Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS/Bureaucrat chat

The following threads are preserved as an archive of an inter-bureaucrat discussion regarding the related RfA, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS. The final decision was that consensus was demonstrated. Please do not modify the text.

Discussion

• Starting off what perhaps is an anticipated chat. The final closing percentage is a sliver under over 64%, which is under the new 65% discretionary range. It has also been somewhat customary, for better or worse, to extend somewhat of a leniency with respect to the numbers, for editors with a longer history on the project. RexxS has been highly active for over 10 years, and I feel it would be the best course of action to start a chat even though we're at 64%. Maxim_(talk) 18:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see consensus to promote. My reasoning is two-fold. First, there is a considerable amount of opposes are of questionable to no merit. Second, the overwhelming majority of opposition is predicated on civility, and the support column has refuted to an extent where I feel we have consensus to promote. The types of opposes I would classify under "questionable to no merit" are along the lines of those with no reason, those citing just not liking the candidate, or those over philosophical differences like disagreeing on whether adminship is a big deal or not. Please do not take this list as exhaustive for opposition that I believe falls in the "questionable to no merit" bin. The diffs raised in regard to civility are not something that I feel would get a serving administrator sanctioned. Clearly there must be a difference between telling an editor to "stop fucking around" or to "fuck off" or plain namecalling "you fucking piece of shit". There is also the point raised by xeno with respect to the context of the cited diffs, which can be clarified further from the overall RfA discussion. On Wkipedia, everything you say or do on-wiki is recorded to be seen as diffs forever. However, a diff by itself lacks nuance and context, and what the discussion showed overall is that a clear supermajority of editors are able to work and collaborate with RexxS. As a community, we have rehashed the dumpster fire that is civility/vested contributors so many times over many years—perhaps even over a decade—with no good resolution. To fail an RfA in a borderline case would create (or even reinforce) a never-ending grandfather clause of admins permitted to be "more" incivil compared to an RfA candidate. We can't be about to set a precedent for admin civility based on a minority (~30–35% of commenters) at an RfA. Maxim_(talk) 16:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a bit of a tricky situation. The final tally of 164/92/15 comes in at 64.1%, which is under the classic discretionary range lower limit of 65%. That being said, one must also take into consideration the "April Fools factor," for lack of a better term. Examining the supports and opposes, the ones in the Support section were to the effect of "I hope this nomination is real because the candidate should be an admin" while the ones in the Oppose section were more direct, effectively, "I am opposing (at least in part) due to the timing and/or nature of this nomination." That is to say, the April Fools-related supporters would've supported regardless of the date/format, while the opposers may or may not have opposed if that had been different. In my mind, that means that the "April Fools factor" could have potentially lowered the final percentage, but not potentially increased it. Because of that, I feel it is warranted to consider this RFA to be in the discretionary range, at least in spirit. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  In a surface-level perusal, my initial thought was that there was not consensus to promote, but after going through it more closely, it felt more like there was consensus. But I ran out of time during lunch before I could dig completely into it. That's where I'm at. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  I have now been able to take a thorough look. A lot, and I mean, a lot of the opposition focused on just a few edits. A few edits out of about 30,000 over 11 years. In fact, many just about four letters in one comment. A word that I would never use, but nevertheless was simply used as a conjugated verb - a stronger version of "messing around." These few edits are apparently enough to get a large number of editors concerned about the candidate's civility and temperament. I will try to not get on a soapbox about the state of RFA. So I will just say, without my bureaucrat hat on, that there are very few opposes I personally agree with - I'm in the same camp as 28Bytes. But, with my bureaucrat hat back on, I'm one of the more conservative bureaucrats, so others may read this RFA differently than I did, however I did not see consensus. There were a number of opposes that did not carry a lot of weight, in my eyes; however, to me there was still enough opposition, but it was a close call. Though I would like to wait for the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13, if possible. Useight (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a pretty clear "no consensus" to me. Both sides are pretty entrenched in their opinions; If the opposes were reluctant or weak perhaps I could look at differently, but looking at the weight of both sides I see absolutely no reason to go against the grain here. Wizardman 02:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Prefacing with my standard disclaimer that I always remain open to changing my mind should I be persuaded by convincing arguments, I will respectfully disagree with Wizardman here and say that it is not so clear that there is no consensus. It is my understanding from the community's expansion of the discretionary zone that EnWiki is interested in making it easier to become an administrator and to make RfA less of the death by one thousand cuts into which it has evolved. Reviewing the supports, I see a very strong case being made for RexxS to have access to the toolkit. I believe it is telling that there is a sizeable number of people who state that they have had disagreements with RexxS over the past decade, yet feel strongly about the benefit he would bring to the project. In the opposition camp, there is a clear concern about RexxS's civility, five oppositions (if I counted correctly) that relate to the April 1st timing that were not subsequently expanded on, and a handful of others. With RexxS's later clarification that he was always serious, I think it is reasonable to consider the original 4/1 statements as a form of selling oneself short to minimize disappointment, not a violation of WP:POINT. Focusing on the civility concerns, almost all of them are well-founded and well supported, and do not relate to one particular incident (I am working under the assumption of good faith that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13 will return negative). However, there are one or two which are weaker, for example the one which was pretty much fisked. Furthermore, there are supporting rationales which give a different reading of the specific responses held up as concerns in the opposition section. If the weak opposes are discounted from full value, this RfA would cross the 65% threshold. This is not a clear no consensus—this is really on the border. I start with the understanding that the 2015 change to the discretionary range is a clear community mandate to make RfA less of a deal and easier to pass. Add in reasonably discounting the handful of weak oppositions. When combined with many support rationales clearly addressing civility (either not viewing RexxS as sufficiently uncivil or willing to extend trust that he will not be uncivil as an admin), I can see this discussion as demonstrating the necessary super-majority of contributors showing their trust in RexxS. However, I would like to benefit from the wisdom of other bureaucrats here and the community on the talk page, and see if there are well-founded arguments to the contrary or if my arguments are convincing. -- Avi (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  For clarification purposes, please see this section of the talk page. "Weak opposes" above does not mean someone opining weak oppose. Rather, the opposes which in my understanding are solely relying on WP:POINT or have been refuted. -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• So instead of cuddling with cute puppies right now, I find myself here right now as I felt pressed to comment now.

This is not a numbers game. Consensus has never been a numbers game. Specifically on our page about consensus, it also says consensus is not unanimity. I have found myself several times on the edge of what people thought were decided decisions and understood that the points made in opposition to that result were more clear and thought out. We've all found ourselves in situations especially where a "show of hands" determines the action for the group, in fact in my younger years (shit, I'm not even old) this was very common for games or group activities. We always found ourselves at somewhere clearly over the 50% mark to make that final decision. That is what consensus is. Frankly, it's really good this came to a crat chat.

Throughout this RfA, day in and day out I was watching the percentage wondering if we were going to open a crat chat. Little did I actually read the RfA at that time. Now, I've taken a scope of the full RfA. It boils down to one major issue. Civility. My ex-arbcom hat has given me enough incidents to wade through the civility bullshit (on both sides) and we aren't here to rehash that entire debate. 'Crats don't decide "Was Rexx too uncivil to be an admin?" 'Crats look at whether the community as a whole gives enough of a shit to stop them from getting the bits. I took a very deep look into both camps of what was left after the very close 65% battle. What has shocked me on this RfA is the amount of people that 1) came back to reiterate their support beyond their initial vote (where my lazy ass would just have left it as is) and 2) how many supports addressed the oppose subjects, and discounted them. When someone isn't ready for promotion, you see neither of these. Yet here we are and they both exist.

Onto the inevitable discussion about the date of the nomination and those opposes. It's one thing to make a point, it's another, almost hypocritical thing to make a point about that point. To make yet another point, but not a pointy point like WP:POINT discourages against, Rexx wasn't using disruptive tactics to influence the RfA. Confusing? Maybe. But disruptive, no. The whole point of WP:POINT is that it requires a disruptive action. Have I made enough points yet?

So putting the weight of policy arguements, established consensus on how to run an RfA and consensus levels, and the communities showing to this RfA, I find a consensus to promote RexxS to mop status. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Wizardman, I see no consensus here. Some supports and opposes reference the style and date of nomination, but these don't form a large percentage, and most are backed up with other points. A large number of editors opposed due to concerns about civility and a perceived tendency to get into arguments. There is more support, and for a wide range of reasons, but the weight of opposition, and for a consistent reason, means I cannot see consensus. I see that RexxS has acknowledged that concerns about civility are more common than they had previously realised and will change their behaviour in future, which might well mean that a future RfA would be successful. Warofdreams talk 10:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• As there was really only one concern raised about the candidate, I’d argue that this tips the scale in their favour. A single issue is easier to remedy, monitor, or address. In matters of civility, aministrators are held to a higher standard; the candidate is now “on notice”, and has committed to examine their own behaviour and make changes. As explored by DeltaQuad, some of the incidents raised by opposition were countered. I’m also concerned there may have been somewhat of a pile-on effect with participants merely looking at the words used by the candidate without fully exploring the context and circumstances behind the comments. The community extended a mandate to bureaucrats to create more administrators when RfAs achieve supermajority, and we’ve shed twenty administrators in the past three months according to the newsletter. Consensus to promote. –xeno^talk 13:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• Noting that the outcome of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Technical 13 may be an important factor for me in reaching a determination, as interactions with Pppery form a significant proportion of the opposition to this candidate. I ask those in a position to action that request to please do so as quickly as possible, so that this discussion is not needlessly prolonged. WJBscribe (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  It seems that the SPI is unlikely to reach a conclusion. Nevertheless, on balance, I find myself agreeing with the reasoning of others, and Xeno/Primefac in particular, that there is a narrow consensus in favour of promotion. The opposition is largely concentrated on one issue in relation to which limited evidence is presented despite the candidate being a longstanding contributor. I do not agree with those who have expressed the view that a consensus cannot exist in relation to this RfA because numerical votes fall (very slightly) below 65%. It has always been a core principle of this project that consensus is not numbers. Bureaucrats were always able to conclude that a consensus existed below the previous 70%/75% numerical “rule of thumb” and the RfC that established that this should be lowered to 65% did not establish that it should become a hard limit. Consensus should never be a thing that would be different if the numbers shifted +/- 1%. Although not determinative, I am heartened in my conclusion that the two most recent bureaucrats are of the same view, as this demonstrates to me that it remains in keeping with current community norms. WJBscribe (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is a hard one. On the one hand, we have a lot of people who think he would do a great job as an admin, and who provide actual statements of why they support him in this role. This RfA is unusual in that respect, given the vast majority of Support !votes I've seen over the years are usually just a signature with no (or very little) rationale as to why. On the other hand, there are a not-insignificant amount of people concerned over a number of recent interactions they feel show undesirable traits for an admin. While the diffs presented don't show examples of consistent undesirable behavior over an extended period of time, they do show multiple more recent examples, and those examples are cited (either explicitly or by reference to someone else citing them) by the vast majority of those opposing. Given that, and that the percentage falls outside the normal discretionary range (even though by less than 1%), I find there is No consensus at this time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, this is a hard one. Based on the arguments presented by Xeno, WJBScribe, and others here, and because my original opinion could have gone either way (I went more conservatively on my original opinion), I am changing my opinion to be that there is consensus to promote in this case. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Placeholder. Have seen, will comment. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  In most RFAs there are on or two "hot button" issue(s) that the majority of opposition find and cling to, and at the end of the day it (as mentioned above) comes down to whether the community feels the one or two issues are serious enough to keep a candidate from getting the mop. This RFA largely (read: entirely) hinges upon civility. Some of the opposition and most of the neutral opinions say that were it not for civility RexxS would essentially be a shoo-in for the post. A large number of supporters either supported RexxS by specifically addressing the civility issues, and either said that they did not feel it was enough of a concern to prevent RexxS from getting the mop, or expressly stated positive interactions with them as a rebuttal. In truth, I find that there is no consensus on the issue of whether RexxS's civility (recent, ongoing, or otherwise) is significant enough to provide a sufficient barrier to promotion. That being said, there were very few opposes that mentioned technical or Article-space issues and plenty of support in those fields. Consensus to promote. Primefac (talk) 20:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't see a consensus. I see a substantial amount of opposition supported by facts and based on reasonable interpretation of policy. I do not believe that it is our job as bureaucrats to opine on whether we agree with the reasons cited by those who support or oppose a candidacy. Rather, our role is limited to determining whether the support or opposition is genuine and whether it has a reasonable basis in fact and policy. I also observe that many comments in the "neutral" section express opposition. UninvitedCompany 22:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Note on Withdrawal

I've asked RexxS to reconsider or reconfirm similar to our SoP 24 hours at Meta. Please do not close until he responds. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

That's now been striked. We still have 5 crats who haven't opined. Shall we ping them again, or we headed towards a close here? -- Amanda (aka DQ) 12:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

We've a larger than usual turnout already, especially with those sitting on the sidelines eating more than their share of the cratsnacks. Perhaps Dweller might be available to close the discussion? –xeno^talk 12:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I know. We have to bare our souls and get thoroughly dragged by at least half of Wikipedia regardless of what we say, and by the time we're done there is no more popcorn. Oh, the humanity! . On a more serious note, if Dweller, or any other non-participating bureaucrat would like to chime in, that would be great. Otherwise, I think we should all review the discussion (especially earlier responders who may benefit from re-reading the arguments of later responders) and confirm or change our decisions as appropriate sometime within the next half-day or so. Makes sense? -- Avi (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a closure as of 11 April 2019 UTC or so seems appropriate. @Maxim, Primefac, WJBscribe, Useight, Wizardman, Warofdreams, Nihonjoe, MBisanz, and UninvitedCompany: –xeno^talk 13:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have anything to add to or change in my previous comments. Right now, we're at 7 to 3 in favour of promotion, so barring any new developments in the next several hours, I think someone should close the RfA as successful. Maxim_(talk) 20:36, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Noting that I, too, am not changing my previous position. I will add something that I thought I originally typed in my comment, but maybe I accidentally deleted it. While I personally disagree with the reasoning of (many of) the civility-related opposes, I find their principle to be sufficiently strong to put me in the "no consensus" camp. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Having reviewed the discussion, I remain thinking that the RfA itself demonstrated consensus in allowing RexxS access to the toolkit. -- Avi (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'm strictly speaking being asked just to review consensus on this page alone, but I'd feel more comfortable if I could finish reading the several pages this RfA has spawned before assessing it. I thought my input might be needed so have begun reading. I should be able to do this over the next six hours or so. Avi, when you're ready ping me again and I'll assess the consensus of the Crat chat. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dweller:, sorry if I wasn't clear. I was asking if you would be able to provide your insights into the RfA. We all converge on consensus here in the chat; it's part of the discussion. -- Avi (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to xeno --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Take your time. –xeno^talk 14:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) IMMATERIAL! EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND ME, D@RNIT! -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Point of Clarification

Regarding the RFC that expanded the discretionary range to 65-75%, my interpretation of it has been the following (and simplified for sake of example):

Prior to the change, an RFA at 70% qualified to be examined more closely to determine if the supports were strong enough and/or the opposes were weak enough to come to the conclusion that there was consensus. After the change, now an RFA that finished at 69% also qualified to be more closely examined, but would require even stronger supports and/or weaker opposes to "pass". And one at 68% would require yet stronger supports and/or weaker opposes, and so on, down to 65%. The numbers aren't exact, of course, so don't get caught up in that, I'm just using them as an example of the concept. That is to say, the RFC's intention wasn't to make it so-called "easier" to pass an RFA by lowering the bar (for lack of a better term) on what consensus is, instead the intention was to increase the quantity of RFAs that would be examined for consensus.

Did other bureaucrats interpret it similarly? Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Commenting only on the concept in general, not for this specific case: I take that RfC to say that in general the community lowered the standard for the minimal level of support needed to become an administrator from 70% to 65%. I also take it that within the 65% to 75% range, it is expected that bureaucrats will more carefully evaluate the overall strength of the discussion, but not that the level of care is to be adjusted incrementally within that range. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

By design, the percentages shown have always just been a windsock. –xeno^talk 15:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed, which is why I was trying not to focus on them in my statement above and just used them as an example. Perhaps it got too convoluted. It was supposed to boil down to "I interpreted that RFC as telling the bureaucrats to look at more RFAs, not telling the bureaucrats to look at RFAs differently. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, essentially. And echo Avi below. –xeno^talk 15:13, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I just wanted to confirm I was on the same page. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Xaos in that we always try to determine community consensus as best possible for every decision we make. Sometimes it is obvious; sometimes we feel we better serve EnWiki by talking it through. The level of care does not change; nor does the level of support needed. There is only one: consensus. Included in our mandate is to be more than bean counters, and to weigh arguments pro- and con as necessary. Therefore, I viewed the lowering of the bar as a reflection of the community's will to allow for RfA to have alower bar to entry and become easier to pass, but that when we actively try and determine consensus, we are are searching for the same thing every time. -- Avi (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Recusals / Abstentions

• Thanks for starting this discussion, Maxim. I participated in the RfA so I will recuse here. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• I participated in the RfA so will recuse from the determination. (Additional comments moved to talk.) — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Maxim, thank you for starting this chat and for contacting everyone. :) Now, I must bow out since I, too, participated. Acalamari 23:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
• Haven't got the time or headspace for close reading at the moment and wouldn't want to comment on an RfA without giving it proper attention. But as ever I'd thank the candidate for standing. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  I'll keep an eye on this. If this is still on a knife edge when the SPI is done, if it's humanly possible, I'll clear some time to review the pages and give a proper opinion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

• Yet another recusal for me as I participated Worm^TT(talk) 20:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm really busy at my new job at the minute, and do not have the time to adequately read and analyse the RfA, so I abstain. Rexx, I wish you the best. --Deskana (talk) 08:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Summary

Consensus to promote

DeltaQuad, Avraham, Xeno, Maxim, Primefac, WJBscribe, Nihonjoe

No consensus to promote

Useight, Wizardman, Warofdreams, UninvitedCompany

Recuse/Abstain

28bytes, Xaosflux, Acalamari, Deskana, Dweller, Worm That Turned

Other

Closed as successful

I find a consensus among the bureaucrats for the RfA to be successful. I note that this was a difficult RfA for everyone concerned, not least the candidate. I'm very grateful that he took the plunge and I'd encourage others to do similar. RfA is never a cakewalk, but it's rarely this gruelling. Thank you for all of your comments. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this discussion, the related nomination, or that of the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.