Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.


See /Bureaucrat chat. Maxim(talk) 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Closed as successful --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:17, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Final (164/92/15); ended 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Maxim(talk) 18:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)


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[edit]

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 (utc) 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)
Apologies: while answering a question on the talk page, I remembered that I also registered User:Rexxbot, which I currently use to run a bot for reading only, not for making edits. --RexxS (talk) 20:43, 3 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

The 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.

Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy #own_policies, it states "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)
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)
No worries, @RexxS: the question was subjective and it's more than satisfactory. Thank you for clarifying. --QEDK () 06:40, 3 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)
Additional question from User:North8000
17. Could you give us a sincere direct answer to "is this a joke?". You look like a really good candidate, but given the jokey style nomination, the mentions of April fools, and IMO you just giving background and sidebar info and no direct answer the two times that this question was asked, the lack of a sincere, direct answer is disconcerting to me and others who have noted such. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: It's not a joke. Although the style of 'Zilla's nomination was intended to be light-hearted, its function was not. I apologise for not being clear in my earlier responses. --RexxS (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! North8000 (talk) 19:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from User:Levivich
18. Pardon the unoriginality, but same question that was asked in the ongoing RfB: What are your thoughts/opinions on User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul (and recall in general)? Levivich 02:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A: @Levivich: Coincidentally, I recently remarked somewhere that the main reason the current RfA process is so unpleasant is that contributors feel they have to be very sure of the suitability of the candidate, because granting the tools is effectively for life. We have no community de-sysop process. Incidentally, that's the reason we vote at RfA (one of the few occasions we don't !vote), because the community doesn't want to put the stress of making the decision when closing an RfA on anybody without giving them solid limits beyond which they don't have to use discretion – and we need a voting system to provide those limits.
It should be obvious that I agree with the statement of the problem at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul, but I feel I may be somewhat more critical of the suggested process that Primefac was. The process described reminded me of the old Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct that we used to use as a first formal venue for conduct dispute resolution (which was eventually closed down because its outcomes were non-binding). I do appreciate the idea of having a certification period to filter out invalid requests, but I think that the detail of that in the proposal is too bureaucratic for my taste: I would have suggested that once a certification page was made and the "candidate" had replied, a bureaucrat ought to be able to accept or reject the certification without throwing it open to the community for comment on whether the request was valid or not; I predict that would soon become a bun-fight with multiple parties litigating the issue of de-sysoping, rather than whether the request was valid or not. I know it makes more work for the 'crat, but community processes really ought to be as lightweight as we can make them.
After that, I think the second phase, the "Opinion period", analogous to RfA, but rather a "Request for De-Adminship" looks as if it ought to work. Again it would be more work for the 'crats, but I expect we could always recruit a few more if needed.
Perhaps some thought ought to be given to outcomes: can an admin who is de-sysoped by this process resubmit an RfA immediately? Should there be a mandatory waiting period? Would that be the same for all RfDAs or would the 'crats have to state a minimum time? (I wouldn't be in favour of putting that burden on the 'crats – it's not what they signed up for.)
Recall in general: of course I'm in favour of it. Adminship is not a big deal, and de-adminship shouldn't be either. I know some admins are wary about recall because the admins that take the hard decisions make enemies, and you you can only do that for so long before the number of enemies equals the number in your criteria for recall. Evula actually ran into that problem, if I recall correctly, and I'm not surprised they would have put considerable thought into how to make a recall/community desysop process workable. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from User:Dusti
19. One of the obvious well known functions of an admin is deleting articles, especially articles that come up in WP:AFD. Here's a link to your AFD stats. Out of the 17 pages that you have nominated for deletion, 8 of them have ultimately been kept (I'm including 3 no consensus closes in there as a keep as the article, to date, still hasn't been deleted). Do you agree with these closing decisions looking back? How would you answer any concerns about your ability to determine if an article should be deleted or not when nearly 50% of your AFD nominations have resulted in a keep? Dusti*Let's talk!* 05:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
A: @Dusti: I know that many participants at RfA look at a candidate's record at AfD to gauge how they would close an AfD discussion, but I have to say, I don't believe the skills required to impartially judge the strengths of arguments made are the same as the ones displayed in deciding to nominate an article for deletion. Have a look at Naima Adedapo and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naima Adedapo: an absolutely classic case of WP:BLP1E in my opinion, famous for being a finalist in American Idol, and nothing else. The keep rationales were "we've always made an article for all 12 finalists for every season of American Idol". Have a read through the 6 keep !votes. There's no policy to support that – one keep vote ironically even pointed to WP:MUSICBIO #9 "Has won first, second or third place in a major music competition – but the closer went with the 6 Keeps and not my single delete nomination, of course, no matter how strong my policy argument was. Much more recently, I !voted delete on Uffe Ravnskov, an otherwise non-notable academic, who gained notoriety for his hypothesis that statins don't lower cholesterol. I considered the BLP a coat-rack for publicising his hypothesis, and thought it best to delete it because there isn't anywhere near enough notice of the man to satisfy WP:GNG. There was a prolonged debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uffe Ravnskov and I'm still puzzled by how the closer went with Keep, citing WP:PROF #1 "The person's research has had a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." when almost the whole world disregards his "research". None of it would meet WP:MEDRS and you simply couldn't write an article on it.
So there are a couple of (to me) obvious examples where my opinion that the article should be deleted was contradicted by the closer. Do my rationales for deleting cause you concern? Maybe, if you disagree with them, but that's just me debating an issue as nominator or !voter. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want you to be concerned about me closing AfDs using my opinion on the matter: the job is supposed to be gauging the strength of opinion, not using your own opinions. Let me assure you I have no intention of going near closing AfDs; there are plenty of keen non-admins doing NACs in preparation for RfA that there's no likelihood of a backlog ever developing there.
To short-cut the usual rejoinder that the admin toolkit comes as a complete set and I might start closing AfDs, let me remind everyone that they've never opposed a candidate for adminship on the grounds that they might edit a complicated fully protected template or Lua module (with the chaos that might cause), and yet that ability comes with the admin toolkit as well. You either trust a candidate to know when they are able to use the tools and when they should refrain, or you don't trust them. I suggest that that's the test participants ought to be basing their decisions on. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Woshiyiweizhongguoren
20. I see you've been here for a long time, more than ten years ago. What first kindled your interest in Wikipedia editing, and what's you're favorite part of the Wikipedia community? Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 12:14, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A: @Woshiyiweizhongguoren: One of my hobbies is scuba diving, and I've taught others to dive for the last 30 years or so. Teaching scuba diving is a little different from teaching maths: if you teach maths incorrectly the worst that could happen is someone gets a poor exam result; whereas if you teach scuba diving incorrectly, a possible outcome is that someone dies. That has lead me to be meticulous in trying to understand as much about the physiology of diving as possible, so when I noticed a (to me) glaring error in a Wikipedia article about diving, I corrected it. Predictably, it was reverted, so I sat down and studied what I had to do to put the error right. That led me to create an account, to find where my textbooks and articles gave the correct information, to learn how to cite sources, and to debate the issue on the talk page. The next change I made stuck, and I was hooked on the prospect of contributing to sharing what I'd learned with millions of people word-wide.
My favourite part of the Wikipedia community is the diverse bunch of individuals whom I collaborate with when working on articles or issues of accessibility (my other Wikipedia passion). I'll mention just three among many: User:Gene Hobbs is a remarkable source of sources, he knows just about every decent source written about diving; Peter Southwood works tirelessly on improving every aspect of our scuba diving articles; and Graham Pearce who is always so generous in explaining to me how using a screen reader really affects the experience of a blind visitor or editor. --RexxS (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Andrew D.
21. What is the meaning of your account name, RexxS, please? For example, is it anything to do with Rexx? Andrew D. (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
A: @Andrew: Absolutely nothing to do with Rexx. My alter ego, Rex Schneider, was created in the early 1990s as what I thought was an obvious bad pun on my real name for me to have fun with some of the more straight-laced posters on rec.scuba and scuba-L. More details on the talk page. I don't think my real name is much of a secret, but I don't use it on Wikipedia. For those of you like Andrew who do know me: "Rex" was a popular name for a "dog" and "Schneider" is German for "tailor". Feel free to groan. --RexxS (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Additional question from Ritchie333
22. I'm sorry to add to the ever-growing list of questions, and this is purely optional to answer and based on my own curiosity. Below you say: "I became an admin on other wiki-sites without anything like this broken process." What sites are these, and if it's convenient, how do they determine who becomes admins?
A: @Ritchie333: Please don't apologise. They help people who don't know me to get more insight in the way I think (for better or worse!).
Anyway, these are obviously much more low-key than English Wikipedia is now, but I'm an admin on and the Wikimedia UK wiki (where I'm also a bureaucrat). The first one is pretty much a given because you often need sysop abilities to test things, so the process is simply a matter of whether one of the bureaucrats there thinks you're trustworthy enough not to break everything (although it's much easier to fix on if you do). On Wikimedia UK wiki, we've always known the other regular members of the community, and it's accepted that giving experienced editors the extra tools is normal and results in having more folks able to keep the wiki tidy and vandal-free. Neither of these is directly comparable to English Wikipedia, of course, but it adds weight to my argument that adminship doesn't have to be a big deal, or at least it deserves a more candidate-friendly system than the one we have now. --RexxS (talk) 13:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review his contributions before commenting.

  1. 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)
    Like Bri, Tryptofish, and 28bytes I think we need to not judge a candidate who has been around forever solely on the worst things that can be found about them. While I certainly do think there are disqualifying diffs for long-term contributors, I don't see any that have been raised here. The question is whether or not RexxS can be trusted with the tools. The answer is clearly yes. While adminship is not solely about tools (whether or not we like it, the system does give us some customary roles, etc.) the ultimate question is whether or not the English Wikipedia would be better off with RexxS as an admin. I don't see anything here that would make me think otherwise, so my support remains here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. 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)
  3. Support Good candidate. I hope this is not an April Fools' nomination. Jianhui67 TC 17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. 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) And my support remains real. I rather think we can trust anyone with specific authorities on other projects (e.g. a test wiki) not to make too great a hash of anything, and the person's status on Wikimedia UK rather suggests that he is quite trustable. Collect (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. 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)
  6. Real support One of our clearest thinkers and knows how to handle a dispute. I often turn to RexxS in some situations. We need admins who have a thorough understanding of technical matters such as Lua coding and accessibility. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  7. Real Support Good candidate, meets my criteria. Vermont (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  8. 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)
    Confirming that I have read the oppose votes and still support, and don't quite see how the many good answers to the questions are a reason to oppose. —Kusma (t·c) 09:40, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. 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). To reiterate - RexxS and others were having an insightful and productive discussion about Module:Emoji and how it operated, when Pppery turned up and said "bah, this should be deleted"; RexxS then pointed out why that was wrong and then, almost as an afterthought said, "you're not helping, pack it in!" 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)
    The latest disagreement is a thread at Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet/Archive 1#November 2018 edit and revert, which centres round a dispute involving RexxS, Jytdog and an editor who had recently come back from being blocked for edit warring. About the worst thing RexxS said is "[user] is an SPA" (mild casting of aspersions, but possibly an accurate one) and "Now if you have anything useful to add in way of improving this article, why not go ahead and raise it?" (forthright but perfectly within the civility policies). Indeed, some of his opponents there said worse things, such as "Drop the snark. It serves no purpose when building an encyclopedia" or "And the sanctimonious lecturing of regulars regarding talk page formatting is doing nothing". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Which, put another, and possibly more honest and accurate way, is RexxS was tag-teaming with a now effectively banned user, Jytdog, in his harassment of a new user. Qwirkle (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  10. 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)
  11. Real support a serious moment on a silly day.WormTT(talk) 19:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
    Hi @Swarm: This has to be weirdest and uniquely contradictory support rationale that I have read. You essentially confirming the oppose vote, but saying that every time you talked with RexxS, he has harshly criticized you, and you don't mind it, because he has been in the right. Doesn't sound like it. What happens when a new editor, who has just created a new article and messes up somehow, maybe its promotional, RexxS comes along. Do you think that new editor is going to hang around. Even established editors with a long-standing record, wouldn't take kindly to somebody coming in who they wouldn't necessarily know and then trying to buffalo them with his arguments over theirs. And that is only two cases. It is ok within the cut and thrust up at WP:AN where its accepted, but not out in the fields, where the outcome is a lack of confidence that what your doing is acceptable and valued. It is entirely unacceptable and will lead to disruption. scope_creepTalk 10:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    On the contrary, I respect RexxS standing up for what he feels is right. That will be a valuable trait to have in an administrator. I couldn't possibly oppose him simply because he criticized me. His conduct during these moments is my focus. In my multiple exchanges with him, he only ever criticized from a position of reason, and has not done so in a meanspirited or bullying way, and, as I said, has been reasonable and amicable and even-tempered and willing to bury the hatchet and move on when his point has been made. That's just my impression. His communication style may be slightly flawed, but at least it's genuine, and not a facade to be cast aside once the RfA passes. ~Swarm~ {sting} 21:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    That resonates a bit. I was in a similar situation as RexxS, more than 25 years ago, flawed communications skills, terrible really and was sent on an expensive personal communication course which helped a whole lot. These days these courses are cheap or free, as in beer and in this evironment where everybody is in life-long learning gig, it could be an ideal first step. I can see no issues for a new Rfa, in one or two years. scope_creepTalk 12:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)
  17. 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)
  18. Support - trustworthy editor. PhilKnight (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  19. Support (real) - trustworthy editor. --TheSandDoctor Talk 21:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  20. 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)
  21. Real support, passes my criteria Pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 21:59, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  22. 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)
    CRUNCH GRRRRRAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!. Obviously. Nothing about fierce dinos without fierce dinos. It's about time. Full confidence. - CorbieV 22:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC) On further thought, clarifying my translation to Violently Neutral - CorbieV 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  23. 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)
  24. 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)
  25. 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)
  26. Support. Looks like a good candidate. TheEditster (talk) 01:35, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  27. Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  28. Support. SportingFlyer T·C 02:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. Support Seems good enough for me.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 06:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    I am more convinced to support this user after seeing this user conversation with other user about accessibility of Wikimedia projects to the disabled person. This commitment, determination and temperance is what currently Wikimedia need to make a change. I feel warm at heart knowing there's a user like RexxS that notice and concerned about people with special need. And with this I am changing my Support to Strong Support.--AldNonUcallin?☎ 06:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  31. 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)
  32. 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)
  33. 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)
  34. 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)
  35. Support, despite issues raised below, I think the candidate will be a net positive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:47, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  36. 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)
    Just to add that I think RexxS's answers to questions are some of the best I've seen, and amply demonstrate his sincerity, his knowledge, his abilitiy, and above all his commitment to the cause of education. If you !voted before he'd answered them all, can I possibly suggest you have another look? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  37. Support Will make a good admin. Bellezzasolo Discuss 10:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  38. 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)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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)
  42. 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)
  43. 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)
  44. Support ~SS49~ {talk} 13:11, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  45. 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)
  46. 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)
  47. 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 clusterfuck difficult 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. Levivich 16:36, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Just adding that I hope this is decided based on the nominee, and not based on the nominator, or what they wrote, or from which account, etc., or anything else outside the nominee's control. Levivich 16:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  48. 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)
  49. 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)
  50. Support - he'll be a net asset, and we need more admins. schetm (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  51. Support A likely net positive. SemiHypercube 18:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  52. 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)
  53. 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)
  54. 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)
  55. Support Adminship is no big deal. The candidate ain't gonna break the pedia.--MONGO (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  56. 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)
  57. 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)
  58. 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)
  59. 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)
  60. 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)
  61. 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)
  62. 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)
  63. Support - Joke nomination or not, Rexx is a good dude for real. Absolutely zero concern. Carrite (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  64. Support I see no reason to think that this user would abuse the tools. --rogerd (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  65. Support Occasionally grumpy ≠ untrustworthy. Clear and long-standing commitment to the project. RexxS will do fine. Katietalk 03:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  66. 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)
  67. '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)
  68. 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)
  69. 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) Returning to this support to say how much I like your answers to the questions, they seem so rational and genuine, and I do hope this RfA is successful because I think you will make an excellent admin. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  70. 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)
  71. 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)
  72. 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)
  73. 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)
  74. 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)
  75. 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)
  76. 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)
  77. 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)
  78. Support after seeing the answer to 16. (Moved from Neutral.) --Izno (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  79. 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)
  80. 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)
  81. 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)
  82. Support Good luck.--Mona.N (talk) 18:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  83. Support Looks like they would a good, knowledgeable, sincere admin. Putting one question to rest, in response to my question, they gave a direct answer that this nomination is not a joke. This is what a real life good admin candidate looks like. If it failed it would show how RFA is broken. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  84. Support. I've seen genuine kindness from RexxS, and he's clearly trustworthy. He's always willing to help with technical solutions, he does great outreach work, and he knows this place inside out. If this doesn't succeed, I hope he'll stand again. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  85. Support. In promoting editors to admin, we have done worse. We could do better. Perfection is the enemy of good enough. We will never get perfection. And this is good enough. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  86. Support Even looking through diffs from complainants, I mostly see a very helpful and dedicated editor. Whatever personal disputes or controversies he may be involved in, his candor, good-humor, and willingness to respond to questions and complaints indicate that he will use the tools to improve the encyclopedia. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  87. Support - meets content creation criteria. Moved from oppose. GregJackP Boomer! 21:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  88. Support - RFA's not an area I've previously participated in, but I've have found Rexxs to be extremely knowledgeable, supportive, generous with their time and to have an impressive grasp of many technical aspects. For me, that adds up to a strong net asset. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  89. Support - Like many others, RexxS and I have disagreed in the past. In fact, I disagree with a couple or three of his answers here. That's not saying my opinion is superior to his, or vice versa, but it does reflect the diversity that exists between us, and the realm where betterment thrives. Imagine how much of Wikipedia's greatness we would never have known if not for our differences; or: how utterly ineffective the administration of our site would be if all but one style of admin were precluded from the corps? The fact that I am certain that Rexxs will not be a clone of the type of admin that I imagine as ideal is probably the worst of all bad reasons for opposing his candidacy. Especially when I am nearly certain that he will not abuse his admin privileges, or turn to self-serving ways after selflessly giving great surpluses in project gains. We need more admins and we need diversity among the corp. RexxS will bolster these needs, and I am thankful that he has volunteered to serve Wikipedia in this capacity.--John Cline (talk) 01:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  90. Support - Thoughtful and cluey answers to the questions (which clearly show that this is not just a joke) and some very convincing support rationales above, particularly Iridescent and Drmies. Harold the Sheep (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  91. Support - RexxS has great answers to the questions above, has accumulated many years of experience around Wikipedia, and a one-time, recent illustration of a poor response to someone does not deter my backing. Killiondude (talk) 03:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  92. Support I consider RexxS to be an old friend, and, in any case, there is no possibility that I will risk upsetting 'Zilla. No way. Dr. K. 06:20, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Added rationale I would like to add that apart from my comments above, I respect RexxS as a capable and trustworthy editor, who is a net positive to the project and worthy to be an admin, and I reaffirm my support above. I also add that I agree with the support rationale of Risker. Dr. K. 01:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  93. Support Smart, trustworthy, shouldn't even be a question. +1 to everything Iridescent said. A++ nomination, harumph to the wet blankets objecting to the April 1 start. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  94. Support I'm thoroughly unconvinced by any of the Oppose rationales - a number (possibly due to the start date being 1 April) are puerile, simplistic and fail to consider the benefits that RexxS being an administrator will bring to the project. We need a wide ranging, diverse group of administrators; we should not be discouraging people who hold contrary opinions or occasionally cause drama with well intentioned, considered interventions that don't work, if nothing else, they're learning opportunities not just for RexxS but for the rest of the admin cohort. I don't give a fuck about language (as you have likely gathered by now) but unless you're shouting and swearing at everybody all the time, it really is unimportant. The project needs a human element, it needs mistakes, it needs foibles, it needs all of us to be ourselves. It's important to realise, that after all is said and done, it's a human sitting behind the monitor and there's emotions, feelings and everyday life washing over them. It's why people feel compelled to write about obscure 80s bands, politicians from the 1600s or in my case, airline directors all but forgotten to history. Anyway, that's all soppy bollocks. RexxS will be fine as an admin and that's all we need or want. Nick (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  95. Support  
    RexxS introducing Wikipedia to new, young editors at Wikipedia Editathon, Cambridge University
    RexxS clearly has a long history of contributing to Wikipedia and of helping editors. I first encountered him at an Editathon, introducing group after group after group of new editors to Wikipedia. His clarity, patience and precision in communication was impressive. Ever since, whenever I encounter his comments on talk pages I stop to read his posts. I often find them extremely interesting, well-informed and logical, and I find him clear and firm in explaining his understanding on various subjects. Yes, he can be blunt and insistent in communicating a point, but never unfair or directly rude/offensive to any editor that I've seen. Admins do have to be careful how they communicate with others, and I think RexxS will take extra care to ensure that. He has a clear grasp of how things work, and some of the opposes below seem based upon rather a selective presentation of diffs taken from situations where he has not shied away from difficult situations or difficult editors. I respect that. Will he run amok with the tools? No. Will he be an asset? Yes. Could he be the catalyst for change at RfA? Time will tell. He has my !vote. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)  
  96. Strong support - I understand the concern about civility, it can really undermine enthusiasm of even committed editors, but the point about being a role model applies to all senior editors, not particularly admins, so I don't attach great weight to it. The main reason in support is to administer the dev side, and this is really important. I guess that the tide of concern about civility will kill this RfA; could we have another class of "community dev" with just the needed powers? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  97. Support. RexxS is competent both in content curation and technical skills. I understand the concerns below about temperament, but would like to point out that RexxS has served on the board of Wikimedia UK for a few years and his presence has generally brought unity rather than division. Deryck C. 10:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  98. Support, of course. The ammount of petty attempts at score-settling in some of the oppose !votes exmplifies what is wrong with RfA. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  99. Support I believe the nonimated's answers to the questions put forth to them, their temperment and conduct, and congenial attitude will make them a great administrator. I also appreciate how they explained various contentious points throughout this RfA with patience and throughness. Elfabet (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  100. Support Seems like a good qualified candidate. Won't hold unorthodox nomination against them. Abzeronow (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  101. Support I think the candidate will be a net positive with the tools. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  102. Support – Per the answer to Q16, which shows that RexxS is taking the feedback received onboard. I agree with many of the views expressed above as well, particularly Nick Moyes (so I guess I could say "per everyone else above"?). –FlyingAce✈hello 18:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  103. Support Gamaliel (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  104. Support - Returning to the RFA now that the April Fool’s dust has settled a little bit, I think it is pretty clear that RexxS is taking this seriously based on the excellent answers to questions. There are legitimate civility complaints, but no one who has been around since 2008 is going to have a spotless record. I do not think a UMUK trainer with a long history of content work is going to abuse the tools. Now for some pointless commentary. I think this approach was a really bad idea. If this RFA were launched later in the week and Bishonen (not Bishzilla) gave a serious nomination then I think this RFA would have a much better chance of passing. At least one person has opposed solely on this point, and I respect that stance. I realize a point was trying to be made but I have a point of my own: Making RFA more hospitable and less dramatic is all well and good, but you still need to respect the process and take it seriously. This is a two-way street. ZettaComposer (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  105. Support. I especially agree with what 28bytes said. So let me add this up: The candidate has been around a long time, long enough to have had some disagreements with other editors, some of whom have grudges, and who can come up with a few diffs that in isolation fail to capture the entirety of the candidate's contributions. The candidate posted the RfA in an untradtional way. And the candidate has admitted to the possibility of having hurt feelings in the event the RfA fails. That's it? And there is even one oppose that asks for the candidate to be blocked? Sadly, this is what happens when some online users detect what they think is weakness (hint: don't present the community with anything unexpected, because some people just can't stand it if someone moves their cheese). To put that another way: I've considered the opposes, and they did not persuade me personally. An experienced, trustworthy, and qualified candidate, with valid reasons for using the tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  106. Support Based on his actions here and contribution history, I do not believe he will misuse the tools. I understand the oppose votes but disagree with them echoing 28bytes especially, but many of the support rationales above as well. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  107. Support per good arguments by Kudpung, SMcCandlish, Tryptofish and especially what Ad Orientem said here and 28bytes' "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". We need to bring AfD back to reality and have a little faith in our 10-year contributors. For those opposed based on Q13, you should look up Dunning-Kruger effect. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  108. Support for this and other reasons I have come across recently. Good work. A loose necktie (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  109. Support for being helpful. Good luck!--Toghrul Rahimli (talk) 09:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  110. Support RexxS is clearly dedicated to the project, encouraging and supportive. I have no doubt that he will be an excellent administrator. Poltair (talk) 09:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  111. Support Helpful, trustworthy editor. No reason to expect this person to abuse the tools. Net positive for the project. --valereee (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  112. Support. Likely a net positive. Double sharp (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  113. Support Rex is one sharp dude. He knows what he's doing and would be a great admin. Tex (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  114. Support Having been around here for more than a decade, with over 30K contribs, he can definitely be trusted as an admin. Woshiyiweizhongguoren (🇨🇳) 15:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  115. Support qualified, experienced and competent. Cavalryman V31 (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC).
  116. Support Long term user. Strong technical abilities. Could help with .css stuff for example (of course I know another step is required). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  117. Support I remember interacting with Rexx while preparing obituary blog material for John Cameron Deas sometime back. I was impressed by Rexx's involvement in on-wiki activities as well as his association with fellow Wikipedians. --Muzammil (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  118. Support User seems trustworthy and I think giving them admin tools will be a net positive. I have some concern about some of the issues raised in the opposes but nothing disqualifying in my opinion. No one is perfect and the user's word that they'll "keep trying to do better" is something we all should try to emulate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  119. Support for several reasons: his technical expertise, his interest in accessibility issues, and his commitment to do better in the civility department. We can always use more admins who know how to work with templates, modules, and other technical stuff. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  120. support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  121. I have wavered between supporting, opposing and just ignoring this. If it wasn't so close I would probably have just gone with the last option. I really dislike the April Fools nonsense we seem to sanction around here. It is annoying to have RFAs appear on your watchlist just for them to be mixed up and it encourages cowardly crap like this. However I find this way worse. The childish nomination, the fact it took three questions before we got a straight answer that this was real and the buck each way statements about calling it a joke if it fails (which I don't beleive). If this was supposed to be a way to make RFA no big deal, it has failed in my opinion and just reenforced the sideshow that these can become. If it had been started on April the 1st because that was when he had time or some other reason that would be fine, but to do so to make a point is just well WP:Pointy. Ignoring all that I think on the whole Rexx would be fine admin. It would be suspucious if editors with long tenures did not have editors that they have annoyed or diffs with less than civil discourse. They seem well rounded interms of their contributions and I am fine with their answers. Making them an admin should help the project. AIRcorn (talk) 22:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  122. Support I vote support, because even with the issues of civility shown in the oppose section, RexxS is dedicated and says that he's going to try to do better. Plus, Assume good faith. ;)  AltoStev  Talk 22:21, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  123. Support Highly competent, thoughtful, articulate, gets it, and has clue. As somebody who has clashed with RexxS in the distant past (infoboxes), he can be blunt (a good thing in his case as he is always on point) and at times persistent, but is obviously motivated by the best of intentions, and is well regarded even by those with opposite views. Per Levivich above "Diffs can be deceiving"; many, on closer inspection, in fact indicate somebody who would make a fine, no nonsense, admin. Also, has images of Geogre on his user page; a significant plus imo. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  124. Support - Clear net positive. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  125. Support. This is a tough decision, one I came to hesitantly, and one I don't have the time to be as detailed in my explanation as I could. I'm glad to see that RexxS is taking the civility concerns raised seriously. It comes down to this: RexxS is a competent, dedicated, well-qualified editor. I've met him and have only good things to say about his character. I trust that he means all the representations he's made here. And what the hell, we need more admins. Good luck, my friend. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 02:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  126. Support per Ceoil, I agree about the diffs in the oppose column, the ones I have examined actually belong in the support column. zzz (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  127. Support like others this RFA has caused me to think carefully. RexxS is clearly here to build the encylopedia, I like that he is passionate about making it acccessable to all, particularly where many editors, myself included, are ignorant of what to do or not do. My concern is not so much civility as futility - calling someone ignorant will rarely result ion them becoming educated, in the same way as calling someone uncivil rarely results in a change in behviour. It appears to me that RexxS has sufficient self-awareness to address these concerns. If this RFA does not pass I hope that he still follows through so I can support RexxS 2. Find bruce (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  128. Support a candidate who's making strides to make Wikipedia more accessible. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  129. Support RexxS will not abuse the tools, has a high level of competence and is dedicated to improving the wiki. Clear net positive. -- Begoon 03:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  130. Support Perfection is the enemy of the good; clear net positive. WBGconverse 06:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  131. Support Good is the enemy of the perfection; clear net positive. Lourdes 08:09, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  132. Weak Support I was expecting (and had been preparing my statement) to oppose. His answer, however, to my question above actually surprised me and somewhat brought me over the fence. We all have our bad days, and we all make mistakes. I'm hopeful that perhaps this process which brings most of us to forcefully self reflect, helps Rex see the concerns that some of community has. Dusti*Let's talk!* 08:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  133. Support with the same thinking as Onel5969 above. Yes, RexxS may have made mistakes, but overall I believe they would be a net positive to the project and can be trusted. --DannyS712 (talk) 09:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  134. Weak Support Like many Im troubled by the too frequent harsh words. You say you don't get stressed, which is great, but it should be kept in mind that many don't have that sort of temperament. For some an accerbic comment can ruin their day even at good times. On a bad day it can push them over the edge. Theres also a contagion factor – if others see a veteran editor using harsh words, they'll be more likely to themselves, and the whole editing enviroment gets more hostile. On the other hand, answers to questions are mostly reassuring, and your contribs show an abundance of quality edits. So quite confident you'll be a great asset to the admin corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  135. Support despite differences on some subjects – no big deal, net positive. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  136. Support Has a need for the tools in the areas he works in, net positive. We've seen a lot of issues arise because of few admins working the template/module space. Can work on the interaction issues, I think the RfA has driven home the need for improvement. -- ferret (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  137. Support – Serious person with demonstrated need for the tools. — JFG talk 14:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  138. Support Peter James (talk) 17:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  139. Support An insightful contributor who understands our policies, procedures, and the behavioral diversity that affect wikipedia everyday. RexxS has contributed to so many helpful tools. He is yes blunt!, yet if you reflect on what he wrote/writes, he comes across as someone who honestly says what he means, and someone willing to say what needs to be said and debated... one of a pre-requisite for a good, effective admin. In my experience, he is careful in not taking sides and encourages creative and constructive compromise... another admin-like attribute that our project should continue to encourage and cherish. About time we give RexxS the admin tools, with thanks for all he has done for wiki-sister projects so far. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  140. Support I dont know this editor, but I suspect that they may feel on occassion that the need to be diplomatic with others runs the risk of making them seem inauthentic to themselves — a move against the idealized, unconventional version of what we see ourselves as being. This unconventionality — warts and all — can be the source of an editor's greatest strengths, and also their greatest weaknesses. For those that think outside of the box, their responses to others can also seem outside of the box — in other words, outside of the bounds of what a majority of editors in a leadership role feel is diplomatic. The requirements of a sysops demands responses to others which are more politically correct — in other words, inside of the box. Telling a frustrating editor where to go and how to get there may feel emotionally authentic, but it delivers little else and certainly no favors from others. There is a limit to unconventionality — respecting that boundary lets the best parts of your character stand out.  Spintendo  20:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  141. Support Answers to questions show lots of clue, thoughtfulness, and willingness to engage with other editors. The very occasional use of profanity and borderline incivility brought up in the oppose section is well within acceptable limits.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  142. Support Seems trustworthy and answers to questions demonstrate that RexxS becoming an admin would be a net positive to the project. (For me, civility concerns are not significant enough to outweigh trustworthiness, cluefullness, etc.) ebbillings (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  143. Support. I find myself in the position of some of our colleagues who had the strong urge to just pretend we hadn't noticed this, but as I read ever more deeply into this RFA, I realized it's time to step up. RexxS is the example of how difficult it is to become an admin after a very extended, committed run as a community member who's worked in many areas including multiple controversial ones. He's not perfect - but then neither are any of the rest of us. He's made mistakes and missteps, and I disagree with him as often as I agree with him. But I know that even when we disagree about something, there is still mutual respect for each other's opinion. I think Iridescent sums it up well. And frankly, some of the cherry-picked opposes below are illustrative of the very behaviour they claim to be opposing, which I find to be very concerning all by themselves. I hope the 'crats will see their way to deprecating those that have been largely debunked. Risker (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  144. Support After reading through the whole RfA including Support, Oppose and Neutral reasons I've decided to lend my support in this one. Alucard 16❯❯❯ chat? 03:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  145. Support Have interacted with the user from time to time. They know their way around the wiki. The opposes don't convince me they would abuse the tools. I'd rather give them a mop than some of those with carefully constructed credentials that are a mile wide and an inch deep.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  146. Weak support - Unconvinced by the civility opposers, but an admin should try to keep calm when editing. Reaper Eternal (talk) 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  147. Support From what I've seen from RexxS, he has a deep understanding of policy and makes a genuine effort to treat other editors with respect, especially new editors. I'm especially impressed by how much effort he's put into outreach, because it's a very good way for experienced editors to keep in touch with what it's like to be a newbie around here. I am concerned about the times his communication style becomes abrasive. Yet when I ask myself, "do I avoid this user or am I happy to see him when there's a discussion about an issue I care about?" the answer for me is clearly that I'm happy to see him. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  148. Support RexxS and I don’t always see eye to eye, but I respect him immensely and am more than willing to trust him with the tools. We need more people like him on board, in my opinion. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  149. Support {{u|waddie96}} {talk} 11:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  150. Support The candidate is evidently competent, experienced, mature, responsible and has a strong personality. To check how this works out here in practice, I sampled their contributions for a recent month, picking last October. I soon found a case where admin rights would have been helpful. They were engaged in technical training and we should facilitate such volunteer outreach activity which is important in maintaining our numbers. I looked through their other activity such as an AfD and didn't see any cause for concern. Andrew D. (talk) 13:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  151. I've taken a few days to read everything carefully. There are some well reasoned arguments on both sides from editors that I greatly respect. In the end, I don't believe that trusting RexxS with the tools will harm the project. SQLQuery me! 16:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  152. Support Has been a benefit to the project. --Enos733 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  153. Support: a trusted contributor; would be a benefit for the project as an admin. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  154. Strong support Having collaborated with RexxS both on- and off-wiki for many years, I am sure he can be trusted with the extra tools, that he will make good use of them, and after all this should be WP:NOBIGDEAL. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  155. Support, converted from grumpy comment at the neutral section below, which was prompted by a strong preference that the benefits of humour be carefully weighed against any consequent disruption (which is always some, like anything else here). Some of the opposition might be confusion at this discussion (too meta?), and may be absent had it been announced in different circumstances. I don't have an objection to Bishzilla nominating, just to make that absolutely clear! cygnis insignis 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  156. Support even though his nomination seems to be failing. Eschoryii (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  157. Support - I've sat on this one for several days, but I ultimately find Risker's argument in favor of appointing RexxS to be persuasive. Kurtis (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  158. Support - Yes, although not without hesitation. An experienced, trusted contributor. Llwyld (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  159. Support Consider this an ad hominem support, based on who's signed above and who's signed below. But I've also met the nominee and found that he's a nice guy. He'll do alright. --Pgallert (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  160. Support - I've gone through RexxS's contributions and have found most of them to be helpful. My only valid concern is their temperament issues. I would strongly advise User:RexxS to always try to interact with other users in a calm and professional manner irrespective of whoever is right or wrong as because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and civility is one of the core policies of Wikipedia. I strongly hope that they keep all these things in mind in the future because Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others and I also hope that they learn from their previous mistakes and improve on them. TheGeneralUser (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  161. Support - have met RexxS a number of times, and him having the tools would benefit the project. On a meta note, even if the nomination doesn't succeed, I hope he and other committed long-time editors who divide opinion will take encouragement from the levels of support, and keep asking for adminship (addressing concerns where possible), as that may produce a change over time. Carcharoth (talk) 12:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  162. Support – I hope this does go to a 'crat chat and that significant consideration is given to disregarding opposes based on the nominator, timing, and concerns that are trivial. RexxS is a long-standing editor who has contributed substantially, and there is little evidence presented of a likelihood to misuse the tools. Civility concerns are reasonable, but speaking directly is appropriate at times and hopefully RexxS will take care not to be bitey. If this RfA fails without even making the discretionary range then I fear the message will be the opposite of what Carcharoth suggests to other long-term editors who fear that an RfA will become a forum to criticise their shortcomings and largely disregard their years of useful contributions. EdChem (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  163. Support adminning RexxS, because I think it would be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. He's explained where he intends to use the tools and has stated that he wouldn't use them recklessly in unfamiliar areas. Tone and the need to be right might be an issue, but I don't believe Rexx will abuse the tools nor assert himself in a domineering manner just because he's carrying a badge now. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  164. Support because it's a few extra buttons and nothing else, and RexxS has shown no inclination towards using them in any detrimental way. It's not the nuclear football, for goodness sake. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  1. 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)
    I concerned that RexxS may conclude his opinion too fast and see their DRVs Hhkohh (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Discussion moved to the talk page. QEDK () 15:12, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  2. 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)
    I'm sure what you mean by this comment. Are you saying the two DRV nominations were justified on your part, or that renominating something the same day it was closed in a way someone doesn't like would typically be fine? ~ Amory (utc) 14:18, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Amorymeltzer: I don't think that renominating when you simply don't like a close is fine. However, I did think that renominating what seemed to be an obvious mistake ought to be okay, but the experience has shown me that admins working on AfD prefer to stick to strict procedure. I did feel that the DRVs were justified: Tavix closed the debate (my nomination to delete and one 'keep') as "Keep". While I was writing up the DRVs, he changed the close from 'Keep' to 'No consensus' which made the DRVs moot. I am content with the 'No consensus' close, although somebody (not me) ought to correct the templates on the redirects (Talk:Spanish Federation of Underwater Activities and Talk:French Federation of Undersea Studies and Sports) which now have incorrect closes recorded. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    If you think someone made a mistake, you need to discuss with the admin who made the mistake instead the disruptive option of immediately renominating the exact same redirects. Like I said earlier, there is no difference between no consensus and keep—in both instances the redirect is kept. If you were fine with "no consensus", then you should not have gone forward with the DRV, especially since you mentioned above that you were wanting the "less bureaucratic" option. I will note that I notified you of the change to no consensus at 20:36 and you didn't post the DRV until 20:52, giving you plenty of time to back out until posting, or you could have even withdrawn the DRV if you didn't notice the change until after you posted it. -- Tavix (talk) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with you. I made the mistake of thinking that renomination was a less bureaucratic way of dealing with a mistaken close. I hope I've made it clear that I won't be doing that again. The difference I perceive between 'keep' and 'no consensus' is that 'no consensus' is generally accepted as being without prejudice to re-nomination. I'm afraid that you overestimate my typing speed: looking at my contributions for the day, it took me from 20:28 to 20:52 to write up the two DRVs. Unfortunately you didn't ping (notify) me in your post at 20:36 and I didn't look back at your talk page until 21:04 when I thanked you and gave the DRV notices. If there's a proper way of withdrawing a DRV, I'm afraid I don't know where the documentation for that is. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Except your responses in the DRV show you had no intentions of withdrawing, which you could have done with a simple statement saying such. On the contrary, you continued to advocate why those redirects should have been deleted, even after more evidence supporting them came to light. -- Tavix (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. 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)
  4. 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 () 15:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. 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)
    Maybe ironic, but rational, and can be expected as due diligence. If you give a rationale people can see what it is and can give it the consideration it deserves. If you don't then everyone wonders whether it might actually be important, so they ask. Some may even consider it a form of subtle innuendo. The intention is not clear, so people speculate. A bit pointless really, as the closer could quite reasonably disregard as irrelevant.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Support, I'd love to see them get the mop" is an oddly common support rationale (paraphrased). With that in mind, I don't see any issue with not indicating a reason to oppose - reciting "Historically, there has not been the same obligation...." is not a reason to require a reason, it just shows that past practice has established that people ask more of people opposing their friend's adminship proposal than they do of people supporting it. Badgering people in the oppose section is overly common regardless of whether there is a rationale. Just leave this poor soul alone and let's avoid an echo chamber of agreement. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  6. 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. (Moved to "Neutral". Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC) ) 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)
  7. 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)
    ....oops. Taking another look. - CorbieV 23:22, 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)
  8. 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. Adminship was "no big deal" in the early to mid 2000s, but it's been a decade since that was true; adminship is a very big deal, and admins wield an enormous amount of power and influence even when they are not using the tools. The choice to give someone the tools should never be taken lightly. Softlavender (talk) 08:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC); expanded Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 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)
    Absolutely not. I wrote my original "Oppose" when I thought this was nothing more than an April Fool's joke like the two other April Fool's RfA nominations. Softlavender (talk) 08:11, 6 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)
    It's become a "monster" as you put it becaus what Jimbo said was not true. It is a big thing, and it is bigger because there admins are not removed except in the most extreme circumstances. Not making a judgment on this candidate, but please let's not trot out that Jimbo statement as it is hogwash. Yes good people are subject to excessive scrutiny, and that is the reason,. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
    If there's a (non-disruptive) point being made, it's that WP:DEAL might still mean something around these parts :p ——SerialNumber54129 10:45, 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) 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)
    I've removed my oppose since the number of people treating the RFA as a joke seems to be very small relative to the number of serious people at this point. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  13. 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! Striking per Ritchie333's clarification 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)
  14. Weak oppose seems the candidate has a lot of concerns. --B dash (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)
  17. Oppose. Concerns with temperament. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:03, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Glad there isn't a concomitant concern with presenting diffs. ——SerialNumber54129 11:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  18. Oppose The editors attitude towards others seems to 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)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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)
  22. 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)
  23. 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. Least this !vote be discounted due to April Fool confusion let me be clear that opposition is based on the factual evidence of serious attitude and behavioural concerns expressed by many experienced editors (Sunday 7/4 08:47 UT) Leaky caldron (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Concerns about civility, kindness. Necessary in an admin. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. 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)
  27. Oppose, and also oppose the silly conceit that adminship is always no big deal. Qwirkle (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per SchroCat (yes, I understand, SchroCat is voting neutral) et al. --JBL (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    An addendum/update: I think the civility concerns are based on a real and widespread pattern of behavior, and a good reason to oppose. By contrast, the opposes related to April 1/not treating the process seriously are totally ridiculous and shouldn't be assigned any weight. --JBL (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
    @Bhunacat10: I agree that any editor who links the WP:CIR essay without understanding it (that's most people who link it!) does not deserve to be an admin. But I could not quite find RexxS doing so in the diffs that you gave. Was it in a diff given by someone else? MPS1992 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    MPS1992 It's linked from the words "a few days later": As for your laughable attempt to turn a genuine criticism of your incomprehensible comment into a "personal" attack: I'll just remind you that on Wikipedia comptence is required [sic]: Bhunacat10 (talk), 07:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you, I see it now. MPS1992 (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  31. Oppose based on civility concerns. GABgab 19:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  32. 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)
  33. Oppose as per the civility concerns listed above. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  34. Oppose as a waste of the community's time. Nihlus 21:34, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    Expanding on my position in case a 'crat chat is needed. I have concerns over civility and temperament. The responses to questions have been less than ideal and think it is obvious this user is not even close to being ready to be an admin. Nihlus 20:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  35. 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. Levivich 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]. Levivich 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)
    It takes > 2/3 to succeed at RfA, so every oppose is worth two supports. You took Rexx to ANI in 2017 which ended with an editor (who voted oppose here, so not one of his friends or cronies) creating a subsection called "Trout or Boomerang to the OP; someone please close this as completely non-actionable", a sentiment shared by seemingly every other editor who commented there, including the closer. Now you're cancelling out the votes of two of your colleagues so that those that have always been protected finally get held accountable? Levivich 22:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    All you are doing is cementing the concerns of those of us that have seen the lengths the candidate's friends will go to to squelch any criticism of him. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Except I'm not a friend of Rexx's. I've been here for six months and have never interacted with Rexx. If you're telling yourself that everyone who supports Rexx is doing so out of some sort of personal loyalty, you're just deluding yourself–and insulting your colleagues. Levivich 16:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    And you insult my intelligence by your statement that you have only been here six months. Looking at your first edits, they are not those of a newbie. So, stop playing games with me. I am entitled and justified in making an oppose vote, and am not going to back off of it because of your underhanded attempts to try to convince me and others that the evidence that we see very clearly is not what it is. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  36. 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)
  37. 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)

    RexxS's answer to Q19 does not convince me that he won't make bad calls in a deletion context. He tries to draw an analogy between trusting him not to mess things up in deletion areas, and trusting other admins not to mess things up with Lua modules. There's a pretty big problem with this analogy - most editors, even admins, never make any edits related to Lua modules; whereas RexxS not only has repeatedly participated in deletion discussions, but has shown emotional attachment to their results, to the extent of being rude to an admin for closing discussions against his wishes (and not allowing him to immediately renominate), and then badgering people at the subsequent deletion reviews which overwhelmingly endorsed the close.

    RexxS is of course right that deletion discussions aren't a headcount, and the strength of arguments matters. That's exactly why Uffe Ravnskov was kept - there was no numerical consensus to keep once the sock/meatpuppets were discarded, but since the last six legitimate !votes all supported keeping and gave extensive policy-based arguments that were never really challenged, keep was the most obvious close. That RexxS can look at the full discussion and be puzzled as to why it was closed as keep only makes me more worried about whether he can recognize a consensus that goes against his personal views. Sideways713 (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

    I found it a puzzling close because of my reading of Wikipedia:Notability (academics) #C1. First of all, a number of the keep arguments were along the lines of "Professor Ravnskov is a distinguished researcher, writer and teacher" or that he has a lot of publications. NPROF#C1 completely debunks those lines of argument. Secondly, the policy-based line which was put forward by RandyKitty and DGG was that Ravnskov's works were "widely cited", but as you can read, XOR'easter and Kingofaces43 showed that isn't the case, as his h-index of 20 from Web of Science isn't enough in a field like medicine to be considered widely cited. The remaining keeps being effectively "per DGG" does make it hard to reconcile with your assertion of "extensive policy-based arguments that were never really challenged".
    As for the Lisa Littman and Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria articles, my position was that there are insufficient sources for those articles, but that there would be sufficient sources for a Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy article that I suggested. Following the 'no consensus' close of the AfD, which specifically encouraged editors to work towards a merge, another editor used the sources to create a section in the PLOS One article on the controversy, and it was suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine that the two articles be redirected to that section. Although my preference had consistently been for an article entitled Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy, I was content to make the redirects and see if they would stick, as possible common ground. As it turns out they did not stick, but the Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria was re-written to become my first-choice Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy, and following collaborative work between the editors on both sides of the debate, both Lisa Littman and ROGD redirect there. Wouldn't you now agree that my actions were not quite as "weird" as you first suggested? --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    You are right about Kingofaces43 challenging the keep rationale, I missed his edit because it's in the pre-relist section. I've struck that part of my comment accordingly.

    Can you point to me where at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine was it suggested that the two articles be redirected to PLOS One#Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy? I went through the lengthy discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 122#New ROGD Page Claims to Describe Medical Condition but Lacks Adequate Sources and can't see anyone suggesting that. If another user did make that suggestion and I'm just missing that, too (and if he made that suggestion after the AfD closed, aware of the close and its conclusion that there was enough notability between the two for an independent article) then yes, that makes it more understandable. Sideways713 (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

    I was persuaded by reading post-close comments at Med's talk page (I support the redirect plan. I'd suggest AfD'ing the articles if there's push-back., I will speak in article talk in support of your redirect plan as well.) and at the post-redirect discussion (I missed the AfDs, but would add my vote in support of RexxS's redirect plan., I agree with RexxS's proposal, and if [editor 1] and [editor 2] keep trying to prevent what I think a significant majority of the people involved are getting behind, we should take it to Merge Request.). Levivich 17:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: Note that he had already redirected both pages immediately before proposing it at the WP:MED talk page [19], and that all the supports that you quoted came afterwards. Cheers, gnu57 18:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Genericusername57: Yes, that's true, except I wouldn't call it "proposing", more like "announcing a WP:BOLD edit". Specifically Rexx wrote ... I'm now going to redirect ... I expect some pushback, so you'll no doubt have the opportunity to make your argument again when an RfC on the redirects is started., which I see as an example of WP:BRD in action: "I'm making a bold edit, I expect it'll be reverted in whole or in part, see you at the discussion". Levivich 18:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: I see what you mean, but blanking a page just after it had survived AfD, to unilaterally implement an already-proposed solution which hadn't gained traction, is too bold a move for me. (Also, did you see that he reblanked after he was reverted at Lisa Littman?). gnu57 20:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @gnu57: I can see your point of view, and I agree it would have been better not to re-blank the page pending talk page discussion. As for the reblanking, I also see two other things: 1) Lisa Littman is currently a redirect following talk page discussion, which tells me that Rexx correctly perceived consensus (which is a good thing for an admin). 2) When Rexx re-blanked the page, he also posted to the talk page: I redirected this page ... in line with the consensus that I perceived. That was reverted as vandalism (no edit summary). It clearly is not vandalism, so I've restored the redirect pending a reasoned reversion. (emphasis mine). The re-blanking came with a civil talk page post that recognized that it may be reverted again. In the end, I think Rexx handled himself fine in this incident–not the best possible way (that would have been without re-blanking), but not in such a way that makes me concerned that if we gave him the tools, he would abuse them. Levivich 20:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Levivich: I'm satisfied with the eventual outcome (redirecting Lisa Littman → Rapid onset gender dysphoria controversy) because I think it reflects a consensus which has since developed; but I think RexxS jumped the gun by redirecting to a subsection of PLOS One when the question was still so unsettled. His saying that he did so in line with the consensus that I perceived.(diff) makes me less confident that he'd evaluate consensus well as an administrator. @RexxS: I'm sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that there was any impropriety in the specific ordering of your redirecting/announcing the redirect on the MED talk; I only meant that you could not have been aware of the supporting comments below when you did so. Cheers, gnu57 21:14, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Right, all of those comments postdate RexxS's blank-and-redirect. Redirecting both articles to PLOS One was brought up as a possible solution at the AfD itself (by Safrolic and Freepsbane), but the AfD didn't close supporting that solution, and I don't see where else it was supported before RexxS actually went forward with it. Sideways713 (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Sideways713 and Genericusername57: If you read through that section at Med's talk page, you'll see Freepsbane announcing "diligent editors have added the Littman controversy to Plosone’s controversy section" at 15:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC). That was a follow-up to their suggestion at the AFD a few days earlier: "One option could be to merge the ROGD publishing controversy with PLOS One ... the nonscientific controversy aspect would fit perfectly into PLOS One's section on controversies". I looked at the section described in the PLOS One article and only then wrote my response indicating that I would turn the articles into redirects and test that solution. I actually made the redirects (in tabs that were also open) while my response was still open immediately before publishing the response. You can see from the timestamps for Lisa Littman at 15:39, for Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria at 15:40 and for my response at WTMED at 15:41 what the timeline was. I could not have written my response after I did the redirects: I just can't type that fast. --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    In other words, nothing had changed between Sandstein's close of the AfD (which, admittedly tentatively, supported there being enough notability for an independent article) and you blanking the two articles. No new arguments or solutions had been presented at WT:MED that weren't considered at AfD, no new users had weighed in, and the addition of the ROGD material to PLOS One wasn't a new development either - Safrolic (who added it) mentioned it in the AfD on March 21, and Alexbrn noted it in the WT:MED thread later the same day, registering worry that the added content was unduly lengthy in the context of the PLOS One page. Sideways713 (talk) 21:34, 7 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)
    Foxnpichu as someone yet to decide where I'm going to land, I would suggest that the numerous questions RexxS has answered suggest what they do and what they will do as an admin - and if you're worried about the joke element see question 8. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
    My bad. I have struck my oppose and will change my vote. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  38. Oppose per Pppery. Banedon (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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)
  42. Oppose civility concerns. 04:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Kolbert (talkcontribs)
    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)
    GJP hasn't edited since his post, so I'm sure he'll clarify when back at keyboard... ——SerialNumber54129 12:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    It wasn't in his list of created articles and I didn't take the time to check the list of nominators like I normally do. Moved to support. GregJackP Boomer! 20:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  43. 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)
    👏👏 - brilliant.Onel5969 TT me 15:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    We would have, a long time ago, if we could have. But we can't - and couldn't even if Jimbo was a normal admin - and that's part of the reason people are being so careful here. Your snark is not appreciated. ansh666 18:10, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    But that means we've got a grandfather clause that means existing admins can get away with things that non-admins or RfA candidates cannot. And that strikes me as being profoundly unfair. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Have you only just realised that, Ritchie? I have come across a score of Admins who are not fit for purpose - either with very poor decision making skills, or just downright disruptive and obnoxious. If the latter group went through RfA now, the blackballing would heavy, but still they still with the ability to threaten and block. - SchroCat (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    To be fair, any long-term active admin will have their fair share of people who don't like them. Every time you block someone or often when you close a discussion at AFD, AN3, DRV, AE or even something as banal as closing an RM or protecting a page, you irritate someone that the decision goes against. Black Kite (talk) 18:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, this is not irritation for someone closing against my vote, or even close. This is borderline stalking, harassment, and conduct that, if undertaken by anyone else, would have led to a block. Some admins have been admins for so long, they know exactly how to play the game without crossing the line that goes to ArbCom, but are otherwise fireproof. - SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    i suppose, with appropriate repentance, say 10,000 hail marys and a couple of months of solitude contemplating past regrets candidate can reapply. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  44. Oppose and block him now for WP:Pointy. --IHTS (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  45. Oppose – per what Ppery pointed out above.—NØ 09:03, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  46. 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)
  47. 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)
  48. Oppose per answers to questions. GoldenRing (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  49. Oppose with Safrolic's reasoning. Happy days, LindsayHello 15:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  50. Opppose You can certainly tell another user to "stop fucking around", but it's not going to help you when your nomination comes up here. At the very last he could have said "please stop fucking around". This kind of thing shows a clear lack of temperament... It's like something I might say.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  51. Oppose per answer to Q13 and too many aggressive-looking interactions. Davidelit (Talk) 05:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  52. Peurile nomination and unacceptable candidate. Stephen 06:14, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Oppose primarily per concerns about temperament and civility. I don't expect perfection, but I am sensitive to concerns about admin temperament. Additionally, the timing of the RfA and the nomination statement itself do not help. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 08:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Moved to neutral. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 03:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  53. Oppose with regret, given the quality on offer here. However, WP:CIVIL is one of our five pillars and is a bright line for me. Keep up the excellent work, RexxS. — sparklism hey! 08:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  54. Oppose - Administrators are expected to lead by example through every single one of their edits and actions, and each and every time they click that "publish changes" button. Administrators who are successful in their role and who are truly respected and looked up to by many (if not most) editors of the community need to demonstrate a consistent and nearly unquestionable history of civil and respectful words, implications, tone, demeanor, and phrases in their messages and communication with other editors. They need to show a high level of experience with calmly and appropriately handling conflict, responding to tough situations, and diffusing angry and heated discussions and quarrels between editors... and they absolutely must show through their history and experience that they can "take a punch in the nose", be "crapped, pissed, and spat on", be pushed to a level of frustration, and be stretched to their limit of patience - and be trusted to respond with a cool head, and maintain a civil demeanor.

    To be quite honest and frank here... given the numerous concerns that have been raised and expressed here regarding your civility, demeanor, attitude, responses, comments, and communication with other editors in various discussions, projects, pages, and disputes at times - I don't think that you have this skill yet, and there remains concerns as to whether or not you can be trusted to handle difficult issues and respond to them with the level of civility that I expect with administrators. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:11, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

    Discussion unrelated to candidate moved to talk page. –xenotalk 13:44, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    I don't often disagree with Oshwah, but here I think a word is needed. We are discussing whether or not to give a few extra tools to an unpaid volunteer who helps out with an online encyclopedia. We are not canonizing anyone or electing the next Pope. I am also in the oppose column in this discussion because of some concerns over temperament which we agree on. But infallibility, which you seem to be looking for, is not a reasonable criteria. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem - The way I wrote my opposition was only to try and emphasize its imporatance, not to imply that there's a perfect editor out there who never makes mistakes in this regard... though I completely undertand how you'd think that the comment I added almost seeks infaliablity. I did kind of emphasize the important maybe a bit too much... My point is that the candidate, given the recent and numerious issues found, has many more issues of not being up to part with these expectations than I would want one to be. I apologize if my comment appeared as if I was trying to seek the impossible. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ad Orientem - I've modified and shortened my comment in order to tone down that emphasis a bit and remove the implication that I'm asking for a 100% infallible and perfect candidate. Hopefully, this reflects my thoughts better and in a way that you can agree with. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 15:09, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks Oshwah for the clarification. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Oshwah: Well, all I say is mistakes happen, and nobody is perfect :) ——SerialNumber54129 07:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Too many concerns - as raised above - surrounding civility, temperament, attitude and collegiality. Neil S. Walker (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  56. Oppose Reluctantly oppose, because I find myself frequently in agreement with the candidate. But constantly picking fights isn't a good look, and aggressive behavior isn't particularly helpful; in fact, it's often counter-productive. And like some others, I'm a bit appalled at the attempt to turn the nomination into a joke, which is ridiculously juvenile and suggests a lack of maturity and judgment that wouldn't be helpful, either. Grandpallama (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  57. Reluctantly oppose per Oshwah. Although I respect RexxS as an editor, he is not suited to be an admin at this time. Jonathunder (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  58. Oppose per above. Nobody in this community takes WP:Civility seriously. At this point, it's more of a joke than a pillar or rule. I don't think this would be a step in the right direction with respect to that problem. Ikjbagl (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  59. Oppose per User:Dolotta and User:Oshwah. My Input: An Admin Should be experienced in all places in Wikipedia. And they should remain civil in all situations. I am sorry, but for these reasons, I am opposing this RFA. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  60. Oppose per Anthony Bradbury, who states it better than I could. Lepricavark (talk) 02:22, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  61. Oppose Due to the temperment problem. I'm with Sparklism, this oppose is done with regret. I was waivering between support and silence, until I happened across an old talk page where I was just beginning to ask questions for clarification, but was effectively shut down by RexxS in the manner described by others here such as Fastily: "rude, combative, arrogant...". I found it impossble to make any progress given his attitude, and left the article, as did 3 or 4 other editors who also took issue with his approach. He treated us and our concerns as mere annoyances, and continued to defend his biting a newbie. But perhaps this RfA was meant as a joke, in which case I move to strong oppose. petrarchan47คุ 04:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's a monster discussion you've linked to, but not everyone who can be bothered to read it, and RexxS's lengthy contributions to it, will feel the same way about his edits. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well I could be bothered to read it, and I see robust discussion on improving the article and ensuring balance and verifiability, with a couple of polite requests to observe indenting for the visually impaired and some Wikipedia etiquette advice. Enough to make me wonder if any of the civility opposes have actual foundation. ClubOranjeT 23:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  62. Oppose for incivility, there are many examples above but this [20] recent talk page interaction pushed me over. I would hope an admin demonstrates collaboration and civility, not shutting down people. Ifnord (talk) 15:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  63. Oppose - I sat on this one for several days and I am swayed to the oppose camp at this time based on civility concerns. I appreciate that the candidate realizes that they can be a bit "acerbic at times" and they would be committed to change that as a SysOp, but i'd like to see that toned down a bit prior to another run. I would likely support a future run assuming no further civility issues arise. -- Dane talk 17:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  64. Oppose after running my standard due diligence check for noticeboard drama: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard search results
    I don't have time to read through all these complaints to determine their validity, but that's way too much smoke to make me comfortable with the idea of this editor working at Arbitration Enforcement. I do recognize his substantial technical skills and that he is also often times quite friendly and helpful. Sorry, a crow's been pooping on my deck since April Fools Day from its nest on the overhanging tree limb and I couldn't help but take out my frustration over that here. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Sorry, a crow's been pooping on my deck since April Fools Day from its nest on the overhanging tree limb": PMSL! Of all the bizarre things I've ever seen at RfA, that has to be the most weird!! - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    I went through all of it, with a pretty fine needle and I can confirm RexxS is more in the right than as framed in your statement. However, what is wildly concerning to me is the rapid and acerbic shutting down of anyone who dares have a complaint against RexxS, and by that, I do not imply any fault on his part, but it reflects badly that RexxS has never once spoken on it, despite having been dragged several times and ending with the same result (an acquittal?). Seeing the same behaviour at this RfA too makes me wonder if the candidate is a right fit for a position, given the pedestal some people have placed them on. Again, I do not mean any fault on the editor's part but I do not think this is non-detrimental to how this community functions. I wish I could oppose on those grounds alone, but that would be terribly WP:POINTy. --QEDK () 19:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) @Wbm1058: Could you explain what part of your statement that "I don't have time to read through all these complaints to determine their validity" constitutes "due diligence"? You've simply dredged up mentions of a very active editor going back over 10 years and, in all but one (involving Robert McClenon who did seem to be treated rudely), as far as my reading of them goes, they have all related to often technical disagreements between argumentative editors which found in RexxS's favour, or were dismissed out of hand. That seems more akin to blaming the fireman for being a firestarter because he's only ever seen around fires. Surely, you should have posted these links as 'neutral , or as a 'comment' so that others (like QEDK above) could spend their time making the assessment that you, yourself, don't have the time to do? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    When I search the noticeboard, I expect to find few cases of the admin candidate being taken there by other editors. I expect candidates to have the civility, temperament and patience to deal with difficult editors, who are not uncommon, to be able to diffuse conflicts with them before they escalate to noticeboard-level. I've interacted with one of the guys opposing him here, who sometimes takes up technical issues of dubious merit or importance. I admit to being frustrated by the need to respond to them at times, but I've managed to keep my disagreements with them from escalating to any noticeboards. All this noticeboard drama sucks up valuable time that could have been spent on productive improvements to mainspace. wbm1058 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Smoke but no fire?
    • 2010 "RexxS behaviour"
      • "This seems like a very unfair complaint to me."
      • "It's becoming increasingly evident that it's the OP who's the disruptor here."
      • "I'm uninvolved. But reading through this, [OP] is the problem here."
      • "I'd suggest you move on before this becomes a WP:BOOMERANG situation."
      • "His complaints about civility don't hold water. So it's time to wrap"
      • What Rexx said: "I accept your admonishment for my uncivil tone"
    • 2017 "trouts required" which was an accusation of logged out editing.
      • " attacking RexxS this way, you are shooting yourself (and others like me who are concerned about Wikidata in en-WP) in the foot."
      • What Rexx said: "No, that IP is me, without any doubt."
    • 2017 "Blocking of RexxS requested" was posted by same editor who posted the one above. Unanimously opposed. Closing statement: "Clearly not going to happen. Suggest the dropping of sticks and finding something else to do."
    • 2009 "User:RexxS reported by User:Mark.T2009" had one comment from an uninvolved editor and it began with: "@ 'Mark.T2009'. Please refer to WP:OR..."
    • 2016 "RexxS: personal attacks..." "Looks to me like this is a case of forum-shopping and needs a quick close..." The thread ended when the OP posted: "RexxS's response above is sufficient for me..."
    • 2016 Damage done by declining AFC is a thread started by Rexx, not about Rexx. "I am now seriously concerned by the damage being done by ... to new editors who are producing acceptable articles that are being rejected on such unreasonable grounds." (And yes, it does have a personal attack by Rexx against Robert McClenon, which Rexx redacted.)
    • 2017 "User:RexxS"
      • "I see no issue here."
      • "...ANI is not the place to be thrashing this out. As RexxS mentions, you've made zero attempt to discuss this first..."
      • "To me that says that RexxS had a good faith basis for what he was doing and this should be closed ..."
      • "In all honestly RexxS used some initiative and as such should be thanked not dragged here"
      • "The only thing this needs is a close."
    • 2017 "User RexxS inserting himself into conflict and escalating an Edit War"
      • "... since RexxS has only ever edited the page three times then by definition it's impossible for him to have breached WP:3RR"
      • Final subheading was: "Trout or Boomerang to the OP; someone please close this as completely non-actionable".
      • Closing statement: "...'someone please close this as completely non-actionable'. Done. No good can come of this remaining open."
    Best of luck getting crow's nest off your deck. Levivich 21:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you Levivich. This is a significant feat of debunking, that I hope the crats will consider in their likely chat. Ceoil (talk) 02:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    In support of WBM's statement that "However, what is wildly concerning to me is the rapid and acerbic shutting down of anyone who dares have a complaint against RexxS, and by that, I do not imply any fault on his part, but it reflects badly that RexxS has never once spoken on it, despite having been dragged several times and ending with the same result (an acquittal?)." I offer dif The closing admin hurridly overwrote it when he realized how off-base it was, but it is very telling of that very attitude of RexxS that is so concerning. In fact the same admin that made the post was, until he finally crossed the line, very active at this RfA. It should be a concern of everyone, of what a destructive tag team these two could be. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    [ec] but that's a broad presumption! The fact of the matter is that WBM presented a sweeping set of diffs that, individually, do not stand up to scrutiny. In wiki terms its synthesis at best, not seeing any credible evidence. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I can't take credit for the "wildly" comment. QEDK said that. wbm1058 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hilarious rely, absent of anything substantial on your attempted character assassination. Ceoil (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Regardless of who it was, it was on the mark. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I would also like to point out that the cherry-picked statements from the ANI's in question only serve to support the premise. Yes, no doubt there is a legion of editors ready to run to the support of the candidate, regardless of his transgression. But, the Robert Muellers of the world must still be heard. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 02:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    That's a very specious point of view, ie you are placing the cherry-picking of AN/I section headers, placed by sole complainants, over the opinions of a variety of reasoned and independent commentators. Big, HUGE, difference there. Not an American, but all the same the Mueller analogy is beneath contempt. Ceoil (talk) 11:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    What, an example of how evidence must still be brought forward despite the rhetoric of those *cough* Fox News *cough* that support their candidate? Even if that evidence is then summarily dismissed, and the messenger reviled by the supporters? I actually find the analogy very apt. As far as a "contemptible" comparison, well then you would probably have to think that Trump is somehow on the level of Hitler to come to that conclusion. You may have that opinion, but most of those of us just think that Trump is too flawed a person to have the power he has. And, in the same vein, I don't think RexxS should have the power of being an administrator. I've seen where he already abuses the power of being held above reproach by a legion of editors who appreciate his technical skills and, as with Trump, are willing to overlook his flaws because they feel that the good outweighs the bad, and who will throw those that he deems "fools" or "poor editors" under the bus to keep him in their court. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ok Lynn, I thought you meant something else; ie Mueller is just making stuff to trouble the ordinary person or something. Yes you are quite right that opposes are entitled to speak and your rational is valid; for one instant wasn't implying otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  65. Oppose – The incident in ANI quoted by other editors happened three years ago, but there are two ways in which it does not reflect well on the judgment of RexxS, one of which I consider to be a matter of character. The first was the filing of the original matter at ANI, when the issue, about acceptance of drafts and notability, was not a conduct dispute and should not have required administrative action. The second was that RexxS personalized a difference of opinion about Articles for Creation into a personal attack that required redaction, but never resulted in an apology from RexxS. (RexxS accused me of lying about whether other editors know that AFC is voluntary, which is a matter of opinion about what less experienced editors thinks and should not result in allegations of lying that have to be redacted.) We lost a productive editor, User:LaMona, as a result of the unnecessary personalization of what should have been a content dispute, and it showed that RexxS apparently personalizes disputes. That isn't a good characteristic for an admin. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
    As much as I dislike saying this - there are more than enough people trying to whitewash everything RexxS has done - it's hard to blame him for LaMona leaving. LaMona made ridiculous accusations of sexism and quit when everybody, including a feminist, called her out on it; yes, RexxS's actions precipitated that, and him taking a disagreement about how AfC should work to ANI was complete overkill, but LaMona ultimately drove herself from the site. Sideways713 (talk) 10:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    This discussion suggests that LaMona did not entirely "drive herself from the site". Sorry, I just couldn't let that idea stand. Shout out to the Gender Desk for pointing out that aspect of this. wbm1058 (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    It's hard for me to verify the facts because many of the relevant posts have (quite appropriately) been redacted; but as far as I can tell, what happened is that a user (who wasn't RexxS) outed LaMona's Wikipedia identity on Twitter after she'd declared she was quitting Wikipedia (she made a few more edits on talk pages and ANI after that initial declaration, including the ones in that link, but never edited another article). I'm not going to defend that user's actions, but they weren't a factor in LaMona's decision to leave because that had already been made. If this is a mischaracterization of what happened I'm very sorry. Sideways713 (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I will acknowledge that User:Sideways713 is right that User:RexxS did not really drive User:LaMona from the site. It doesn't change the fact that RexxS's conduct both toward LaMona and toward me reflects badly on his judgment, and, even more unfortunately, his character. It isn't necessary to make disagreement about how other editors see a process (in this case, whether AFC was mandatory or optional) into accusations of lying (which does not mean making a mistake, but deliberately stating an untruth). Also, if one does make an error in judgment, as we all sometimes do, sometimes it is a good idea to apologize rather than to run or hide. RexxS has never apologized, either for the unwarranted attack, or (less importantly) for thinking that ANI was where to discuss an AFC issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Robert McClenon: My reading of that discussions is that RexxS went to ANI to propose that someone be topic-banned from AfC because (in his view) the editor had shown a pattern of poor judgement there. Where else can you bring topic ban discussions except ANI? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:05, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    ANI is a good place for requesting topic bans; but no topic ban should have been requested in the first place. The most appropriate venue for RexxS's complaint would have been the talk page of the AfC WikiProject; firstly because topic bans should only be requested after attempts to sort things out through discussion have failed, and that would have been a good place for such a discussion; secondly because there weren't serious problems with LaMona's conduct at AfC, only a difference between LaMona's and RexxS's views as to when AfC submissions should be declined, and the talk page of the AfC WikiProject would have been the best place to determine whether either of them was badly out of step with consensus.

    RexxS himself at least partially acknowledged this ("I agree that it would not have become so personalised if I had pursued a resolution via the AFC WikiProject") after the ANI discussion was closed. Sideways713 (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  66. Oppose, after reading this discussion and the diffs several times over the last few days. While I agree with the candidate on the merits of many of the disputes mentioned, the confrontational manner and demeaning tone he employed in some of them is inappropriate for an administrator. It accomplishes nothing but ill will. Kablammo (talk) 01:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  67. Strong Oppose per the dozens of editors who have expressed concerns. Jusdafax (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Well, I thought I'd read through some of this to find out what all the fuss is about. I did not have to read very far. I thought I told you to stop fucking about with things you don't understand is not something that an administrator should be telling another user. That comment seems to be from less than a month ago. The candidate has no excuse for that sort of behavior, and it absolutely nails the candidate's aggressive, self-centered and uncollegial nature as mentioned already by others. Until that changes, this candidate is not suitable to be an administrator. MPS1992 (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I kinda, sorta disagree. If a user is indeed "fucking about with things [they] don't understand", and continues to do so after polite requests to desist have fallen on deaf ears, then an escalation of language to something they might possibly take notice of (bluntness) can be justified and necessary. Given the very obvious history I don't really fault this particular comment, as an expression of utter frustration, although I guess there may have been ways to avoid the profanity. -- Begoon 11:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    The candidate doesn't appear to know how to handle things other than with the profanity and the "bluntness". And, quite frankly, the candidate doesn't appear to want to do so even if they did know how to. That's why they are not suited to being an administrator. MPS1992 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    You're absolutely entitled to that opinion. There's just over a dozen (unlucky) "Technical" reasons I'd ultimately be forced to disagree, but let's leave it at that for now. I hate back-and-forth Rfa vote arguing. Cheers. -- Begoon 11:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I hear you. That editor, or someone similar in behavior, has been disciplined. A better response than just telling them they don't understand, and "go away", is to educate them by correcting their technical misconceptions. If after explaining things to them, they persist in promoting their flawed improvements, it might at some point be necessary to initiate a group discussion about their behavior, but that should never be the first resort. If their changes are fairly benign, but insignicant, it may be better to just humor them by accepting their technical changes. wbm1058 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, so we agree about who this is? I agree that discipline is a last resort, and I've been quiet about this for a long time, because I'm a big believer in second chances. However, once you step outside those limits and start trying to disrupt rfAs I draw a line. -- Begoon 13:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  69. Strong Oppose. I've interacted with RexxS on one occasion, about a year ago. Clueless, and completely unacceptable behavior. Geogene (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, Geogene no. RfA does notinherently carry a lower expectation of AGF than other areas: what you mean is that it is generally acceptable to openly criticise other editors. But criticism must be evidence-based, otherwise it is no more than an aspersion—or, even, as in this case, a blatant personal attack. AGF applies project-wide, with no exemptions for RfA. Such remarks merely add a toxic flavour. I say nothing about the—disparity?—between complaining that someone's behaviour is "completely unacceptable" and then calling them "clueless" in the same breath. ——SerialNumber54129 13:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Some irony that you've this chosen an RfA by RexxS, of all people, to make a stand against "toxic behavior". But I will not be retracting my !vote, so I suggest you bring a complaint to whatever relevant notice board or DR process, if it really bothers you. Otherwise, I think you should learn to accept that differences of opinions exist on whether this person should be trusted with the tools. Geogene (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, the irony is you behaving in the same manner as that which you criticise in the candidate. And, no: this isn't about your "vote", or your opinion, but your behaviour and your language, both of which belie your ~decade of tenure. I suggest you start behaving in a manner which does it credit. ——SerialNumber54129 14:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, I am not "behaving in the same manner" as the candidate. If my comments here have offended you, then it makes me wonder whether you have ever interacted with this candidate at all. And while I will take your suggestions about my own behavior under consideration, this is his RfA, not mine. Geogene (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    No, you're baving in a worse manner; they've merely indulged, supoosedly, in bluntness to the point of rudeness. You, on the other hand, indulge in personal abuse. Happy days! ——SerialNumber54129 14:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129:, since you're an expert in civility now, I was wondering if you could explain the meaning of this edit summary that RexxS directed at me [21]. What is a "bugger", anyway? Geogene (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Additional context: A year ago, Geogene posted an RfC notice "whether Colt AR-15 should mention the Port Arthur massacre" at WP:Medicine's talk page; it was removed by a member of the project (not Rexx) as "wrong wikiproject"; Geogene reverted the removal; Rexx removed it again; the ensuing discussion was closed by a fourth editor (not by Rexx) as "Not relevant to this WikiProject"; Geogene reverted the close then self-reverted but restored the RfC notice, which a fifth editor (not Rexx) reverted, writing from what I can tell, everyone else agrees this is spam to this wikiproject. To answer Geogene's question, Bugger "is a mild swear word. In the United Kingdom, the term is a general-purpose expletive, used to imply dissatisfaction, or to refer to someone or something whose behaviour is in some way displeasing or perhaps surprising. In the US, particularly in the Midwest and South, it is a slang but not offensive noun meaning 'small critter.'" Levivich 23:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    A.Year.Ago. And yet, you try to imply that you have only been editing the past six months. (see my oppose #35). I have a pretty good idea who you actually are; if you really want a clean start, I suggest you be a little less obvious. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    You believe because I linked to a diff from A.Year.Ago, I must have had an account a year ago? Prepare to be amazed! Levivich 23:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Try to lead me into playing all the games you want.... Lynn (SLW) (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Levivich, that's interesting, but my dictionary's definition of "bugger" is very different from the one you just gave. By the way, not everyone in project med supported it being deleted, as you can see in that thread. The fact that RexxS edit warred until it was deleted shows a level of aggression unsuitable for adminship. Geogene (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    Geogene: Not that it really makes any difference, but just to note that "persistent little bugger" in British slang isn't using the dictionary definition of "bugger". It's a very throwaway remark and would be taken as jokey or certainly inoffensive, the sort of thing I might expect to hear from, say, a friend who I was repeatedly nagging to do something they didn't really want to do. Black Kite (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'd also like to point out that this edit warring match showed RexxS as being territorial It was (diff) politely removed by a member of this WikiProject, and edit-warred back by the original poster, who hasn't any other contribution to WPMED in my recollection. [22] (the diff RexxS referred to is this one [23]). Why did it matter to RexxS whether I was a regular at Project Medicine or not? Does this reflect his mentality towards newbies in general? That diff also contains the obligatory "fuck off", this time with instructions on how it should be used: When "please go away" doesn't work, you'll usually find that "fuck off" gets results. I don't like the idea of Admin RexxS being the self-appointed judge of who can post something, and where. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)I was not a newbie to Wikipedia at the time, but not a regular at that page. Geogene (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  70. Oppose per Softlavender. To quote: "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." Yintan  14:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Yintan:. There is a difference between lightness and making a joke of this RfA. The detailed thoughtful responses to editors in the question section make clear this is no joke. RfAs have in the past been vitriolic so much so that editors are reluctant to apply and voters reluctant to be involved. We shouldn't confuse the understanding of what is necessary for the job which Rexx has indicated in his serious and deeply thought answers with taking our selves a little less seriously. I far prefer a lightness of spirit which does not damage editors as editors have been damaged in the past, to a blood bath. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Littleolive oil: Okay, let me quote the candidate himself, then: "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". RfA is not the place for experiments. Not in my book, anyway. Yes, as you say, we shouldn't confuse the understanding of what is necessary for the job with taking our selves a little less seriously. I agree. But that's not quite the same thing as what is happening here. Yintan  11:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Yintan: All RfAs are experimental. No editor comes to this knowing how they will be perceived whether rightly or wrongly, or fairly. Rexx's approach was lighthearted as the words you quoted support. His answers to the questions he was asked were not; they require great knowledge, thoughtfulness and seriousness. Such answers take hours to think through, and write out. Check them out f you haven't yet. He has already contributed more than most of us know to this project. All of us have periods when we respond out of frustration. All of us. Those times with Rexx must be taken in context of his entire long career here and in those terms the times are few. If any of us, after that period of time had so few instances of frustration we'd be doing well. Only with RfAs do we support digging into an editor's contributions looking for instances of less than best behavior and then presenting those behaviours as if they characterize an entire career of long hours and thousands of edits and interactions. Sure, he like all of us had times when things might have been improved, but they are not the standard of the person's work. That he has taken on criticisms of his behaviours with a pledge to do better is a best sign of ongoing development as a WP editor, and potential for adminship. The most dangerous admins are those with agendas who lack flexibility and are intractable. Rexx's answers indicate flexibility towards the best standards we have. That's admin potential. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  71. Oppose. The evidence above is pretty damning. Calidum 14:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Although I disagree with quite a few of the oppose !votes in this section, I find myself here anyway. Too many temperament issues. --Randykitty (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. I'm put off by his decision to preemptively blank and redirect two articles after the AfD had closed with no consensus (Lisa Littman and Rapid onset gender dysphoria), before engaging in discussion at the articles' talk pages; that combined with his answer to question 19 and his overall AfD record makes me leery of his closing them in future. gnu57 21:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  74. Oppose. I'm concerned with his temperament. 'Lightness of spirit' is fine, but a nomination for an editor with attitude problems on the grounds that adminship shouldn't be such a big deal is worrying to me. Gilded Snail (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  75. Oppose. There will be too much drama if this somehow passes, and I don't like how Rexxs patronizes fellow volunteers. Full RuneSpeak, child of Guthix 03:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    There will be too much drama even before (and if) this passes; this isn't going anywhere else but to a crat chat I guess; and crats have been known to be quite clear in their approach on RfAs where the community has pointed out civility issues. Lourdes 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  76. Oppose RexxS is an accomplished editor and a knowledgeably helpful person. He is also an activist and his activism is generally towards issues I also favour. Although some activist admins succeed (to my mind) with impartial administrative activities, others quite spectacularly do not. The latter seem to exercise their powers for many years while doing a great deal of damage either by asserting their epistemological views or their views on purported Wikipedia policy. So I am opposing not so much because I do not trust RexxS personally but I do not trust in the community's abilty reign in over-zealous admins. This is a great pity. Thincat (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. In the >10 years I've been editing Wikipedia, I have come to learn that temperment determines whether a person will be a good admin more than anything else. Some people just don't have the temperment to make good admins, but they can better serve Wikipedia by doing the things that they do best instead. Deli nk (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  78. The oppose voters have documented so much ill-judgment that I am sure giving adminship would be wrong. Clearly, RexxS would use their experience and capability to do lots of good admin work, if selected here. There is just too large a chance that the behaviour documented here would continue – indeed have a worse effect – if RexxS became an admin. I would reconsider in a future RFA; behaviour can change. AGK ■ 13:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @AGK:I'm not sure if it matters, but you did not specifically vote oppose. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 13:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    There's actually a discussion about this below, but it doesn't — the section is sufficient. Indeed, the bolded votes are more tradition than anything else, since arguably the comments are more important. ~ Amory (utc) 14:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  79. The truth is the soft power of adminship is a much bigger deal than the hard power of having a few extra buttons (which really is no big deal). Temperament, the ability to not respond in kind is an essential quality to have, so based on the evidence presented above (esp. [24], [25], [26], [27]) I must oppose this nomination. There is also something about this coming out on April Fools, not so much because it's pointy, but because it conveys the attitude that: "if it works it's real, if it doesn't work, well, I was just joking." I don't know if we need (more) admins with that sort of gotcha mentality. Crazynas t 19:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  80. Oppose Per many of the observations above, would not be comfortable with the candidate as an admin based on this record. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  81. Oppose Nominated by sock. Too many cabal / civility issues. SashiRolls t · c 20:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Nominated by one of the most universally respected members of the project. Fixed that for you. ~Swarm~ {sting} 20:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Leaving aside the Priceless Steinway Factor, there are a good number of wikiteurs who see a nomination under a joke name, on April first, in Doge English as flippant, and a problem in its own right. Qwirkle (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Discard uninformed !vote.--Mona.N (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I'm fairly certain Bishzilla predates that particular meme. ~ Amory (utc) 09:46, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Re "sock": The account is one of the half-dozen community-endorsed "legitimate socks" listed at Wikipedia:SOCKLEGIT under the Humor account rationale. Four of the six trace back to the same administrator, giving her control of Wikipedia's "humour board". I agree that some editors, particularly those who have been wrongly accused of being real socks, may take offense at the use of a humor account in conducting the serious business of determining the community's administrators. wbm1058 (talk) 10:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  82. Oppose Too many concerns regarding civility. Coretheapple (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  83. Oppose I appreciate RexxS's passion for accessibility, and I like that he almost always leaves good edit summaries, but I think the civility issues are a more important criterion for admins. Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  84. Oppose Plenty of skill, but far too many concerns about civility, temperament and judgement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  85. Oppose: an excellent temperament is the single most important quality in an admin. I think RexxS realised this was an issue for them even in their nomination, from the answer to question 3 where they say, "I realise I can be acerbic at times". I think they need to work on this more before becoming an admin, but the amazing work they list in question 2 really is impressive and I do hope they can take the feedback from this RfA constructively, because it takes a lot to put yourself forwards and (if this RfA fails) it must be very hard when that doesn't work out. Civility issues are an area I hope RexxS can make a permanent change in, whether they go on to become an admin or not, and I would be delighted to support an RfA in 12 months time if the acerbic comments cease. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  86. Oppose per Tavix. That series of events shows a disregard for established rules and procedures as well as a lack of understanding and imagination for how redirects can help different users navigate Wikipedia in their own way. I don't doubt their devotion to the project, but I fall on this side of the line on adminship for now. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  87. Oppose I cannot support this RfA at this time. Please reapply in 6-8 months. I'm not oppose to changing my !vote once the dust settles. Neovu79 (talk) 04:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  88. Oppose this time around. Too much Jekyll and Hyde. As Jekyll, RexxS is helpful, mature, reflective, and can be a good communicator, exactly what we need in an admin. This is evidenced, for instance, in his response to questions in the RFA (whether or not one agrees 100% with his responses), and more broadly over 10+ years here. But the Hyde side is amply documented in the oppose section. Incivility (taken broadly) matters, not just due to the effect on direct interlocutors, but for the tone it sets for bystanders and therefore the community. Jekyll/RexxS has pledged to banish Hyde (Q3: " I would be obliged to more passive in my responses if acting in any admin capacity") which is great, but needs to be demonstrated for some time 'before' we promote Jekyll to admin. Martinp (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  89. Oppose at this point per civility concerns. I think Martinp's oppose right above hits the nail on the head. The candidate admits that they know their behavior was problematic, as evidenced by the language seen in Pppery's diff(s). However, since that incident was less than two weeks ago, there is no track record that allows us to judge whether they really have banished their Mr. Hyde as a result of the criticism they received in this RFA or whether Mr. Hyde is just biding his time to return. Regards SoWhy 11:16, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  90. Oppose this time around. This has been several days of research just to come back to my initial gut feeling objection based on issues of civility and tone. However, there are still so many good and helpful contributions in RexxS's record that it would be good to see another run after a long interval without incidents. Loopy30 (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  91. Oppose - Editor does have a good track record of edits, but they should make an effort to be more civil first before applying for admin. As an admin, one is expected to work with a variety of people, and that requires civility. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Kirbanzo: Could you kindly explain why you feel linking to NOTNOW is appropriate in this case? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • From my point of view, it appears that this nomination is currently very likely to go that way (~64% S/O ratio, according to WP:RfA's automated RfA listing, typically successful RfAs are much higher on this percent). The civility issue also contributes to this - an admin will be working with a lot of people if they get the position, so it is of the upmost importance that they will be civil while doing so. There's also the deletion review, but the civility concern is probably more important than that. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 14:09, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    I beg your pardon, Kirbanzo, but in my view this policy should only be linked on the requests for adminship of those candidates who are newcomers, who are inexperienced in general, and who clearly don’t understand what adminship is. Linking this policy on the nominations of such experienced editors as Rexx can be perceived as offensive. Zingarese talk · contribs 14:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd put WP:SNOW but in my opinion that would be not a good idea. Anyway, I've removed it from my oppose. Kirbanzo (userpage - talk - contribs) 14:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Agree with Zingarese. Linking to that implies either that you haven't read it or that you don't understand it ... :) fyi, the same would apply to linkig to WP:SNOW, which is equally irrelevant. ——SerialNumber54129 14:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    Agree completely— WP:SNOW is equally as inappropriate in this case... Zingarese talk · contribs 14:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  92. Oppose - coolness and civility under fire are essential attributes for an admin. The attitude issues demonstrated by the diffs needs to be resolved before 'promotion' can be considered. Just Chilling (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
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)
  1. 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.[28] Not at present. bishzilla ROARR!! pocket 01:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC).
  2. 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)
    I agree with that, Ritchie, but if you are in disagreement within an IB thread then it can be rather a different matter, as several discussions show. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    Having looked over the various diffs and taking into account the rather obvious benefits, I’m still in two kinds and going to remain neutral on this. I don’t think that opposing would adequately reflect on Rex and the good work he does. Given that many of the opposes have suggested re-trying at a later date, I do hope Rex does so at some point. - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  3. GRRRAAAAWWWRRRRGGGHHH!!!!!!! (Violently Neutral). - CorbieV 23:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  4. 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)
    Additional note: This RfA interestingly seems to attract an above-average level of incivility by multiple supporting administrators.[1][2] If the candidature fails for civility reasons, the bureaucrat chat should mention the apparent existence of a double standard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:45, 6 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)
    Moving to support after the answer to 16. --Izno (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  5. 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 (Moved to Oppose) 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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 () 06:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  9. Neutral No need to pile on opposes, but I thought I'd have found myself in the support column for RexxS someday.--v/r - TP 01:27, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    @TParis: It's not exactly "piling on opposes"; this RfA is currently very close to the bottom of the discretionary range, so more opposing votes might make a difference, making not pile-on. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  10. Neutral, leaning Oppose per my RFA criteria, due to the civility issues raised above and GoldenRing's oppose (as you stated that AE is an area you intend on working in). IffyChat -- 09:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  11. Neutral (Moved from "Oppose".) After reading the "Support" vote by Nick Moyes, I find myself here. Steel1943 (talk) 18:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  12. Neutral (moved from "oppose") - After further reflection, I feel that opposing this RfA was too strong of a stance for me to take in light of the broader context of RexxS's contributions and history. I still cannot bring myself to support this candidacy though, so I fall into this section. If this RfA doesn't pass, I think that a future run at RfA in a few months will be successful provided that RexxS secures a serious nomination and is more careful about how he communicates with other editors. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 03:12, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  13. Neutral: RexxS has the potential to be even more valuable to the encyclopedia as an administrator, but civility is especially important for an admin. The candidate has expressed that they will do better as an admin than they have in the past, but the way to show that one is capable of change is to change. I'd say RexxS should take a year to show that they can avoid incivility and try again. Also, try with a more conventional RfA, knowing that some people do take it seriously (like so seriously that they can hardly stand it) and try to earn their !votes too. Adminship should be less of a big deal, but reaching for it without taking it seriously, is unlikely to succeed.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  05:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  14. Neutral: Thanks for your contributions and showing up the courage for the RfA. your intended area of work and the concerns are preventing a support, I am not convinced to oppose either. I will park myself on Neutral, hoping that whatever may be the result, it does not discourages you from standing up once again. --DBigXray 06:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  15. Neutral leaning oppose. The nominee has long WP experience and high level of technical skills, and has done impressive work to improve technical accessibility of Wikipedia. If Wikimedia software allowed a sort of "system admins", then I'd defnitely support RexxS for such a post. Alas, currently Wikimedia admins are also ones to act as mentors, arbiters, and consensus builders, and here I do not think the nominee has sufficient patience and temperament, unfortunately. Maybe they could undertake to limit their admin work to technical issues only? — kashmīrī TALK 12:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    "Alas, currently Wikimedia admins are also ones to act as mentors, arbiters, and consensus builders" I strongly disagree with this sentiment. All editors are capable of being mentors, arbiters and consensus builders; simply having some extra tools for technical maintenance (which is how WP:RFA describes it) gives you no more rights to decide what to do than any other editor. If, say, three IPs and an admin had an argument, and the IPs turned out to be subject experts who just weren't familiar enough with the technical side of editing, then consensus should side with the IPs and against the admin. This is really important stuff - it's really what WP:NOBIGDEAL is getting at; not that RfA should be easy, or that being an admin bears little real-world responsibility, but simply that having the tools gives you no authority over content and policy whatsoever. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ritchie, no offense but you're wrong on so many levels. I think the nuance in kashmiri's vote is that admins are already in such a position. You would guess adminship is about extra tools for technical maintenence but they are often the chief arbiters, or mentors, power-holders, if you will. As much as you disagree, you have to see that this community is biased towards the positioning of admins and that's that, the IP example would never occur in the present scenario, let alone anyone siding with them. --QEDK () 10:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    "this community is biased towards the positioning of admins and that's that" Then, in my view, the community is wrong and violating its own policy. You don't have to agree with that, but that's how I see it. The reason Wikipedia was created in the first place was a reaction against Nupedia, so you didn't need a degree-level qualification to be allowed to write about a topic; you could just go and do it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: So tell me please, is the RfA process about evaluating nominees' abilities to use some extra tools for technical maintenance only? Or is it also about people skills? Because the current RfA process is completely at odds with the former, as we see from most discussions. By the way, isn't it mostly admins who define the consensus at ANI disputes and elsewhere? — kashmīrī TALK 10:44, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    While discussions at ANI are usually closed by admins, the actual nuts and bolts discussion of what to do (such as blocks, topic bans, other sanctions, warnings) is generally decided by everyone; the main reason you may see more admins at ANI is simply because admins are the sort of editors more likely to look at maintenance areas of the project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
General comments[edit]
  • 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 () 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 (utc) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    An important addendum: please do not see this as my support for the candidate, I think anyone who has read the veiled (?) threats can understand why admin accountabilility is important. --QEDK () 15:26, 2 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)
        {{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)
      Whatever standard template you transclude, even if you use an automated tool, it's you and you alone that's responsible for your edits. No-one's stopping you from writing a personalised message to the user, using the more obscure alternative templates or making your own template. I'm agreed with Ritchie333 that this is a real civility problem that is very normalised among the community, and causes crippling long-term damage to the site, but I still believe the other kind of civility problem does the same thing, just to experienced editors rather than new ones. Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 00:34, 8 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". Levivich 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 (utc) 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. Levivich 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)
    I wouldn't argue with someone pointing a death ray at me. Natureium (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    At the end of the week, the buros will make a simple vote count, ignoring those disqualified from voting (are there any this time?). If it's a close call, they look at the arguments put forth, not at the adjective (if any) at the start of the line. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:22, 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)
    Very true, but it's such an ingrained tradition at this point. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    The "real" part is to emphasize that they are not supporting as a joke. At first some people thought this RfA was a joke because of its timing and nomination. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for the input. Eschoryii (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • On Q19, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naima Adedapo, I think RexxS makes an excellent point that his !vote talked the best argument, and it was closed by a non-admin as "speedy keep" which is flat-out wrong. Aspects improved the article as well as !voting keep (which is exactly what I like to see at AfDs) while Oakshade's argument is not too bad, but I think if I had this on the pile of open AfDs, I would probably punt on closing it and !vote myself to get a better consensus. This sort of AfD has been used as RfA questions before. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes. But their understanding of WP:PROF#1 is probably off the mark (not critically; but just that they don't understand the meaning of "impact"). Thanks, Lourdes 11:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    @Lourdes: You're probably right that I don't put as much faith into PROF#1 as many do. It does require "significant impact" on their scholarly field, and I'm not convinced that Uffe Ravnskov's belief that high cholesterol isn't a risk factor for cardiovascular disease has had anything like what I think of as an "impact" beyond courting rebuttals. I believe that subject-specific guidelines were meant to make it easier to establish that someone was noteworthy, not to contradict GNG. In other words, even if a person meets a SSG, if there's no significant coverage in reliable independent sources, it's almost impossible to write a proper article on them. We have biographies on cricketers like W. Little who pass WP:NCRICKET, but we don't even know their full name, or any biographical details (or even their bowling or batting styles). I accept I may not be in a majority when I think there's not much point in BLPs like that. --RexxS (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not all subject-specific guidelines work the same way. Sport-specific guidelines, including the cricket one, do work the way you've described; their intention is to help indicate whether GNG is likely to be met, not to offer a completely separate route to notability. (This is constantly debated by sports users, and many editors - especially cricket editors - do like to treat sport-specific guidelines as full alternatives to GNG; but consensus is that they aren't.) WP:PROF, on the other hand, explicitly is an alternative to GNG and does offer a fully independent way to establish notability; and Vanamonde93 noted as much in the Ravnskov AfD's closing statement. I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that writing a proper article on a person if GNG isn't met is almost impossible, but the consensus to treat PROF as sufficient even in the absence of GNG would need to be overturned before that argument can work at AfD. Sideways713 (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, you're quite right that some of the SSGs are considered alternatives, rather than supplements, to GNG. The reason for that is that some fields simply don't attract the same level of popular coverage as others. So we need to counteract to some extent the sort of systematic bias that means an eminent professor like A. T. M. Wilson is likely to have far more difficulty in meeting GNG than a pop star like Naima Adedapo. That's fair enough, but I think that when we apply SSGs like NPROF, we have to keep in the back of our minds that once we've agreed that an article can exist, we still have to base it on a majority of independent secondary sources per WP:RS and WP:PSTS. I fully agree with you that that line of reasoning won't fly at AfD, and it's yet another reason why I try to keep away from there as much as I can. --RexxS (talk) 16:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks @Levivich: for that excellent summary. ClubOranjeT 23:28, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Could get a crat chat on this even if the support percentage is slightly under 65%? The whole "is this an April Fools' joke or not" seems to have complicated things at the onset, and I see several !votes predicated on the argument that we do or do not need this kind of mentality towards adminship. --Joshualouie711talk 16:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Joshualouie711: I wouldn't want to put the 'crats in such an invidious position. My sense of humour is what it is; and if folks think the style of nomination, the status of the nominator, or the day of nomination are sufficiently important reasons for them to oppose, then that's surely their right. I ran on the ticket that adminship is no big deal, and I'm equally sure lack of adminship is no big deal either. I'm perfectly content to accept the community's decision. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.