specifically stated that the primary purpose of this RfA is to test the process in a situation (April Fools Day) in which said process might be tested. This is not, in my view, a good enough reason to adduce in what should be a meaningful, important and serious process.----Anthony Bradbury"talk" 11:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose over credible concerns on abrasive behauvior. I could find two AN/I threads, 1, 2, that support this notion (nothing actionable, but generally just hostile interactions in disputes that lead to more problems - the complainants feel that RexxS held a grudge against them). Also, using April 1st humour as a pre-defence to "save their face" from actual criticism is silly. --Pudeo (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I really admire RexxS's work, but I find the interactions pointed out above to be a bit appalling. I cannot support anyone who uses that kind of language toward others. As one of the fundamental pillars of Wikipedia, civility is paramount. If this were a long time ago I wouldn't pay it much mind, but we're talking about a week ago. This is unacceptable behaviour for anyone, much less an admin, who are supposed to lead by example. Sure, there's WP:NOBIGDEAL, but there's also WP:BIGDEAL. — MusikAnimal talk 12:44, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per [4], [5], [6] - candidate does not have the right temperament to be a respected administrator. O Still Small Voice of Clam 12:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose It is April 2nd and I have not been to the pub so I will treat this RFA with the same flippancy as the candidate. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Concerns about civility, kindness. Necessary in an admin. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I know that some editors whom I respect think well of this applicant, but my encounters with RexxS have left me in no rush to repeat the experience. The idea of RexxS as an administrator does not fill me with confidence. – Tim riley talk 14:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose with regret. This is an excellent and very productive editor. Unfortunately there are legitimate concerns about temperament. To be clear I am not looking for saints at RfA. Anyone can have a bad day and we all have moments when we are not at our best. However enough examples have been produced that I am satisfied they are not isolated instances of popping off. Also some of these are far too recent for my comfort level. Come back in a year, or better two, and if it looks like this problem has been checked I would likely support. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, and also oppose the silly conceit that adminship is always no big deal. Qwirkle (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per SchroCat (yes, I understand, SchroCat is voting neutral) et al. --JBL (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per variety of reasons listed above. I don't think adminship is right for this user.Glennfcowan (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose The candidate's tone is too abrasive for a good administrator. Further examples I don't think have yet been raised are in this comment from last month:
I really don't think you have any comprehension of what you're talking about, or if you do, you fail to express yourself in a comprehensible way
, compounded a few days later with the epithets "laughable", "incomprehensible" and "thoughtless obstructionism" and linking Competence is required to one of the most prolific long-standing contributors on the project: Bhunacat10 (talk), 15:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC) - Oppose based on civility concerns. GABgab 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose; the examples of incivility are too many and too recent. Being right isn't an excuse. – Joe (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as per the civility concerns listed above. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose as a waste of the community's time. Nihlus 21:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Waayyy too quick to jump into a fray and start harassing those who are in conflict with his friends. I can't imagine what he would do as an admin. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- For those who want evidence, here's a gem: [7]. And this: [8] "I must admit that as the years go by, I find myself increasingly less tolerant of poor editors, and unfortunately I do seem to find myself regularly telling them so." Has his lack of tolerance for what he perceives as "poor editors" waned in the last 18 months, and now he is ready to be an admin?Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my view, yes. Based on what's been posted here so far, the two Pppery diffs are the only two problematic diffs from the past 18 months. I agree with Onel5969's comment that this is better than many editors and even admin. Leviv ich 02:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to read through the oppose votes a little more closely. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reasonable editors can disagree in how they view the evidence, but I think I read all the diffs, and categorize them as follows: no problems: [9] [10] [11]; well-deserved: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]; too old: 2015, 2017, 2017, 2017; not a good look: [17] [18]. Leviv ich 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe not so much that reasonable editors disagree but whether you are one of the ones receiving his abuse, or one of those that have always ensured he was never held accountable for it. Seems like the RfA is the only place that those that have always been protected finally get held accountable. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- To add to it, I think that he would do the same as an admin as he has had done for him: protect his friends that desperately need to have their tails yanked. He has that cronyism attitude that is one of the largest downfalls of WP. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Reasonable editors can disagree in how they view the evidence, but I think I read all the diffs, and categorize them as follows: no problems: [9] [10] [11]; well-deserved: [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]; too old: 2015, 2017, 2017, 2017; not a good look: [17] [18]. Leviv ich 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think you need to read through the oppose votes a little more closely. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my view, yes. Based on what's been posted here so far, the two Pppery diffs are the only two problematic diffs from the past 18 months. I agree with Onel5969's comment that this is better than many editors and even admin. Leviv ich 02:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- For those who want evidence, here's a gem: [7]. And this: [8] "I must admit that as the years go by, I find myself increasingly less tolerant of poor editors, and unfortunately I do seem to find myself regularly telling them so." Has his lack of tolerance for what he perceives as "poor editors" waned in the last 18 months, and now he is ready to be an admin?Lynn (SLW) (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose I sadly can not support a candidate who, by their own admission (Q13), considers themselves to be weak in most areas of our encyclopedia. -- Dolotta (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Dolotta: To consider. Weak is relative and subjective. Rexx's weak is another editor's strong. Please review contributions and also what he does for Wikipedia outside of the encyclopedia. Its seems to me this was an honest and humble look at where one can improve rather than admitting to a lack of knowledge in any given area. And in no way can this "weak" be a synonym for incompetent. I've been aware of this editor for ten years. He is very competent at the very least, in many areas, and more competent than most in multiple areas of Wikipedia. (Littleolive oil (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC))
- Dolotta, I think you may have missed the English understatement in what he said. - SchroCat (talk) 07:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose based on the issues raised by everybody above, which show a clear and less than encouraging pattern. Administrators don't need to be perfect, but they do need the ability to disagree with other users in friendly and constructive ways, and the self-awareness to step back instead of digging in their heels when they're faced with appropriate criticism. I don't think RexxS has those at this point; there's too many very recent diffs showing the opposite.
We have RexxS's adversarial tone on both Tavix's talk page and in the subsequent redirect deletion reviews (which should never have been needed), and his brushing aside of the objections raised by editors with more experience in redirect deletion. We have Pppery's diff, and the other diff from Pppery's talk page (which is also textbook WP:OWNERSHIP). We have Rschen's diffs from Wikidata; a bit more dated, but clearly in the same pattern.
Then there's this diff from last week, where RexxS turns an article into a redirect less than a day after the AfD on it closed as "no consensus" rather than "delete" or "redirect". (The close did tentatively support merging the page... with a different article, not the one RexxS redirected it to.) Combined with the RfDs Tavix noted, that's two examples from just the last month of RexxS doing weird things in a deletion context, which makes me a bit worried about how he'd handle the deletion process as a sysop. Sideways713 (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Conditional Oppose - This is a messy RfA due to the fact that certain people were unaware that this wasn't a joke nomination. Regardless, both the nominator and nominatee don't make it exactly clear what they do, and what they will do as an admin. I might change my vote if either makes it more clear to me.Foxnpichu (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Pppery. Banedon (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose Kind of surprised to find myself here, Rexxs is generally a great Wikipedian, and I've had the pleasure of meeting him in person, but this is the wrong RFA for him to be running. I can't see how anyone would think it was a good idea to run for RFA to test an obviously flawed premise. The argument that RFA shouldn't be a big deal is valid, the premise that it actually isn't is obviously dead wrong and has been so for over a decade. If you want to run again in the future because you actually want to be an admin I expect I'd be in the support camp, but I can't support this RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC) I will add, however that this edit supports Rexxs' narrative about Pppery's need to meddle with things that don't need his meddling, at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Beeblebrox: that edit was a perfectly valid WP:LISTGAP fix. If you don't understand why it is an accessibility problem to use three colons instead of one asterisk and two colons, ask RexxS. Notice how I have begun my reply here with a hash and one colon; if you like, you can replace the hash with another colon, and preview (don't save) to see what that does to the numbering of subsequent votes. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Weak oppose Although I do believe this user can contribute very positively, especially technically, to this project, the temperament issues described above by many users make me uncomfortable in supporting the RFA. One can contribute positively to the encyclopedia without being an administrator... Spyder212 (talk) 00:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per pppery, Sir Joseph, Rusf10, Softlavender, Rschen7754, FASTILY, ansh666, xaosflux, Newslinger, MusikAnimal, and quite a few others. – Athaenara ✉ 02:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose civility concerns. 04:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Kolbert (talk • contribs)
- Weak oppose per my admin criteria. I note that he created a featured list, but that is not a featured article and most of the rest of his content are stubs/start/C level. He needs more content creation before being considered as an admin. GregJackP Boomer! 06:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- You think this behemoth is "stub/start/C level"? ‑ Iridescent 08:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- He literally mentioned his FA in his answer to Q2. He passes your criteria.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose, (based on what i've read above) we don't need people like this being admins. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, this admin said "utter fucking bullshit", let's desysop him! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose and block him now for WP:Pointy. --IHTS (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose – per what Ppery pointed out above.—NØ 09:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. Adminship is not a great deal, but not to the point of endorsing someone so confrontational. Pldx1 (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose - I want to support, because he's definitely knowledgeable, capable, and I trust him with the tools, plus NOBIGDEAL. But I don't think confrontational behaviour, belittling, or personal attacks are acceptable from anyone, including admins, and I'd want to not see any in recent history before supporting. That's a personal belief of mine no matter what community I'm in and I can't compromise it for someone I like. :( Sorry. Safrolic (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per answers to questions. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose with Safrolic's reasoning. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
- Is this real or an april fools joke? Natureium (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ping RexxS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Natureium and Barkeep49: Disclosure: this was to fulfil a promise I made to Redrose64 at the Oxford wiki-meetup in January. My argument was that adminship shouldn't be treated as a big deal, and that the key issue was whether the community trusts a user or not. So I agreed to test that premise on April Fool's Day, on the grounds that if it completely bombed I could always tell myself it was "just a joke". Now that the cat's out of the bag, I won't be able to salve my battered feelings when I get 50 opposes on the grounds of "no need for the tools". --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- "test that premise" I think I can come up one vote and forty seven reasons for you to withdraw from the nomination. cygnis insignis 19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Natureium and Barkeep49: Disclosure: this was to fulfil a promise I made to Redrose64 at the Oxford wiki-meetup in January. My argument was that adminship shouldn't be treated as a big deal, and that the key issue was whether the community trusts a user or not. So I agreed to test that premise on April Fool's Day, on the grounds that if it completely bombed I could always tell myself it was "just a joke". Now that the cat's out of the bag, I won't be able to salve my battered feelings when I get 50 opposes on the grounds of "no need for the tools". --RexxS (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ping RexxS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral. There's precedent for an April Fool's Day RfA nomination succeeding: mine (by a non-admin). And Bishzilla is an awe-inspiring nominator (and an admin, I believe). I also appreciate the candidate's vigilance with respect to accessibility. And take it from those who know that their technical competence is excellent and will be useful in an admin. However, four years ago their high-handedness led to my saying goodbye to Wikipedia. This was one such edit; I was also informed that by opposing the addition of an infobox to any given article I was repelling new users. Four years is a long time, and it is possible the candidate has modified their approach to editors with whom they disagree on article formatting, so I will not oppose, but cannot take the risk of supporting their candidacy. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- [Bishzilla is visibly distressed by sad story.] Come sit in pocket, little Yngvadottir! As for admin, Zilla occasionally admin.[19] Not at present. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC).
- For the moment – I cannot bring myself to support. Although I do like Rex, I just have too many concerns about various IB discussions and edit wars (Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem, Talk:Requiem (Duruflé), etc). Admins need to be able to take the heat out of a situation, not add to it. I would also not actually trust that any closure of an IB discussion would be anything like fair. - SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, SchroCat, for your honesty and fairness in layout out your concerns. Would scanning through User:RexxS/Infobox factors give you more confidence in my ability to see both sides? I absolutely agree with you about closures, and I wouldn't dream of closing an infobox RfC or discussion. Whether or not I actually could do it impartially, it's just as important that a close gives no cause for concern over the appearance of a lack of impartiality. Regards. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think User:RexxS/Infobox factors does cover all sides: it covers your interpretation of other people's thoughts, and isn't impartial (that's not surprising or meant as criticism, as you are enthusiastic about their use more than I am, for example). I appreciate that you say you wouldn't close an IB debate, but admin rights are all bundled together and you could, a few seconds after being given the mop, close such a discussion - nothing could stop you from doing so, which is one of the main reasons I feel concerned. I haven't opposed (yet, and maybe I will not do so at all), as I need to think this request through more fully than I normally do. If it were not for the disruption around IBs, I'd support you without a second's thought: you are a good editor, obviously know not just content but much of the technical background too, are approachable and are prepared to ask awkward questions when you see something wrong or someone being mistreated. But since I posted here, I have received two emails from female editors who have now left, that say you were the reason they left, and it comes back to the fact that you have – both in the past, and presently (at Fermat's) – been a major cause of more heat than light around IBs, and I cannot support on that basis. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I have to say that I have been on the opposing view of an infobox debate to RexxS more than a few times, and yet unlike many editors I felt I could easily approach him about genuine infobox questions such as getting the formatting right for Brighton Palace Pier and be confident he would not brush me off simply by often being on "the other side". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you, SchroCat, for your honesty and fairness in layout out your concerns. Would scanning through User:RexxS/Infobox factors give you more confidence in my ability to see both sides? I absolutely agree with you about closures, and I wouldn't dream of closing an infobox RfC or discussion. Whether or not I actually could do it impartially, it's just as important that a close gives no cause for concern over the appearance of a lack of impartiality. Regards. --RexxS (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- GRRRAAAAWWWRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!! (Violently Neutral). - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral. I have been one of the discussion participants at Wikipedia talk:Lua and have been negatively surprised by RexxS's comments. Because the issue has been so recent, I am avoiding support. On the other hand, I generally agree with the "should not be a big deal" philosophy expressed by this nomination. It is a big deal, but it shouldn't be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- For now, frustrated neutral. I've been on the sidelines watching the RexxS-Pppery interactions deteriorate. While I tend toward RexxS's point-of-view in many of those discussions, the recent outbursts could certainly have framed more-positively, or if RexxS is at the end of his rope, being a senior editor, he could have or should have raised them elsewhere as a continuing issue with Pppery's behavior, or starting a more-general discussion on the worthiness of the changes. --Izno (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral User:RexxS clearly has positive qualities and contributions to the 'pedia. Some of his more contentious interactions with other editors, however, eerily parallel recent encounters I've had with editors, and not in a good way. For me, it's a temperament issue. Despite RexxS saying almost all the right things in the Q&A above and to Oppose comments so far, it's difficult for me to have full confidence in giving him the buttons. It's not enough for me to oppose him but certainly enough to not support him. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutral. I hate to be that person who nitpicks (I actually usually support most RfAs) and I don't care whether this started as a joke or not, but unfortunately, I do think civility is a concern. Diffs such as this and this, as pointed out by other users above, are rather uncivil and very recent. I can't decide whether this is enough to make me oppose or so minor that I should go ahead and support, thus I remain neutral. I will say that RexxS is a valuable contributor in many areas to Wikipedia and is clearly clueful, and I wish them the best of luck if this RfA does end up passing. :-)--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Moved to support.--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 13:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't mind April Fools jokes, but as you can see above, not everyone is going to agree with me. I'm not going to add my !vote at this time, but I'm pretty sure I already know which way I'm going to cast it. Judging by the responses by some users I've come to generally respect over the years, I humbly suggest you withdraw this nomination and try again 6-8 months down the line. Neovu79 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral I don't have strong feelings about the editor but the premise of starting an RfA on April Fools Day so they could treat it as a joke if he lost makes me take this process not as seriously either. I wouldn't necessarily be against a serious RfA in the future but this was a bad idea from the start. I understand any editor's aversion for going through an RfA because they can get ugly but, unfortunately, it's part of becoming an admin. RexxS, rethink whether this is something you really want, consider the constructive criticism you've received and try again another day if this is still something you seek. Liz Read! Talk! 00:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Please accept my apologies in advance, Liz, as I know it's not considered good form to badger a neutral. But I do have an aversion to the RfA process as it currently stands, and I don't believe anybody should have to go through a "hazing" as if it were a frat induction. It's not part of becoming an admin, and I became an admin on other wiki-sites without anything like this broken process. I don't see adminship as something you should "really want", or even just "want". You should be putting yourself forward for adminship because you think that you can do more good for the project with the extra tools; that's all. Just as I think adminship is no big deal, I don't think lack of adminship is a big deal either. If the community decide to trust me with the tools, that's fine; if the community doesn't, that's fine as well. I certainly won't be planning to "try again another day" (although I will take on board all of the criticisms, constructive or not). --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral Thanks for your contributions. Lots of comments and concerns above, take the advice and come back another day. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Neutral As much as I admire the clarity and the approach RexxS has to Wikipedia, I do not think they have the ideal temperament, and I would understand if it was in the ol' days but it's not. But I also agree with the candidate that there's additional and repetitive context that we are foregoing here. I don't usually vote but I thought a neutral vote to make my point was warranted. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 06:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- I don't suppose you can do Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Carrite 2 on your way out, can you, Bishzilla? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's irrelevant if the RfA is a joke or not. While "testing the premise" might seem out of taste, I think it's important that we're letting a joke nomination hold higher precendence than the person being nominated at hand. Again, I don't intend to vote either way but kudos to RexxS for doing this in the first place. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 20:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'll second that! Risky to have a dinosaur nominate you on April 1st, but it's legit and there are six days after this one. This is probably doing more to further Wikipedia:NOBIGDEAL than anything else lately, and that is a Good Thing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
On civility : I have often thought that messages like this are more disruptive and bitey than "FFS will you stop?" - but I don't think that's a widely shared view Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- It seems to be derived from a template, so perhaps it can be changed to make it not as bitey? -- Lofty abyss 22:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a tough one, especially for new editors when you don't want to bite them, but you do want to warn them about 3RR as they are probably not aware of it. There is an alternative to Template:Uw-3rr, unsurprisingly called Template:Uw-3rr-alt that's a bit more chatty and yet shorter. Maybe it needs to be better advertised? --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's also {{uw-ew}} (which doesn't mention 3rr for some reason) and {{uw-ewsoft}} as well. ansh666 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think that
{{uw-ew}}
not mentioning 3rr is intentional; this allows it to be used in cases where somebody who was blocked for repeated reversion has returned from the block and immediately made a single revert to one of the disputed articles, as here. Used in this sense, it doesn't imply that the user had the right to make a fresh set of three reverts with impunity - indeed, it states, in boldfaced text, "Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think that
- {{uw-ewsoft}} is wonderful. It starts with the main point, and has a paragraph break between the problem explanation and the consequences warning. The latter part directly starts with the most important information. The template does not use a big red stop sign in a heated situation; instead, it calmly explains something that is unlikely to be intuitive to new users. It explains Wikipedia's discussion process without drowning the user in details. I rarely ever use any other template to warn edit warriors. The only alternative I use, for experienced users, is a very short, neutral, manual message like "Hi, regarding Article, please keep WP:3RR in mind. Thanks ~~~~" ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- There's also {{uw-ew}} (which doesn't mention 3rr for some reason) and {{uw-ewsoft}} as well. ansh666 04:29, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- That's a tough one, especially for new editors when you don't want to bite them, but you do want to warn them about 3RR as they are probably not aware of it. There is an alternative to Template:Uw-3rr, unsurprisingly called Template:Uw-3rr-alt that's a bit more chatty and yet shorter. Maybe it needs to be better advertised? --RexxS (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- It seems to be derived from a template, so perhaps it can be changed to make it not as bitey? -- Lofty abyss 22:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've transcluded this discussion to Template talk:Uw-3rr. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Note: The number of times an editor becomes frustrated must be taken in relation to the number of years of consistent editing, the number of contentious situations an editor can find themselves in (and no these situations are not always chosen), the amount of time an editor spends on Wikipedia working, and should be considered along side the huge amount of good an editor does on this project. The ratio of frustrated comments to years of work is not equal to someone with much less experience and time and the same number of frustrated comments. Simple math. As well, someone in a situation that requires mediation or judgment is not to be compared to the same person drawn into a debate on a contentious topic. Mature adults can be both measured and must be allowed on occasion to feel frustration. I wonder sometimes if we come into RfA with some kind of unrealistic and idealized non-human version of what an admin is. Hard working, integrity, ability to judge should be the standard. Behavior that limits an editor's adminship should point to an inability over time to be consistent and fair with multiple diffs as examples. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- What frustrates me is persistent disregard of accessibility issues. If you want a quick tutorial, RexxS may be recommended as one to give a clear explanation on these matters. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Does "Real Suppor"t and "Strong Support" count more in support category and does "Strong Oppose" and "Weak Oppose" count less in the oppose category? Why not just Support, Oppose and Neutral? Eschoryii (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- In regards to the pure percentages, no, they don't. If it comes down to a close call, though, closing bureaucrats may choose to give different weight to "strong" or "weak". ansh666 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is the perfect opportunity for me to shamelessly plug my very brief essay on exactly this point: WP:STRONG. It's a very silly, rather pointless modifier, the strength of one's support or opposition is made by their arguments, not by adding an extra bolded word or two. I wish people would stop fooling themselves that it is otherwise. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I read the "strong" and "weak" qualifiers as a summary of how strongly a !voter feels about the issue, i.e., their intensity of preference. See Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference. Seems useful, e.g. when you have numerically-equal numbers, both with solid policy-based arguments, but on one side there are a lot of "strong supports" and on the other side a lot of "weak opposes". Leviv ich 23:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I find the "weak" modifier much more useful as it is an effective way of saying it just isn't all that important to you but you are mildly in one camp or the other. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I come done on this the same way Beeblebrox does, although I do not begrudge those who do so, in particular at RfA, which is (intentionally) much more like an actual vote than other venues. That being said, though, weak should not be considered the same as strong. Saying "weak oppose/support/delete/keep/etc." conveys valuable information about your stance, whereas saying "strong" may just lead to an arms race. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting point; "weak" is especially useful, whereas with "strong" it really depends on who's saying it. It seems that many of the most experienced Wikipedians almost never use the modifier "strong", but on the rare occasion that they do, it does make me pay "extra" attention. Others overuse it and dilute the effect. Leviv ich 00:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly, where does it end? If you put "strongest possible" does that trump a regular "strong"? What if you add Strongest possible über death ray, do you just win the argument right then and there? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Interesting point; "weak" is especially useful, whereas with "strong" it really depends on who's saying it. It seems that many of the most experienced Wikipedians almost never use the modifier "strong", but on the rare occasion that they do, it does make me pay "extra" attention. Others overuse it and dilute the effect. Leviv ich 00:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Top tip: the heading under which you post your comment makes it explicitly clear whether you are supporting or opposing, so it is unnecessary to make any kind of bold statement. Just get on and make your comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- In regards to the pure percentages, no, they don't. If it comes down to a close call, though, closing bureaucrats may choose to give different weight to "strong" or "weak". ansh666 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
About RfB
Requests for bureaucratship (RfB) is the process by which the Wikipedia community decides who will become bureaucrats. Bureaucrats can make other users administrators or bureaucrats, based on community decisions reached here, and remove administrator rights in limited circumstances. They also oversee local change usernames venues in conjunction with the team of global renamers and can grant or remove bot status on an account.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above; however the expectation for promotion to bureaucratship is significantly higher than for admin, requiring a clearer consensus. In general, the threshold for consensus is somewhere around 85%. Bureaucrats are expected to determine consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Create a new RfB page as you would for an RfA, and insert {{subst:RfB|User=Username|Description=Your description of the candidate. ~~~~}}
into it, then answer the questions. New bureaucrats are recorded at Wikipedia:Successful bureaucratship candidacies. Failed nominations are at Wikipedia:Unsuccessful bureaucratship candidacies.
At minimum, study what is expected of a bureaucrat by reading discussions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship including the recent archives, before seeking this position.
While canvassing for support is often viewed negatively by the community, some users find it helpful to place the neutrally worded {{RfX-notice|b}}
on their userpages – this is generally not seen as canvassing.
Please add new requests at the top of the section immediately below this line.
Current nominations for bureaucratship
Primefac
(talk page) (111/5/2); Scheduled to end 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination
Primefac (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) – It is my great pleasure to nominate Primefac for bureaucratship. I've been after him for the better part of a year to run for this, and he has finally said yes. Primefac has been an administrator for over two years now, and has been an oversighter since 2017. In that time he has steadily done much of the behind the scenes work that keeps this project running smoothly. He has been one of our most frequent and trusted closers of contentious RfCs, and he is able to weed through the noise and focus on the quality of arguments and policy like virtually no one else I've seen on this project. As an oversighter, he has been one of our most active, and his judgement there is able to help the lives of real people through that work. He is also a BAG member, and would be familiar with that aspect of bureaucrat work.
While there is an argument that we no longer need bureaucrats, so long as the group does exist, I strongly believe that it is important to have individuals who are familiar with current practice and community dynamics in the role, and I can't think of anyone better than Primefac to help step into that role. I hope you all will agree with me. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Co-nomination by Amorymeltzer
I am overjoyed to co-nominate Primefac today. I don't think he needs much of an introduction, but he's a kind editor, a trusted sysop, and a thoughtful member of the community. A sysop and an oversighter, I think Primefac's most valuable asset is his ability to explain a tough decision or hard close he's made. I've seen firsthand just how good his communication skills are — especially valuable as an OTRS member — and there is nobody better to craft a response to a sticky situation. I know when I see Primefac comment somewhere that it is guaranteed to be well-reasoned and convincing.
Primefac is probably most active as a regular at WP:TfD. I especially appreciate how often he puts in the effort to note the broader conversations or ongoings elsewhere that might be relevant to his close. He is also an active bot operator: User:PrimeBOT has over two dozen approved tasks. Primefac actively participates in and helps out at other bot discussions, which is why he joined BAG last year. I think it's safe to say he clearly understands the bot process!
In short, Primefac is one of the more trusted editors around. He has a good read on the pulse of the community and is excellent at conveying the process behind reaching a difficult judgment. I can think of no one I'd prefer making a difficult close. I think he'd make a great bureaucrat and I hope you will all join me in supporting him here! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
- Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: I appreciate the nomination and I accept with thanks and gratitude. Primefac (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Questions for the candidate
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as a bureaucrat. You may wish to answer the following optional questions to provide guidance for participants:
- 1. Have you read the discussions on when to promote and not promote? What do you understand the criteria for promotion to be?
- A: I have read through each of the 'crat chats since the implementation of the 65% discretionary range (1, 2, 3, and 4 if you're keeping score). The is no "one answer" on when to promote, as what was contentious in one chat (content creation, temperament, etc) was not necessarily found to be an issue in other discussions. I hesitate to say that I know it when I see it, but in my view the criteria for promotion comes down to whether the community feels that the issue(s) observed regarding an admin candidate are of great enough significance to negatively impact their ability to successfully be an admin. In other words, one must take not only the arguments, but the strength and support behind those arguments into account.
- 2. How would you deal with contentious nominations where a decision to promote or not promote might be criticized?
- A: A potentially contentious close should be backed up by justification, as seen in the closes for Brianhe and Oshwah. In some of the opening statements of the 'crat chats, the OP will give their rationale for why they chose not to close unilaterally and instead open it up for discussion, which is equally as important. By providing rationale the closer can demonstrate that they're not just counting votes and can give their rationale for why/how specific arguments were promoted/discounted.
- 3. Wikipedians expect bureaucrats to adhere to high standards of fairness, knowledge of policy and the ability to engage others in the community. Why do you feel you meet those standards?
- A: I've always prided myself in being a logical person, and if anything one could say that I like weighing pro/con lists to determine the best possible outcome. In any discussion it's not necessarily about who makes an argument or takes a position, but what is being said; if a valid argument is made, then it's a valid argument. I find myself constantly refreshing my memory of policies and guidelines when closing discussions, if only so I make sure that its use in a discussion is being made properly. I'm always open to discussion with other editors, and if I've done something silly I'm happy to fix it, undo it, or otherwise correct the mistake. Likewise, I prefer to extend the metaphorical olive branch if I'm seeing something that could be contentious or otherwise problematic; it's easier to leave a quick note than it is to have a situation get to the point where the "drama boards" are involved.
- Additional questions from Nosebagbear
- 4. Could you give several examples of RfCs (Or equivalently complicated closes) where you provided what you felt were good closes in tough/non-clear circumstances?
- A: In no particular order:
- WP:AN - unblock request
- Talk:Kshmr (permalink) - both sides were using the same policies and guidelines to make their claim. This close was later endorsed at MRV.
- Talk:Canada - no one could agree on anything except the criteria for a file that may or may not actually exist.
- WT:RFA - another case where no one could agree on anything except that something needed doing.
- WT:MOSDATE - multi-option RFC that (thankfully) had enough people listing their order of preference to make a close
- Talk:Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi - another multi-option RM that didn't have enough consensus to get any closer than a procedural relist between options A and B.
- I'll be honest, there are a few TFD closes that I would like to add to this list, but unfortunately none of the names of those templates stick out enough in my mind to remember when they were closed. If I remember them I'll list them above.
- A: In no particular order:
- Additional questions from xaosflux
Bureaucrats have various discretionary privlidges, please discuss how you would handle some of these situations:
- 5. A non-local interface editor, that is a global interface editor, adds new styling to mobile.css to hide some sort of secondary content element on articles (such as an navigation template or the like); another editor has asked the GIE to stop and explain their edits, but they do not reply and instead make an additional update. The complaining editor posts at WP:BN for help. How would you handle this?
- A: The post alone at BN would not be sufficient for any immediate action to be taken; after looking to see if the complaint is valid and/or reasonable, I would follow the set procedures and ask the GIE a second time to stop. If they continue to edit, I would block the account, notify WP:BN as well as the meta:Stewards' noticeboard (or contact the stews via IRC if I were online at that time).
- 6. A bot operator requests copyvio-bot access for their new bot account at WP:BRFA, and a BAG member closes the discussion as "Speedy Approve" - mentioning that it is urgent and was discussed on IRC, then they request flagging at WP:BN. How would you handle this?
- A: Interesting question. There's nothing in WP:CVBOT (or the bot policy in general), the VPP discussion, or at WP:CRAT that says there must be a discussion prior to approval. I trust the existing crew of BAG members, so barring any glaringly-obvious failures of WP:BOTREQUIRE I would likely approve the request. If I had concerns (be it "my gut", a requirement issue, etc) I would raise it in the BN discussion, just to make sure any amendments or clarifications aren't necessary.
- 7. An administrator asked for removal of their permission in 2008, saying they don't have time to participate. Since then they have made a few minor article edits (i.e. spelling fixes) every couple of years. They now have asked for restoration of access at WP:BN. How would you handle this?
- A: I'd follow the steps at WP:RESYSOP: check they were an admin, that they didn't resign under a cloud, and that their edits are frequent enough to not fail the "three years with no edits" rule. If all is square, then it's just a case of waiting 24 hours to resysop and welcome them back (following an update to WP:RESYSOPS).
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 8. BAG members approve the bot and the Crats flag it and it is Two-man rule Will you both approve ( or be part of the discussion to approve the bot) and flag the Bot ?
- A: No. (see Q11 for a bit more)
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 9. An editor has retired an account and made a clean start for privacy reasons would it be necessary to disclose to the community that he has gone through a RFA in his previous account if wishes to run for RFA again or cratship or arbcom? Can you state the policy on this ?
- A: Wikipedia:Clean start#Requests for adminship indicates there is no obligation to reveal a past account when running for any advanced permissions, though it is strongly encouraged.
- Additional question from WJBscribe
- 10. Elaborating on 9 above - During an RfA, you learn the identity of the candidate's account prior to a "clean start". The old account previously failed RfA primarily due to having received seven blocks for edit warring, including for 3RR violations, and aggressive responses to other users when engaged in edit wars. The user created and started editing with their new account before they stopped editing with their old account - the two accounts overlapped for 4 months but never edited the same pages. The new account never edited during periods when the old account was blocked. The new account has been editing for 2 years without any blocks or obvious signs of edit warring or other problematic editing. It is 2 1/2 years since the failed RfA of the old account and 22 months since the old account's last block. What issues arise from this scenario? What, if anything, would you do?
- (PS. This isn't a "right answer" question - I'm much more interested in how you unpack and analyse the issues than what you would do...)
- A: Oh goodness, this is a lot to unpack. I'll try to keep it short(ish) and use bullet points to break up the paragraphs.
- To answer the first question - the main issue arises of the undisclosed alternate accounts, the huge block log, and now in
deceptively seeking positions of community trust
(quoted from WP:SOCK). The community doesn't really think highly of that sort of behaviour, and giving a rather two-faced editor like that advanced permissions turns into a potential good hand/bad hand situation (which we've seen in the last couple of years with a few desysops and/or paid editing accounts) - I'm going to make a few assumptions, first that someone emailed (or otherwise contacted) me with details/evidence of the two accounts being linked (because I don't tend to do those sorts of investigations), or maybe someone sends a ticket to OS regarding an OUTING and it's these two accounts. Who knows, just that the evidence appears to be worth investigating (i.e. I've looked over it and it's not like a certain individual who keeps emailing the functs list insisting this account or that account is a sock). The way you've described it makes it sound like a few SPI cases I've seen where it's a one-in-a-million coincidence that the evidence was uncovered, but that it's also a slam dunk, so... I'm going to assume it's pretty irrefutable evidence.
- First thing to check would be their activity - if both accounts have actively edited in the last six months I'd file an SPI and/or have a CU check to see if there is a technical connection (if the evidence itself was sensitive I'd send an email to the oversight list so the CU/OS members would have access). If there is one, then it's a straight-forward sock block. I might even email the OSers first to get their opinions on whether an SPI is even necessary. In all likelihood (based on past cases) we'd just block the account and call it good (after all, it's a slam dunk, right?). But, down the assumption rabbit hole we continue...
- Assuming there was no technical evidence (or the old account hadn't edited in 6+ months) and the OS email comes back with a "ask them and see" sort of approach, then we get a little fuzzy in the timeline. There are basically three places I could discuss this with the user:
- In an email; this gives them a chance to self-disclose (which may help their case) and keeps any private info private
- On their talk page; there's still the issue of whether the information is public or private, but I might even do something as simple as asking them "what's your connected to <old account>?" and see how they respond.
- On the RFA itself; asking the "please disclose any other accounts" question at RFA runs the risk of me basically turning their RFA into a circus (i.e. how do I disclose — especially if it's private info — without it looking like I'm just trying to tank their RFA?) when the Court of Public Opinion starts debating whether it's okay for the user to have two accounts, one of which was blocked, etc (there would definitely be conversations moved to the RFA's Talk page).
- I keep flip-flopping on whether I'd do #1 or #2 first, but likely #1 just to see if they'll do the right thing (keeping in mind we've already passed the point of we're-not-going-to-unilaterally-block-you-for-these-issues-without-discussion).
- Assuming they do do the right thing, then I've done my job and the Court of Public Opinion can deal with the rest.
- Assuming they don't, then we get into the public/private information issue:
- Assuming the content is public and I've gone through steps 1 and 2 above, I'd go to ANI regarding their past editing, and leave a comment at the RFA linking to the post. Job done (I'd of course stick around and answer any clarifying questions I would be able to).
- Assuming the content is private, we've now hit the point where there are so many assumptions and unlikely scenarios that I honestly don't know what to do. It's compelling evidence (but not enough that a CU or OSer would block), but I can't publish it (so it's my word against theirs). I suppose if it got to that point I would contact ArbCom for their advice on the situation.
- Interesting question, though; hope I satisfied you.
- To answer the first question - the main issue arises of the undisclosed alternate accounts, the huge block log, and now in
- A: Oh goodness, this is a lot to unpack. I'll try to keep it short(ish) and use bullet points to break up the paragraphs.
- Additional question from Hhkohh
- 11. You are a BAG member, if you
closealready comment in a BRFA for a new bot without a bot flag, will you go ahead to give them a bot flag (or/and an admin flag if it is an admin bot)?- A: No, unless I am commenting as a 'crat (e.g. if someone had a procedural question).
- This appears to be a repeat of Q8. –xenotalk 17:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Additional question from Hhkohh
- 12. If a non-admin obviously wrongly close a TfD, What will you do?
- A: First, discuss the matter with them on their talk page; it could have just been a mistake. If they don't reverse, I'd revert per WP:BADNAC giving my rationale for why the discussion is being re-opened. If by chance I'm somehow INVOLVED in the situation, I'd instead bring it to DRV following the initial user talk discussion.
- Additional question from Hhkohh
- 13. If an RfA S% is 70, what is your choice and what will you do in crat chat?
- A: Regardless of the percentage, I would read through and weigh the opinions presented by both sides in order to make an informed decision on how the community feels about the admin candidate. 70% falls right in the middle of the discretionary range so it would be a question of whether the arguments made by those opposing outweigh the arguments made in support (or in rebuttal to those opposed).
- Additional question from Pharaoh of the Wizards
- 14. Do Crats have the right to use there discretion rather WP:IAR in there decision making or have to compulsory follow policy in each and very decision ?
- A: An interesting question, one which I hesitate to answer with a blunt "no". The job of a 'crat is to weigh consensus at RFA and ensure bot requests follow the community norms before granting any bot flags. There isn't much room for a supervote in a 'crat chat (it would either be ignored, voted down, or otherwise result in consequences), nor would it be acceptable to ignore policies and grant a bot flag. A 'crat is of course expected to use their best judgement in the above matters, but how any given 'crat interprets the policies and guidelines cannot really be considered "IAR" in the truest sense of the expression. Every decision needs to be based on either policy or consensus (or both). If as a 'crat I needed to justify a decision with "because I say so" then I'm not doing what I was authorized to do.
- Additional question from Davidelit
- 15. Hi. I have been an editor since 2006, and have over 7,500 edits to my name, but have no interest in going for Admin because of the confrontational and humiliating (and hoop-jumping) application process. I have been in contact with other editors who feel the same. Do you have any thoughts about ways to improve the process so it is still rigorous enough to ensure that only the right people get the job, but that is a bit more friendly to those who stick their heads above the parapet?
- A: That's a difficult question to answer, mostly because there have been dozens of editors over the last few years that have had some major discussions about it, often without any end result. Because everyone has their own strengths we cannot simply make a "check list" (though obviously many make their own personal criteria), but that means that there will be some necessary hoop-jumping. I also don't think we can force anyone to "be nice" or have unrealistic expectations or not say something potentially hurtful (though obviously insults can be struck or otherwise removed). I suppose we could go with a closed system like with ArbCom, but then we run the risk of losing transparency. I hate to dodge the question a little bit, but there are just so many thoughts and variables (and consensuses to build) that I cannot really answer it in 1000 bytes.
- Additional question from Leaky
- 16. Do you regard this application as an application for "promotion"?
- A: Not really. I am honored and appreciative of the support of those who nominated me (and in the case of Tony, bugged me for over a year to go for it), but I never set out to become a 'crat. I expect no accolades; there's a job that needs doing and people who feel I am a good candidate for that job, which is why I accepted the nomination. Another reason why I don't really see it as a promotion is because being a 'crat doesn't give an editor any more "power" in the day-to-day operations of improving Wikipedia; my voice in a conversation holds just as much weight as an editor who joined the day before yesterday (sure, I may know more about policy than that editor, but when it comes to building consensus they are still entitled to their opinions and are welcome in the conversation).
- Additional question from Xeno
- 17. Please provide your thoughts/opinions on User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul.
- A: My initial thought was "wow that's a complicated process!" immediately followed by "that's a great idea." I never really thought about reforming RFA from the "back end" of the process, and I think it's a really well-thought-out proposal. I completely agree that part of the issue at RFA is that people feel it's essentially "for life" with no reasonable method of recall/desysop short of the drama-fest that is ArbCom. By making a complicated-yet-reasonable process, it will decrease the number of "revenge" nominations while still allowing for reasonable concerns to be brought to light. Of course, the proposal could maybe be simplified further a bit; I say this mainly because of dealing with PERMs, where even our "easy come easy go" attitude rarely results in someone losing their perms.
- It's definitely a really good place to start, though; if people with concerns know that there exists a method for keeping admins in check, they might be more willing to overlook (or less strongly oppose) those issues.
Discussion
- Links for Primefac: Primefac (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · spi)
- Edit summary usage for Primefac can be found here.
Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting.
Support
- Whether we need the role or not in the longrun, while we have the role we should have people like Primefac be one. He's a credit to the project and I am pleased to support him here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As nominator. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Great editor. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. Jianhui67 T★C 17:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Two RfBs in the space of a month? This must be some kind of record. (Hopefully this isn't an April Fool's nom, seven hours too early; although it's been 1 April for a few hours in some countries.) --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support: Primefac always shows thought and care while closing discussions. While the role of the 'crat has been reduced over time, it is still necessary to have a broad and active group of bureaucrats. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Uncontroversial to the point of blandness, and knows when to dig in and when to accommodate others' views. I'm less than convinced we need to have crats at all, but as long as we still have them Primefac is exactly what they should be. ‑ Iridescent17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. We need 'crats that are actively engaged with the project. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support The phrase "better late than never" springs to mind. ——SerialNumber54129 17:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support - sure, will probably be able to read, interpret, and implement the relevant policies. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Whenever I see that name in my watchlist, I just skip over it, confident the matter will be well-handled. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Duuuh. As the guy who persuaded Primefac to run for a second RfA which was successful, I had full confidence in him then, and that has been strengthened by his excellent skills as an administrator since. Give him the screwdriver (or whatever tools 'crats use). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I always picture them with a giant light switch to hand. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- @LindsayH and Ritchie333: - I've always assumed the reason they had 2 tools was just because there wasn't a firm consensus for one or the other and, being 'Crats, that couldn't be allowed. Fiat consensus fieri ruat caelum Nosebagbear (talk) 18:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- I always picture them with a giant light switch to hand. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Certainly Full confidence this is right. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support wholeheartedly. Cabayi (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support—passes my criteria — pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support No concerns, good to go. -- ferret (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. Nihlus 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Helpful and civil in all the interactions I've seen. Schazjmd (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Thoughtful and levelheaded editor. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support, of course. Also per Beeblebrox. —DoRD (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support, helpful and well mannered ~~ JJBullet 19:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support – thoughtful, responsive, seems to take every editor seriously and is willing to make tough decisions but to make them carefully and to explain them well. Leviv ich 20:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support – Bradv🍁 20:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Definitely-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- You don't see one for years and then two come along... Anyway, yes, Primefac seems ideal Crat material to me, pretty much as per what everyone else has said above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support seems like a good editor to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support no risk. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- As enthusiastic co-nom. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I see no reason against this. The nominee has definitely proven himself worthy. NoahTalk 21:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Trusted admin, calm, thoughtful. Huge positive. SQLQuery me! 21:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per Iri. Nick (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support CLCStudent (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 22:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I see no problems. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Exercises good judgment. A spot check revealed no issues. — Newslinger talk 22:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Will be as good a 'crat as they are an admin. Miniapolis 22:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support definitely!--SkyGazer 512 My talk page 22:12, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support A great editor. JTP (talk • contribs) 22:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support -- Natureium (talk) 22:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support An asset to the 'pedia and this will enhance that. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Conditional Support - Having looked through your two RfAs, a few administrators pointed out that you seemed to have trouble in the AfD area. However, this was a long time ago, and you seem like a good choice for a crat otherwise, so I'm going to support based on the assumption that it won't happen again. Foxnpichu (talk) 22:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? Double sharp (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support Happy to support. Shellwood (talk) 23:47, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support I've been off-wiki for an extended period, and the fact I remember this user positively is certainly a good sign. –Sb2001 23:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Support per noms ~Awilley (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support of course. Vermont (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Primefac's work as the de facto coord of AfC is already more than enough to convince me that there is nothing standing in the way of him having the bureaucrat bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. — 🦊 00:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. No doubts at all. Primefac is one of Wikipedia's awesome people! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 00:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I gave this lengthy consideration given Primefac's relatively short tenure as a 'crat, but I have no concerns about his ability to fulfill the role. bd2412 T 00:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - I hope this doesn't mean the time he spends in other areas where we really need him will be drastically limited. Atsme Talk 📧 01:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- support per noms--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Absolutely. Unparalleled judgement, technical knowledge, and attention to detail. – Juliancolton | Talk 01:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No concerns and I trust Primefacs judgement! -- Dane talk 01:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - ideal candidate. -- Begoon 02:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support but next time, wait until April 2. --Rschen7754 02:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Pleasure to work with Primefac. Lourdes 03:08, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support 100% Sro23 (talk) 04:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I have never seen the candidate before, but based on the answers to the questions, I say I would have been proud to nominate them. But in all honesty, I have same concerns as of Atsme. But on second thoughts, crats arent that busy either. —usernamekiran(talk) 05:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obviously. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - no concerns. GiantSnowman 07:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. No concerns and I consider the second oppose to be an issue of semantics rather than whether or not to trust Primefac with 'crat. Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support – This is clearly a qualified candidate. Mz7 (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - trustworthy admin. PhilKnight (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Somehow I missed this one. Definitely support--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Good candidate. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why not? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Obv. Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support In general I am really not a fan of this kind of rapid "promotion," if I may be excused the expression. Less than three years tenure as an admin would normally provoke an oppose (or neutral at best) from me. But Primefac is such an outstanding admin, coupled with my respect for the noms, that I am making an exception. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Trusted name. Rcsprinter123 (sing) 15:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No-brainer. A dedicated member of our community who can do a lot of good with the bureaucratic toolset. Kurtis (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Trusted admin, no concerns. aboideautalk 17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Clearly capable of perform 'crat duties with equanimity and competence. Also able to listen carefully and accept criticism with grace. Clearly cares deeply about the welfare of Wikipedia and it's goals. Waggie (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Great contributor with unequalled judgement. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC).
- Support Good luck. 1989 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Why not? -FASTILY 21:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support As others have noted, Primefac has been an admin for a relatively short period of time but their excellence in that role surpasses an expectation for a longer tenure. Chetsford (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Trusted, competent, and per Q3, an ideal candidate for the job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Good candidate. JohnThorne (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. I have seen nothing but good work from this editor and I trust him. No issues. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- support no concerns Hhkohh (talk) 00:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Impressed by Primefac's light touch. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Best of luck.--Mona.N (talk) 04:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support All the best! Tolly4bolly 09:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support A great editor, no objections to the candidate becoming a 'crat. EggRoll97 (talk) 09:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Good contributions and good answers to questions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Consistently shows good judgement, and in my experience takes time to explain decisions clearly. GirthSummit (blether) 11:40, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Fine admin and will make a fine 'crat.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Very strong support Primefac is the ideal candidate and will be a great crat! Praxidicae (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Trusted editor. FitIndia Talk 13:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support No negative incidents from this user as far as I can remember. SemiHypercube 16:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Excellent candidate. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 17:00, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Suppport Clearly an appropriate candidate. Doug Weller talk 17:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - the response to Q4 was one of the best provision of examples Ive seen in any RfX. I don't really feel qualified to comment on the 'Crat/BAG discussion so I've had to discount that from my considerations. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - No brainer. Thorough, careful, thoughtful, and has sound judgment. ceranthor 18:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - one of the best. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I can't find a reason "Why not?" Best of luck to you, and thank you for volunteering. —Amiodarone talk 20:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support, clueful, representative of the current community, and WP:100. J947's public account 20:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Fully qualified candidate. The opposers' concerns are unpersuasive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Clear thinker, with a good grasp of policies and practices. I would trust his judgement without reservation. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support – I particularly like the answer to Q10. –FlyingAce✈hello 22:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support - Best of luck to you. :) Neovu79 (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Qualified & trusted. --rogerd (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support Sure. Katietalk 03:05, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support I liked this candidate's answers to RfB question 9 and RfA question 7. Airbornemihir (talk) 07:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support The right sort of editor for the job.Jacona (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support: My few interactions with Primefac have all been positive, and I just spent a fair amount of time looking at his edit history. I think he would be a great addition to our 'crat corps. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Especially useful asset to the crat team because of his bot experience. He will be well-positioned to actually know what he's doing when he hands out bot flags. ~ Rob13Talk 14:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Support. Editor is value-add to this project, and I cannot think of a reason not to support this nomination. MX (✉ • ✎) 16:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose. Besides seeing this as happening too early and thus WP:NOTQUITEYET (for coming a bureaucrat), I have seen concerns arise from the ways in which Primefac has executed their discussion closes in their administrative capacity. I have major concerns with Primefac's attitude toward closing discussions to an extent to where they seem to not even consider the discussion itself and show off a "It's my way or the highway" mentality. In addition, Primefac has closed discussions that resulted in additional on-wiki drama where it did not seem that Primefac took enough action after their close to figuratively "douse the flame" they started. (See Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Page move.) So, with these concerns in mind, I have little to no confidence that migrating these behaviors into a bureaucratic role are a positive to the community, and thus I must oppose this nomination. Steel1943 (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose based on answers to my questions above. In Q6, I expect 'crats to be a check-and-balance with BAG, but your response feels like you would have acted as a rubber stamp for BAG. At the very least I expect 'crats to ensure that new bot that can tag other people's edits as potential copyright violations is well documented and discussed on-wiki, such as how it may interact with other such bots. In Q7, this seems like another rubber stamp situation, where at the very least I'd expect that would need to coordinate a discussion with some vocal community opposers (as have been raised on prior such requests). I expect 'crats to follow community policies, but also to keep in mind that 'not acting' upon or otherwise challenging requests may be the best course of action, at least initially. — xaosflux Talk 04:46, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
—usernamekiran(talk) 06:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Xaosflux, as a matter of interest, what would your response be to the scenario in Q6? To be fair for the candidate, it would probably be make sense to imagine yourself a recently promoted bureaucrat for the purpose of your answer... WJBscribe (talk) 12:11, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Xaosflux I must agree with the others. I don't see crats doing anything but rubber-stamping actions. You may see this differently because you yourself are BAG, thus have the authority to approve and flag. Recall Maxim recently was admonished for using his discretion as a crat. Crats are supposed to follow policy to the letter, which gives them very little room to use their judgement. If ArbCom says to remove the bit, the crats will remove the bit. If BAG says to give this bot a flag, they will. Why? Because each authoritative body has a unique skillset that qualifies them to do so. BAG has a technical skillset to understand how bots work, assess the operators competence, and be able to predict how the community will respond to said bot provided there's a lack of discussion. ArbCom because they have been entrusted by the community to fairly solve complex disputes and issues, especially regarding private matters. Bureaucrats are entrusted to hold the high trust of the community as enforcers/followers of policy, and handing out sysop when they believe it is okay to do so at the request of the community.Cp678 (T•C•G•E) 14:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Cyberpower678: actually Maxim was not admonished (by ArbCom at least) in that matter. But in any case, "not acting" is not the same as acting against standards. I was not looking for a {{not done}} type response on these questions, more so that they warranted additional exploration and how that may have taken place. — xaosflux Talk 14:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @WJBscribe: I would have kicked it back to BAG for additional consideration, there is very little that actually is urgent on Wikipedia - so I'd take that claim as suspect (the red flags being off-wiki discussion and speedy approval). Copyviobots are rare (there is only 1 running right now) and could easily interfere with each other, so I would be looking to see that the BRFA discussion was well advertised and attended to. As far as the "recently promoted" consideration, I'd also have been more comfortable with a response indicating a non-decline action such as deferring to a larger discussion. I don't expect even half of our seasoned 'crats to be very familiar with that access group, but as a current BAG member I expect Primefac to be, and that when processing such a request as a 'crat ensuring that BAG members have taken due care in the review and approval process is important to me. — xaosflux Talk 14:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Xaosflux I must agree with the others. I don't see crats doing anything but rubber-stamping actions. You may see this differently because you yourself are BAG, thus have the authority to approve and flag. Recall Maxim recently was admonished for using his discretion as a crat. Crats are supposed to follow policy to the letter, which gives them very little room to use their judgement. If ArbCom says to remove the bit, the crats will remove the bit. If BAG says to give this bot a flag, they will. Why? Because each authoritative body has a unique skillset that qualifies them to do so. BAG has a technical skillset to understand how bots work, assess the operators competence, and be able to predict how the community will respond to said bot provided there's a lack of discussion. ArbCom because they have been entrusted by the community to fairly solve complex disputes and issues, especially regarding private matters. Bureaucrats are entrusted to hold the high trust of the community as enforcers/followers of policy, and handing out sysop when they believe it is okay to do so at the request of the community.Cp678 (T•C•G•E) 14:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Community sanctions cannot be removed by a single admin as they require community consensus on WP:AN. Primefac went against the policy when he removed the community imposed topic ban on an editor. BukhariSaeed was unblocked "
with a topic ban on saints and religious figures (broadly construed) and a requirement that all new pages go through WP:AFC
," after a discussion on WP:AN which was itself controversial as Primefac, who was the closing admin, deemed there was consensus to unblock when there were 8 opposes and only 11 support towards unblock.[20] In the closure, Primefac said "Both of these restrictions can be appealed after six months
", and contrary to his words, Primefac unilaterally removed the topic ban on Bukhairsaeed from article creation without initiating discussion on WP:AN first.[21] Not to mention that the user in question was violating copyrights as recently as 3 months before the removal.[22] This is clear evidence of abuse of admin tools by Primefac and that's why I cannot trust him with B-Crat right. Shashank5988 (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Umm; the community did not support (or, FWIW, reject) PFac's additional unblock condition; it was of his own design and was explicitly clarified in the closure. So, revoking the page-creation-ban, out of his own will, was perfectly policy-compliant. Usual ARBIPA shit-fest. ∯WBGconverse 16:55, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
#Oppose countersigned the closure of the first Daily Mail RfC barely 24 hours after it was created. This isn't due process for wide RfCs, thus I have concerns that he does not understand how community processes work.--Pudeo (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2019 (UTC)- Hi Pudeo, I can't understand what you mean by "barely 24 hours after it was created". That's not evident in the link you've provided. Am I missing something? Warmly, Lourdes 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I mixed up the months. The RfC did in fact run for a month. But the closure was contested at AN regardless and the strong wording of Yunshui and Primefac was criticized: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive287#Closed. Eventually a 2nd RfC was held. So I struck my oppose, but voters should be aware of the closure of this landmark RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Pudeo, I can't understand what you mean by "barely 24 hours after it was created". That's not evident in the link you've provided. Am I missing something? Warmly, Lourdes 11:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per Softlavender. The last successful RfB was for DeltaQuad, who has been an admin for about eight years; long enough to know the history of promotion standards. Primefac is a fine admin, but just doesn't have the experience I expect. Jonathunder (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose per admin criteria. While a Crat is not an Admin, they almost always have to have been an Admin to start with, and content creation remains the reason for WP. GregJackP Boomer! 06:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- GregJackP, are you checking the wrong name? Primefac is an admin, and has over 50,000 content edits. ‑ Iridescent 08:56, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Neutral
- Two years as an admin is just too little for me in this day and age to transition to cratship. The user has plenty enough hats already; we don't need any more bureaucrats; and so forth. I might feel differently in another year or so. Softlavender (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Exactly what SL says (particularly as she's said it betterer than what I could). - SchroCat (talk) 23:27, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
General comments
- I personally agree with your general sentiment of using common sense and good judgement, Xaosflux, but I was under the impression that crats were not supposed to ignore community policies at all, but adhere to them closely. When they don't do this, there tends to be an outcry from the community (or at least the portion that disagrees with the action). For example, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fred Bauder#Findings of fact #9 resulted in a reminder from Arbcom for a WP:IAR action from a 'crat. Additionally, I think the problem with Q6 is that it's hypothetical and not based on real world events, which would give us further information as to what the correct cause of action would be. Q7 would undoubtedly result in wailing and gnashing of teeth from many users, not least Beeblebrox (I think I'm on solid grounds saying this as he's expressed this view many times) but I think it would be consistent with what 'crats are expected to do.Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:50, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- On the topic of flaggings, xaosflux intentionally asked in Q6 about
copyviobot
, but it's worth noting that for the typicalbot
flag, WP:BOTPOL and WP:CRAT are slightly different, with the former saying bureaucrats will and the latter saying bureaucrats may. Wikipedia:Bot policy has since 2008 and 2010 said "will" (Bot accounts will be marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request
andShould the task be approved, the "bot" user group flag will be assigned by any bureaucrat...
). Indeed, WP:BOTPOL explicitly gives to bureaucrats and expects of them much more meaningful discretion when it comes to adminbots, stating that[t]he bureaucrat who responds to the flag request acts as a final arbiter of the process and will ensure that an adequate level of community consensus...
, which suggests the continued use of will for typical bots is intentional. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, on the other hand, has since 2011 said "may" (Bot flags may be granted or removed in accordance with the bot policy, often on the advice of the Bot Approvals Group
). The changes stretch back to when we started flagging all active bots rather than just some, but if a reasonable reader could take will and may to mean different things, the two pages are in disagreement about the level of discretion expected by bureaucrats. The VPP discussion allowing crats to managecopyviobot
asked that bureaucrats be allowedto issue and revoke this flag in the same manner as the bot flag
(emphasis added), which would suggest that when it was added to WP:BOTPOL, it likely should have used will rather than may, although admittedly the two points in the discussion are, in light of the above paragraph, similarly unclear. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- Bureaucrats have no special veto power over bot flagging but if a bureaucrat noticed a significant issue with the BRFA (e.g. consensus for a controversial task not demonstrated, or the task violated some unconsidered policy or guideline), they may decline to grant the bot flag at that time and send it back for (wider, if necessary) BAG/community attention. (I would consider the “rubberstamping” of such a bot to be a lapse in bureaucrat diligence.) –xenotalk 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, Primefac said "If I had concerns (be it "my gut", a requirement issue, etc) I would raise it in the BN discussion, just to make sure any amendments or clarifications aren't necessary." which sounds in line with your views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- This is a complicated bit of process. The authority of bureaucrats/BAG are more parallel than one having authority over the other. BAG is a creation of the community, which predates the ability of local bureaucrats to grant/remove bot flags. I think if you ask BAG members whether they would like a bureaucrat to refuse to flag and remit to BAG for further community discussion if they spot an issue (e.g. a policy issue that has been missed, or a query about the extent of consensus for a particular task), they will say "yes" and that they expect us to do just that. If you asked whether ultimately bureaucrats can overrule BAG once they've considered the issue, responded to it and have agreed that a bot ought to be flagged (which has never happened!), I suspect the answer may be somewhat different. You may also get a different view if (as in Q6) the request was stated to require urgent action. In reality, moving away from the language of any policy, I would agree that it is a "checks and balances". That said, Q6 was a very difficult exam question particularly as it included the need for an urgent response. WJBscribe (talk) 12:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- To be fair, Primefac said "If I had concerns (be it "my gut", a requirement issue, etc) I would raise it in the BN discussion, just to make sure any amendments or clarifications aren't necessary." which sounds in line with your views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Bureaucrats have no special veto power over bot flagging but if a bureaucrat noticed a significant issue with the BRFA (e.g. consensus for a controversial task not demonstrated, or the task violated some unconsidered policy or guideline), they may decline to grant the bot flag at that time and send it back for (wider, if necessary) BAG/community attention. (I would consider the “rubberstamping” of such a bot to be a lapse in bureaucrat diligence.) –xenotalk 11:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Hhkohh: You appear to have asked three questions; I thought procedure was now for a limit of two each. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Ritchie333: the question limit is only for RfA's. — xaosflux Talk 20:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Related pages
- Requests for self-de-adminship can be made at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard.
- Requests to mark an account as a bot can be made at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval.
- Requests to remove the administrator access of another editor due to abuse may be made at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, but you should read Wikipedia:Administrators#Grievances by users ("administrator abuse") and attempt other methods of dispute resolution first.
- Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship – Failed proposals to create a community-based process for de-adminship processes.
- Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship
- Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates
- Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination
- Requests for other user permissions can be made at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.