I agree with Maxim that a crat chat is the best course of action since this is an instance where the numbers are deceiving and properly weighing a number of !votes that were cast in opposition more against the way the RFA was started and less against the candidate puts this squarely into the discretionary range. As for the RFA itself, fwiw, I think there is a slight consensus in favor of promotion (even though I opposed). Regards SoWhy 18:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe the 'crats should discount any April Fool's related opposes as it was repeatedly made clear by RexxS that he was serious about running. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, “how the RfA was started” was validated directly by the candidate, so they can not be separated. Next, anyone who voted oppose based entirely on a misconception had a week to alter that; if they didn’t, that suggests that they were still in the oppose camp. Qwirkle (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SoWhy. The crats have the authority to assess the seriousness of votes if they so wish. Just because it's traditional to apply rigid boundaries doesn't mean that WP:NOTAVOTE and the Wikipedia version of WP:CONSENSUS doesn't apply here.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. xaosflux points it out well, but given that it is close to the discretionary range and there is a likelihood that some (!)votes may be scrutinzed somewhat more heavily, considering it as being in the discretionary zone is a good call. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from main) I do think that some of the discussion was influenced by WP:FOOLS events, and as such some of the responses may need to be carefully evaluated to determine if they were genuinely contributing to the consensus building exercise. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS deserves to reap what they have sown. Further, this crat chat is certainly in error because the result is below the discretionary range. Like so many XfD delete !votes being ignored at WP:DRV, now we see our elected embarrassments discounting oppose votes (but never support votes). I expect some fairness to show up or there will have to be a reckoning. Chris Troutman (talk) 11:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

↑ This comment is an excellent example of the kind of "civility" that certain people demand of others but are not willing to model themselves. Name-calling, threats, glee at seeing someone get what they "deserve"; all of those could have been left out and you'd still have been able to make your point clearly. 28bytes (talk) 12:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair criticism and I've struck portions of my comment. Do bureaucrats think so little of editors like me because of our comments, or are my comments reflective of my distaste at how the will of editors apparently means little to bureaucrats? As for RexxS, actions have consequences. I would've wished he'd've picked April 2nd. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking that. I wish he would have picked April 2 too. Anyway, whichever way the 'crats decide, dozens of editors will be disappointed if not outright angry. Whenever there's a binary choice like this, there's no way to avoid thwarting the will of (some of) the people; either the supporters or opposers will wind up being decided against, and there are a lot of both. 28bytes (talk) 15:01, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not all April Fool's related opposes should be discounted – many participants knew or didn't care that this was a serious request, but argued that the timing and cringeworthy nomination statement showed a lack of judgement, maturity and/or respect for the role. These are valid perspectives and its not within the 'crat's remit to dismiss them. – Joe (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I opposed because of the way this as done, which to my mind shows a lack of good judgement. I certainly hope that doesn't cause the crats to deem my opinion invalid. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting the RfA on April 1 was a deliberate decision, and I wouldn't be too quick to assume it backfired entirely. Some people did feel it showed bad judgement (which is a valid reason to oppose); but most opposes, even the early ones, are based on other concerns, and presenting your mellow and humorous side can help if there are concerns about your temperament.

That said, it's true there are a couple votes in the oppose section sufficiently misguided that it would look worse for RexxS if those people were supporting him. Sideways713 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, they shouldn't. Opposes should not be discounted merely because they matched the initial ridiculousness of the nomination. Any bureaucrat that wants to go down that road and somehow come to a conclusion that this nomination was successful needs to clearly point out each and every vote that they are ignoring. Then they should return to each of those users and advise them that this nomination wasn't a joke despite the appearance that it was and ask if they have anything else to add to it based on that. Anything less would lead me to seriously question the judgment of any bureaucrat. Nihlus 22:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s also worth noting that at about half of the neutral demivotes are, for all practical purposes, opposition to adminship at this time or from this RfA. When someone tells someone to come back in a year, that looks an awful lot like a softened way of stating opposition. Qwirkle (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the closing 'crats consider the fallacy of Poisoning the well as it relates to discounting oppose votes because of the timing. Hhkohh's oppose is illustrative of what this distortion (intentional or not) has caused. It would have been better to listen to Reaper Eternal: to respond to WTT, the 'crats (probably) can see the silliness, but can the average consensus builder? Crazynas ^t 00:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am questionable of an edit: [1]. Cyberpower678 added a ((humor)) on RfA. Then Bish revert Cyberpower678 edit after 15 minutes Hhkohh (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

During 15 minutes, only Tavix cast an oppose vote Hhkohh (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I didn't notice that. What I'm more concerned about is Avraham discounting: " five oppositions (if I counted correctly) that relate to the April 1st timing that were not subsequently expanded on." That is where the poison becomes an issue. Crazynas ^t 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hhkohh, since you pinged me I put it up there because the nom statement was/is too silly to be taken seriously, so I assumed it was another April Fools page. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 11:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"As for the RFA itself, fwiw, I think there is a slight consensus in favor of promotion (even though I opposed)." Conversely, I see no consensus, simply because the Oppose section is full of supports and opposers whacking each over the head and getting into entrenched arguments (even though I supported) - pretty much how Wizardman has called it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#C2:_Expand_discretionary_range_to_60% ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/^demon 3 passed with 63%. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If I see correctly, that was a voluntary RfA by someone who did not need to have an RfA at all. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It was 11 years ago. Was the discretionary range 65% then? This case seems clear cut to me. The community agreed a discretionary range lower limit of 65%. Not 64%. [2]. Discretion BEGINS at 65%. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It was 70-75% then. The other thing is that now that there is a discussion the 'crats can discuss whether or not they even have discretion at this point. It doesn't mean that this is an automatic pass, but simply that they discuss. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Only two opposing comments need to be "discounted" to bring the result to 65% (via rounding). That seems likely (if only by fractions) to my untrained eye. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming no support !votes are discounted. – Joe (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  What supports could they be, Joe? ——SerialNumber54129 19:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Serial Number 54129: I'm not referring to any specific !votes. I'm saying we can't assume that weighting by the 'crats will only be in one direction. – Joe (talk) 20:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s certainly one way to look at it. Another is that when an RfA was shot down for, among other things, what looked like gaming the system, the fix is to game the system further. Qwirkle (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's the allegation raised by @Begoon: that Pppery is a sockpuppet of a banned user - that will need some further analysis since it has a contribution to the outcome of the RfA. Nick (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is presently at Pppery's talk page, if nowhere else. --Izno (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As well as discussion at oppose 68. --Izno (talk) 21:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centralizing/redirecting discussion to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technical_13#08_April_2019. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find this graph most interesting. I've followed most RFAs post-2014, and I can't seem to recall another that dropped to below 60% before recovering significantly. At the very least, I think this suggests that candidates should not be too quick to withdraw if they receive some early opposition. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:26, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That may be because post-2014 is a relatively small dataset. Back in the days of five RFAs per week, this was a fairly common pattern when the candidate was active enough in contentious areas to have accumulated enemies; all the people who'd taken a dislike to the candidate would have the RFA redlink watchlisted in anticipation (ten years on and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Malleus Fatuarum 3 still has 38 watchers), so you'd get an initial pile-on of opposes, before more reasoned editors arrived to assess the candidate neutrally. ‑ Iridescent 19:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following the low of 59.5%, it peaked at 66.7% and ended at 64.1%. That's a min-max increase of 12.1% (7.2 percentage points) and a min-final increase of 7.7% (4.6 percentage points). Put another way, opposition after the peak of 40.5% dropped to 33.3% and ended at 35.9%. That's a max-min decrease of 17.8% (7.2 percentage points) and a max-final decrease of 11.4% (4.6percentage points). None of that means anything, but just to save any curious folks the math. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Iridescent: True, it is a small dataset, but it also covers most of the RFAs that have seen the extremely demanding standards !voters have applied of late. I suspect that more recent RFAs would have seen this pattern, had they been allowed to run for seven days. I have no way of checking, of course. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree that 65% is not a rigid boundary, I believe that it was by community's will that the 65-70% was made to be put under bureaucrat discretion, previously it might not have been considered at all. Noting again, that bureaucrats have the discretionary range of whatever they choose, I think it's just unfair to anyone who might have stood before and failed due to just falling of an arbitrary discretionary range, Jbhunley's RfA being a prime example (with much less opposition). I think it's important for crats to set an uniform standard. If RexxS were to be granted adminship, I would probably not have any qualms, I very much doubt they will bring the entire site down but again, the crats have upheld higher standards before. --qedk (t 桜 c) 20:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say here [3] or anywhere else that 65% is not in fact a rigid starting point? Leaky caldron (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The general discretionary range was 70-75% (and sometimes lower, depending on the RfA) and that became the assumed convention. If you read WP:RFA, it states, generally it is within that range, which implies it's pretty much crats who decide the range. The RfC was only sort of a binding agreement that now all RfAs above 65% (&&<75%) will have to go to crat chat, it doesn't state that crats cannot exercise their discretion below 65%, because it wasn't stipulated before, or now. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  QEDK, Speaking as a failed RfA candidate, mine failed at 74%. Doesn’t bother too much. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't fail, you withdrew it, presumably because you weren't bothered about passing and wanted to avoid a bunfight at the crat chat talk page. I'm certain both of those actions were considered admirable and helped RfA#2 win by a landslide. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:13, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, you are right. It was to avoid the bun fight.  :-) Withdrawing is still an unsuccessful nomination though. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuccessful but not equivalent in this context since we don't know whether having kept it open longer could've gotten you over the mark of 75 and made an ensuing crat chat unnecessary. I was speaking of where crat chats determined no consensus with arguably more of a consensus than this RfA. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As someone might have said once, "The code of RfA is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

Keen students of Wikipedia's history might recall there have been several RfAs closed as sucessful, even when the votes fell outside the mandated "discretionary" range. Discount an opposition voter here, downweight an opposition reason there, and you can soon persuade yourself than an "establishment" candidate has to become an admin, even if the poor deluded voters cast their votes the wrong way. Consensus is in the eye of the beholder. But bureaucrats making such decisions have often created considerable bad feeling that has lasted for years afterwards.

I can only recall one RfA closed as successful with more opposition than this (someone may be able to dig out others). If someone has the time, there is a research project to be had, working out whether (or not) things turn out well for admins who'd attract such a large amount of opposition at RfA. Shall we make a list while we wait for the black or white smoke? 213.205.240.247 (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone remember the last time enough support votes were discounted that an RFA above the hard upper limit of the discretionary range failed? Yeah, me neither. —Cryptic 01:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, haven't there been RfAs where a discovery / observation made in opposition near the end of the week of scrutiny led to a significant drop in support – and the 'crats have used another of their discretions to extend the time frame to see if the drop in support actually led to a reversal of the outcome? I'm sure I've read about it, but it may have been a theoretical discussion. In any case, it is an option available to 'crats to see if a sudden change in the oppose rate would lead earlier supporters to reconsider, so that they would not need to discount supports. This might not be the exact scenario you imagine, but it seems to me that it is equivalent in effect. EdChem (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not equivalent, crats take their time to close any RfA to allow for anyone who might have held off until the last moment to get their vote in, maybe make a difference. I've seen them leave it open for a long time sometimes, to allow some RfA to go above the 75% range so they don't have to intervene or 65%, so they can intervene, which is correct, since this is a candidacy for adminship. Cryptic is right in the sense that supports don't get discounted to make numerical comparisons, even if the vote might be a signature, but that's probably because anyone above 75% is supposed to have passed anyway, while anyone below it is in the discretionary range. --qedk (t 桜 c) 07:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK:} I wouldn't say that is normal practice, and I've been on the receiving end of the hurry up and close that RfA you 'crats!!! discussion before. I've never "held it open" in hopes the tally will change and I'm not aware of any recent evidence that any other crats have. Do you have any examples of this? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: There was one particular RfA that was left open for a while, caused a bit of a ruckus too, ended unsuccessfully though (will have to dig it up if a link is necessary). And, I wasn't trying to say the 'crats left it open in the hopes that the tally would change but I just followed human logic that the reason it's not ended as soon as it expires probably due to the fact that the 'crats want the last votes to get in before making a decision, and a corollary of that is what I said, since at 65% and 75% thresholds are the only place where it really makes any difference. Hope that clears it up. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @QEDK:, the RfA page does say that. Biblioworm added the wording that "in general, RfAs that finish between 65–75% support are subject to the discretion of bureaucrats" to the RfA header on 30 December 2015. However, in the actual RfC question or closing statement there was nothing about the range being non-rigid or it being just a "in general" principle. So this wording is just a personal version of Biblioworm and it does not represent the actual RfC. --Pudeo (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 92 oppose votes posted in this RfA is the second highest number received in any RfA during the past eight years. There should be a very strong showing at the crat chat to overturn such a historic level of opposition. Cbl62 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Even if one discounts a handful of !votes, the opposition is still very high from an historical perspective. And some of the opposing comments were vehement. And then we need to consider the large number of editors, who though they did not place themselves in the oppose column, nonetheless felt the need to post in the neutral section explaining why they were unable to pull the trigger in support of this candidate. When weighing it all up, if I were a crat, I would take a very deep breath before declaring a consensus to promote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The number of votes is only of significance in relation to other factors-the number of supports, the total number of votes, for a couple of examples. A number has very little significance unless it is considered within context. Crat consensus should be respected; hopefully they won't feel threatened by the community. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment assumes that the default position of the bureaucrat chat is to "overturn" the opposition. It is not. It's function is to determine the consensus of the candidacy. In addition, if a "very strong showing" of bureaucrats is needed to "overturn" then by that same logic a "very strong showing" is needed to close it as no consensus, too. As Littleolive oil has said, the sheer amount of votes isn't as significant as one thinks; after all, 164/92/15 becomes 82/46/8 when roughly halved and the numbers don't look as big even though the percentage is the same. And let's not forget that consensus and strength of argument come into play, not just raw numbers. Acalamari 23:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’ve only been able to skim the RfA, with an eye to returning tomorrow for a deeper dive. As far as I can see nearly all opposition centres around temperament and civility concerns. Were there any other major point of contention? –xeno^talk 23:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I did vote for Rexx, as a disclaimer. I think it's worth looking at the diffs which are supposed to indicate incivility. I did, in my early days, have a disagreement with him but I'd say he was blunt and straightforward rather than uncivil. There may be others the same. Also diffs of incivility might be taken in context of both the discussions and in relation to the time he was not uncivil, patient helpful and generous in a very long career. If I hadn't been familiar with him I might think there was a concentration of incivility rather than a collection of diffs collected together to look like a greater concentration than they were. Those who deal in contentious situations and who have been around for along time cannot be compared to someone who is newer and does not deal with the hard stuff. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies if I've commented when I shouldn't. I didn't realize you were addressing another bureaucrat. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not at all- It was a general question. Thank you for your input. –xeno^talk 00:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Xeno. As per my vote in this RFA, I'd like to encourage you and your fellow 'crats to treat every diff you see in the votes as you would if you were wearing your now-retired Arbitrator hat; many of you are past or current arbitrators, so I think you'll know what I mean, but I'll explain more thoroughly for other readers. Don't just look at the diff; look at what came before, and what comes after - the result of the discussion, how recent the event (e.g., should anything prior to 2 years ago be discounted?) and so on. I'd also suggest that the bureaucrat team closely follow the SPI mentioned above; the results of that investigation (it's not going to be a simple one, so it may take a while) are important since so many votes are "per X" in the oppose section. I won't presume to foretell the outcome of that SPI - I've recused on it as a CU - but I'm really not sure what happens when many votes (in either direction) turn out to be linked to the vote of a sockpuppet. Let's just say that I hope that your team doesn't feel a crushing urge to close this off quickly. RexxS. waited this long to run his RFA, I'm sure he can handle a few more days for a result that has a high degree of confidence. Risker (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Risker, or they can ignore all the smoke and mirrors you wish to throw their way and use their heads to come to the obvious conclusion. Let them decide on reason instead of emotion. Nihlus 03:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well, that's pretty much what I'm hoping they will do, Nihlus. I get that many find my personal expectations to be unrealistic, however. Mind you, it's entirely consistent with what I've said bureaucrats ought to be doing; that is, weighing the votes rather than just looking at them superficially. We might just as well have bots closing RFAs. As a community, we expect more of administrators closing XfDs than we do of bureaucrats closing RFAs, and always have. I have little hope that they'll actually do what I've expected for years, but then I've been disappointed for years, too. Risker (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      And I am sure we've both been disappointed in them but for different reasons. The bar continues to be pushed lower and lower when it comes to what some consider "successful" consensus, and it has lead to some rather tragic successful RfAs in the past year or so. Hell, even one I supported because I felt they would become better turned out to be mistake. Consensus should be about what they've done rather than one they may or may not do at some unspecified point in the near or not so near future. The community gets one shot at determining who can become an admin, but anything that admin does after is beyond their control. Nihlus 03:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      That's a pretty strong thing to say about successful RFA candidates, Nihlus. I went back to the beginning of 2017 and found only one that passed with a support level below 70%, and I've not be aware of any complaints about that individual. If that's not the "bar" you are talking about - and given the context, it's the only obvious bar related to RFA - then I think you need to clarify. Otherwise you're smearing an awful lot of administrators as being "tragic". Risker (talk) 04:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Risker, I've no intention of naming names as that is entirely irrelevant to the point I am making. Further, "some" does not mean "an awful lot," unless you wish to infer a meaning that is not there. Nihlus 04:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      Your statement above tars them all with the same brush, whether they succeeded with 99% or were at the low end of the discretionary range, Nihlus. That's worse than naming names. Please reconsider your words, because that's just plain mean. Risker (talk) 04:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

      I will not as it does not tar them with any brush, so, please, stop making my comment bigger than it is. Your escalation of rhetoric is unhelpful and unwanted. Thanks. Nihlus 04:28, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The RfAs that Nihlus supported in the past 12 months that passed are Sro23 "Should have happened a while ago.", Justlettersandnumbers "Additionally, the opposes are unconvincing", Sir Sputnik "The concerns about content creation are overblown and, frankly, irrelevant." and Enterprisey "Easiest vote in recent memory". I can't think of anything to object over, except possibly that Sro23 probably shouldn't call a banned user a twat, even bowlderdised, but that's really picking nits. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:19, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Nope. TAWT stands for The abominable Wiki troll. Sro23 (talk) 11:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right. I didn't know that, and given the human's brain to perceive words even when the letters are in the wrong order ... you can guess the rest. Anyway, my point stands that that is a silly and spurious reason to claim that "even one I supported because I felt they would become better turned out to be mistake". Anyway, I think I've worked out that Nihlus is actually talking about Lourdes, ^[4] and more specifically User talk:Lourdes#Edit warring, and even more specifically "I personally suggest that you tone down your crusade against the phrase "fuck off" for the time being as it is seriously clouding your judgment." and "Excuse you? I get off of my computer for the night and you want to turn around and call me ignorant for not responding to you fast enough? Are you serious? This is laughable coming from an "administrator" edit warring before discussing and while a discussion is taking place." Discussion here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

😄 Ritchie, I am actually sorry for toying with him. He's aggressive, but I guess his intent is in the right place. Lourdes 14:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except it's not intent which makes a difference in the real world though. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also means that complaining that "The bar continues to be pushed lower and lower", and then citing an WP:RFX200 candidate passing with 99% support, is somewhat strange. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Risker You appear to imply above that incivility to banned users is not worthy reason to oppose? Is that what you meant? Cause if the candidate did say what they said: why would it matter who they said it to? Crazynas ^t 05:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is indeed a head-scratcher: there are experienced editors, including admins, both opposing and supporting, and some in support and in opposition seem to have had directly opposed experiences of the candidate's willingness to consider arguments on the other side. However, another way to view the numbers is that throughout the RfA, as editors made support votes, others steadily made oppose votes, and while the percentage climbed into the discretionary range in the latter part of the week, it then declined again and continued to do so until the end, despite continuing large participation. Since the reason we have enshrined civility as a policy is that in a diverse volunteer community, individuals will have differing perceptions and tolerances, I would urge the crats not to discount the votes of those who shared personal experiences that they found had a chilling effect, in addition to the arguments of those who made arguments weighing civility/temperament concerns more seriously than those in support. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe any opinion should, or would, be discounted, but I felt a number of the civility/temperament/behavioural example didn't really stand up to scrutiny, and a couple appeared to me more uncivil than some of the diffs provided. One editor opposed on the basis that RexxS accused him of posting a "lie", then in a self fulfilling prophecy included a not-quite-factual statement in their rationale. Surprised no one opposed on the basis he has long hair (at least never declared such) Would be quite entertaining if it wasn't a tragic reflection of RFA's dysfunctionality. No wonder some admins are opposed to recall; if they were to fight for the integrity of the encyclopaedia to half the degree this guy does, they'd all lose their tools. ClubOranje^T 12:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for a few weeks and I saw this RfA just a couple of hours ago. If I had seen it when it was still open, I would have certainly supported it.

RexxS is an experienced editor of more than 11 years. He has a strong history of contributing high-quality content to the encyclopedia. He has never been blocked. He works hard to make Wikipedia more accessible. He already holds almost every user right it's possible to have without actually being an admin, including template editor which he has used well and which requires a very high degree of trust.

I got rid of my "admin criteria" long ago in favor of the only thing that should really count: Is this editor a net positive? If RexxS doesn't qualify, I don't know who does.

I proposed the new 65-75% discretionary range that has now become crucial in this RfA. Some people who opposed that proposal at the time are now arguing the most vehemently for its precise enforcement down to the last percentage point. But Wikipedia has only guidelines, not laws. If some "rule" gets in the way of doing what makes sense, it should be ignored. Even if you insist on being so legalistic about it, Rexx's support reaches 65% once you discount the silliest oppose votes and the possible sock vote. The bulk of the opposition is a one-issue obsession with a couple of diffs.

More fundamentally, what good reason is there for the opposition to count 2 to 3 times more than the support? Even a 2/3 requirement is quite ludicrous. Keep things in perspective. Wikipedia is just a website. Adminship is just a few extra menus and links. We're not amending the U.S. Constitution. There is a very little an admin can do that cannot be undone. This place takes itself way too seriously.

Are we going to show such a lack of respect for Rexx's long history of service and throw out his candidacy just because some people can't tolerate a little humor? Or because of something like 0.01% of his 33,710 total diffs as an editor? As it is, we're already on track for another record-low year at RfA. Again.

Enough already. Bureaucrats, please take a stand for sanity and pass this RfA.

Biblio (talk) 00:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very little an admin can do that cannot be undone. In terms of technical changes, this is correct. In terms of scaring off newbies and wearing down experienced editors until they reach breaking point, these are very much actions that cannot be undone. We all have responsibility in making sure we don't act like this but admins have significantly more responsibility than non-admins. (This is a general comment, not intended to be specific to the candidate.) — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 01:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm very sympathetic to Biblioworm's argument, the fact is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley was closed as "no consensus", under broadly similar circumstances but with a substantially higher support percentage. I don't think that was the right call either; but given that closure, I don't see how this can be any different. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that crat chat, there was very little mention of vote numbers or percentages; more mention of the opposition having two grounds (lack of content and conduct) and being "clear and unified", while supporters had "reservations". Leviv ich 04:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More fundamentally, what good reason is there for the opposition to count 2 to 3 times more than the support? The fact that this is not a vote. On Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus. Consensus does not mean unanimity, but it implies something approaching unanimity. When a third of the participants explicitly object to an outcome, there must be extraordinary circumstances to find a consensus for that outcome.

As for the rest, I trust the 'crat's won't give any more weight to this attempted supervote than to the views of those who gave a reasoned oppose. – Joe (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am exceptionally disappointed to see this admin urge the Bureaucrats to ignore the opposition, heck, ignore the entire discussion "and pass this RfA." That is an attempt at a practice to be decried; i trust that such behaviour is not to be found in any of the admin's own closures. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I need to point out that if as many as 1% of RexxS's edits had been flagged here by opposers, that would be no less than 300 diffs in a one-week RfA. How many diffs is it reasonable to expect opposers to produce in order to fairly represent a long-term editor's history? There are editors here with >100,000 edits. So these arguments that are effectively, "what a tiny sample of the corpus of his work", are fallacious, because if we take them seriously that means that there is some edit number that will make an editor impossible to oppose in an RfA because it would take too many diffs. I would suggest supporters/RfA reformers take a different track, and start an RfC that puts an expiration date on diffs. That would be a valid way to make RfA's feasible for long-term editors. Geogene (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The request for more diffs isn't about getting more evidence for its own sake. It's about establishing whether a particular incident was a one-off or part of a pattern. Everyone has bad days; if we expected perfection, we'd have no admins left. The question to ask at RFA isn't "was the candidate uncivil that one time?" it's "is the candidate uncivil on a regular basis?" Answering the latter question in the affirmative requires more diffs. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. But if that's what people are intending to say, then that is what they should say, without implying that an RfA from someone with 30,000 edits needs more diffs than someone with 10,000 edits. Geogene (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Avraham: Why are you discounting weak opposes yet ignoring the more numerous weak supports? Nihlus 04:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was not discounting oppositions without supports, even though that is the accepted tradition. I discounted the April 1st only opposes and the fisked oppose. And discounted still gave > 50% weight. Lastly, that was combined with the other points I mentioned. It is the three in combination (range of supports, community mandate, and discounting clearly sub-standard oppositions by a haircut) which informed my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify, I am inquiring about this statement: If the weak opposes are discounted from full value, this RfA would cross the 65% threshold. Am I not to read it as ignoring the weak supports? Because it would be false if you discounted them as well. Thanks. Nihlus 04:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was unclear. When I say "weak opposes" I don't mean how people prefaced their support or oppose; I meant the handful of oppositions I identified as substandard as being disproven or based solely on a WP:POINT concern. There are no analogues among the supports. My apologies for any unintended confusion. -- Avi (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you for clarifying. Nihlus 04:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, which oppose do you consider fisked? I do agree (and suspect most oppose voters would agree) that at least one oppose was based entirely on an incident where the opposer himself was 100% at fault; and if you're applying the description to that oppose I have no objection to it. But if you're applying it to Wbm1058's oppose I don't think it's an appropriate label; yes, it was cherry-picking quotes and taking them out of context, but the same goes equally for the rebuttal. Sideways713 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Avraham, I would say I'm absolutely satisfied by the way you've explained your assessment. The point Nihlus raises above is valid; and I would probably say thanks to them for putting the question as it was the same question in my mind. Thanks for giving the exhaustive explanation. Lourdes 06:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Given this logic, why write something that might be disprovable or taken as pointy when you can just put "#'''Support''' ~~~~" like #s 27, 28, 44, 103, 120, 138, and 149 did, or something equally empty like #82? What, precisely, would a discountable support vote look like? Even explicit "moral support"s for a candidate under 50% at the time it was written have been weighted at full face value in cratchats in the past. —Cryptic 06:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  While it's always better to provide a rationale for any opinion, accepted tradition is that naked supports are considered per nom where naked opposes are not. That is why providing a rationale is more important for an oppose opinion. Naked opposes aren't discounted out of hand, but well-reasoned opposes (and there were many here) have greater impact in helping to determine consensus. Anyway, one can oppose per User:X (e.g. #45) and those will usually be treated as User X would be. To address a particular issue, in general if someone thinks that a user violates WP:POINT on a regular basis, that's as good a reason as any to oppose. In this particular case, there were a scant handful of people who used POINT to oppose by considering the entire nomination a joke that was eventually turned real. I don't think that is what happened; rather, some self-deprecating humor (which may have fallen flat) was used but the nomination was always intended to be real. Therefore, I don't think those are as strong opposes as the civility opposition. Weighting them as less than one full oppose each gets this into the 65% zone. So the combination of the three elements I list on the chat page is guiding my thinking. Of course, I expect many to disagree; I know at least two bureaucrats do as of now . Maybe they will be overwhelmed by my logic tomorrow; maybe they will explain and I will be overwhelmed by theirs. That's why we have discussions and not just "statements of bureaucrat opinions". Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  These are !votes and unless made in obvious bad faith they should not be cherry picking "out" so-called "weak" opposes to disregard, any more than the numerous wordless supports. The community set the discretionary benchmark at 65% for a chat. This was 64% so it is not clear where the additional discretion is allowed. What was the point in specifying 65% if random crats' can call it at lower than 65%? Maybe it should be better described as "65% ish." Leaky caldron (talk) 08:00, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that "!vote" means "nonvote", right? The whole point of calling it a "!vote" is that the strict numerical tally doesn't matter, and that the underlying argument is all that matters, just like in any other discussion. Suggesting that crats should rigidly abide by "!vote" tallies and not factor in strength of arguments is very straightforwardly paradoxical and nonsensical. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realise everything, "right?" and you calling my opinion nonsensical makes not one bit of difference and I suggest you keep your carefree insults to yourself, thanks. That fact is that that the community set a discretionary limit of 65% which replaced the previous arrangements. There is no "strength of argument" in 75% of the supports in any RfA. Leaky caldron (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The community did not introduce 65% as an absolute rule. It replaced the old 75/70% boundary with 65%. Nothing in the discussions around that change established an expectation that bureaucrats would treat an RfA that ended up just short of the new marker any differently than they would ones that fell just short of the old marker. If someone wishes to introduce a hard rule that >65% = automatic no consensus, you will need to have that approved by the community via an RfC. WJBscribe (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You mean "<65% - automatic no consensus" and yes, that is exactly what my interpretation of the RFC is. For exactly this reason, to prevent 'crats having to put there own interpretation on matters. The discretionary range is big enough without 'crat added fuzziness at the bottom end. It was supposed to bring an end to this sort of situation. Leaky caldron (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in agreement with Nihlus. Many of the early supports contain statements similar to "I can't tell if this is a joke". The !votes of those who didn't come back to clarify their support (though some did) should be given less weight as their !votes were not based on solid information ("is this RfA genuine?") and had the user unequivocally known that the RfA was serious then they would have almost certainly given their !vote more thought or researched the candidate in more detail, though of course they may have come to the same conclusion. In contrast, the five opposes which are based around the RfA starting on April 1 are nothing of this sort—they are by users who think that starting a serious RfA on April Fools' Day is an indicative act of immaturity which demonstrates that a candidate is unfit for the mop. I disagree with this but why should their opinions be discounted? They are based on full knowledge that the RfA was serious, and relate to a quality required for adminship (maturity). — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, supports along the lines of "we've met him face-to-face and we know he's a good sort" – though this may well be perfectly true – should be discounted as of little relevance to admin tasks, which are carried out online on a keyboard. You see something similar with some car drivers: nice as pie when you meet and have a friendly chat, but get them alone at the controls and they can become aggressive and horrible. RfA judgements should be based on the record of online contributions: Bhunacat10 (talk), 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't make this kind of suggestion. We can't take an argument to some fictional point and imply this kind of behavior is a possibility. And we shouldn't be threatening either. (Not directed at Bhunacat). Just no and beyond the pale. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I’m in agreement with Nihlus, Leaky caldron, Bilorv and Bhunacat10. ‘Crats, please speedily close this as no consensus, as we have slipped into pathos. Jusdafax (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We are not going to speedy close a discussion in which opinion is currently split 50/50 in favour of either position. WJBscribe (talk) 13:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not participate in the RfA, and if I were speaking personally, I think I would like RexxS' RfA to sail through but it did not. Virtually, all the opposes have weight because 1) the diffs are recent; 2) the opinions are strongly held; 3) the neutral section backs up the opposes; 4) It's RexxS who decided to run the RfA his way, and the opposes are plainly reasonable in taking the application for admin, itself, into account in judgement and temperament, especially when the issue is around so-called, maybe, joke to protect candidate ego (Admins who do odd things with ego issues? Come now.). WP:CONSENSUS still does hold out unanimity as the most desirable state of affairs, and we are not even close, here, and barring unanimity that all reasoned concerns be addressed by the outcome itself is what WP:CONSENSUS is. In RfA, there is a very well processed way for actual WP:CONSENSUS to be achieved, and it is second, even third or fourth RfA. The present RfA, though, has not reached wp:consensus or real consensus. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Your last sentence is the exact question being discussed. There is clearly disagreement among wikipedia editors, and there will always be. We are not going to please everyone; we are trying to perform our duty as we best can, understanding that everyone involved, including the bureaucrats, are flawed humans. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  My last sentence follows from all the preceding sentences. Duty? The community explicitly rejected lowering the discretionary range to between 60% and 65%. Do you think the community is unaware of human failings? There is no reason to think the community is not well aware of human failings, and does not wish, 'doing duty' in response, when they have rejected it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t come out of hiding much and probably have little to no say in what goes on around here. But if you really think RexxS cannot be trusted with “the tools”, then what is all this about? There are few users more dedicated to the project, and he shouldn’t be denied over a couple of cross words. Kafka Liz (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joining you in coming out of hiding. I've frequently disagreed with RexxS, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether he can be trusted with tools. He's dedicated to this project, as my sister-in-hiding above mentions, eminently trustworthy, has clue, is mature, and yeah, like a lot of us, sometimes grouchy. He garnered support from editors who admitted to disagreeing with him, which says something. My feeling is that if we are to put the project first, then it's the RexxS's of the place we want as admins. FWIW. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems odd that this RfA, still being considered despite being below the community agreed range for discretionary discussion, could be decided by a majority of 1 'Crat. support / no-consensus opinion. Surely there should be broader agreement among 'crats rather than a simple majority? Leaky caldron (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WJBscribe, Avraham, and Xaosflux: I'm not sure if it's simple majority or this consensus needs a supermajority, the 'crats know better. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaky caldron: Keep in mind, that just like the RfA itself, the 'crat-chat is also not a "vote" - as some of the analysis are presented, 'crats can change their mind - or just acknowledge that while they think the consensus is in one direction, the strengths of the discussion in the other direction are stronger. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):We are having a discussion now. It may be that the next bureaucrat to chime in will provide persuasive enough arguments for one of us to change our minds. It has hapened before. We are trying to distil a discussion into our best understanding of the communities consensus, which will not necessarily be the understanding of any one or a dozen editors. But that is what we are tasked to do, and that is how we approach it. We try to be as open as possible in our explanations to allow for constructive criticism and comment from other editor. We value the constructive criticism on this page. Those who opine later have the benefit of reading earlier responses. Those who opine earlier want the benefit of the later responses. We understand that dragging this out isn't the best for RexxS or Wikipedia, but we respect the charge and the trust the community has given us, and we want to be faithful stewards thereof. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As I've queried below, if it's a close call and an equal number of crats support and oppose (or even if it's slightly positive either way), would the closing crat use a simple crat-vote count to decide or would the closing crat try and read consensus amongst the comments of crats (and probably promote the candidate even if a simple majority of crats voted not to promote)? Lourdes 15:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd hope we would talk it out enough until we believe that we have distilled the consensus or lack thereof. If that is impossible, I believe that we consider that if we cannot come to a consensus as to whether or not the community came to a consensus, there is no consensus and the candidate does not get access to the toolkit. -- Avi (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or do some of the comments from 'crats saying civility concerns can be ingored feel like supervotes? Take this for example "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." Calidum 15:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• When it's a borderline case, any stand of any crat (for promotion or not) may probably be seen as a supervote by editors supporting a stand opposite to that of the crat. What would take the cake is when we have an equal number of crats supporting and opposing the candidate. Would a crat then summarize the comments of other crats and say that despite an equal number supporting and opposing, they see consensus to promote because they view some of the crat comments as not being backed with good reasoning (and therefore these crat comments carry lesser weight) and that consensus was never about numbers?! Heh. Lourdes 15:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I see that my oppose has been called "cherry-picking" and that some view my cherries as having been "fisked" (a term I had to look up). Well, when I was composing it, I thought that pointing to half a dozen noticeboard discussions, all of them quite lengthy, was sufficient, and a felt a little badly when I added a couple more for good measure to drive home the point. In another RfA someone commented about my oppose something to the effect "that must set a new record for the longest opposing statement." If you don't feel that I've picked enough cherries, you should know that I stopped looking for them and left several pages of noticeboard search results unexamined. The signal you are sending is, "next time you should work on filling your entire basket with cherries; you never know for sure whether you have found enough, even if you think you have." Even if you personally think the score is 49–0, keep your starters in the game, keep piling on the points, in case they "discount" or "fisk" some of your points. I don't think this approach would be helpful towards improving the "toxic" or "hazing" nature of the process.

  ...But maybe all the piling on of excess civility points is pointless. Now we have a new bureaucrat openly spitting on the civility pillar. That clearly signals that I should stop picking cherries because these cherries, depite their figurehead presence in the "pillars", simply do not matter. I could pick three dozen more, and they would still just be "cherries". We all know there are only certain cultivars of cherries that matter. As Fred Bauder found out, you only need pick ONE of those cherries, and you don't even need to pick it on a high-profile controversial political article. You can pick it in the user's own space. wbm1058 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is, as Eric Corbett once said, "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars, as it's impossible to define and therefore to enforce". Consequently, everyone's got different opinions of civility, and one diff that one editor thinks is "incivil" may appear innocuous to another. You're unlikely to get this issue if you lodge an oppose with, say, ten recent declined CSD tags. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]