This page contains a bureaucrat discussion about the result of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS and is only for comments by bureaucrats. All other editors are welcome to comment on the talk page.

Discussion

Starting off what perhaps is an anticipated chat. The final closing percentage is a sliver under 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Recusals

Thanks for starting this discussion, Maxim. I participated in the RfA so I will recuse here. 28bytes (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I participated in the RfA so will recuse from the determination. (Additional comments moved to talk.) — xaosflux ^Talk 18:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Summary

Consensus to promote: DeltaQuad, Avraham
No consensus to promote: Useight, Wizardman
Recused: 28bytes, Xaosflux, Acalamari, Dweller
Other