Jump to content

User talk:RexxS/Archive 49

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51→Archive 55

RfA

Hi, a couple remarks about your RfA. First, you mentioned me, but for some reason I didn't get a ping. Perhaps you first answered and only signed later? Or does the template you used not send out a ping? Not a big deal, just thought you might want to know. I was reading the RfA anyway, and it's not as if you said anything wrong about me.

I will probably not vote or comment at the RfA. It doesn't feel right to support you, as our interaction from 2017 (? I thnk it was then) was rather negative. I noticed you once more in a CCI investigation in 2018 I was active on, where you opposed the CCI because there were no more problems, even though others found plenty of problems straight away. It looked to much like supporting a wikifriend instead of doing due diligence.

On the other hand, I have noticed in discussions (e.g. surrounding Wikidata) that while we are often on opposite sides, you are not a fundamentalist or blind WMF apologist like a few others, but in many cases look at things with an open mind and are critical of e.g. Wikidata where it has clear deficiencies. I also read a few AN (or ANI) reports of people accusing you of incivility, personal attacks, ... and in the cases I read you were either neither of those, or the other side simply asked for some exasperation and/or critical analysis of their editing problems. And it is obvious that, even when your solutions are not ones I can always support, you have the best interest of enwiki at heart.

It would also be rather hypocritical if I were to oppose your RfA because you sometimes are uncivil or brusque, as I am not really a shining example in these regards. So, no vote ~either way from me. Fram (talk) 07:19, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Ditto on that from me. FWIW, I'm sorry that people have done this: I thought I made it clear in my neutral !vote that with the exception of one aspect, I'd support you without hesitation. I am sorry that part of the message didn't get through (or maybe it did to some others, who knows). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fram and SchroCat: Thank you for the kind words. It means a lot to me that we are able to disagree without falling out over it – even when it has been heated in the past.
You're right about that CCI, Fram, I clearly didn't look hard enough, and in doing so I may well have been subconsciously letting myself be biased in favour of a wiki-friend. It proves the point that you need uninvolved folks to make summary judgements, no matter how much someone thinks they can be impartial. I'm surprised that the ping didn't reach you, Fram, because I definitely signed the post at the same time as I used Template:U, which should generate the ping. However, that post replaced a "holding" post I made, and I'm now wondering if replacing the same sig (even with a different timestamp) fails to trigger the ping? I'll investigate that when I have more time.
You're not to blame for that oppose, SchroCat, you spoke your mind honestly. It's just a product of the way the RfA can work (or not work!). Thanks again, both, and best regards. --RexxS (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hang in there. I've been yanked off to ANI for "making personal attacks" when I had no such intention of doing so, despite repeated polite requests to assume good faith, and Fram is absolutely right in their assessment of the ANI threads. I have said that people like to load up on a couple of minor incidents and pile onto them; it happened at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Galobtter where a bunch of people asserted, pretty much without any serious evidence or foundation that he was a biased editor who got into heated disputes. If there was a genuine problem with your civility and attitude, you'd be blacklisted from the various editathons and workshops you help run, but of course that's not the case. What I would say is unlike many RfAs where the support is a simple procession of "yup" or "thought he was one", at least here people are giving sincere and thoughtful opinions as to why they're supporting, and a lot of it is coming from longstanding editors.
My suggestion is to drop the pass rate. A supermajority of 66% support or above is a straight pass, a majority (50-66% support) is a 'crat chat to weigh the arguments, plus 'crats may still opt to have a discussion on less than 50% if the support arguments are mostly good and the opposes are mostly pile-ons. This is kind of a de facto to what happens at AfD, all else being equal with valid arguments on all sides, a supermajority of !votes could be closed as that without complaint, while an ordinary majority depends much more on the quality of the arguments. Importantly, it means that no vote is more equal than any other, and I think part of the problem (certainly the reason I get annoyed by poor quality opposes) is that currently an oppose is worth four times as much as a support. I don't see any evidence that this will give us unqualified candidates or that it would have materially changed the result of most RfAs bar one or two. But it should hopefully trigger a notion that if you want to oppose a candidate, you have to up your game and give a well thought out reason that will convince others, otherwise you won't get the result you want.
As to whether anyone else supports this or whether I can get it put forward, who knows? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
April
... with thanks from QAI
(watching, but I'd rather bite my tongue than make one more comment in the RfA - which btw shows a support to be proud of, whatever the outcome:) I think something like crat evaluation should preceed counting of votes. Editor A, in April Fool mood, says "I don't like the candidate", editor B says "Oppose per A" - none of the 2 should be counted. In other discussion, we go by argument, not vote count, - why should that be different here? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ritchie: We lowered the discretionary range not so long ago, and I think that produced some uplift in successful RfAs – probably not from any lowering of standards, but possibly from an increase in suitable candidates through giving them the impression that they were less likely to fail. I still think that whatever we set the pass percentage at, though, we'll still find it difficult to attract some of our capable editors, simply because of the unpleasantness of what they might have to go through.
@Gerda: I think the difference between RfA, where we vote, and other processes, where we rely on strength of argument over raw numbers, is that all of the other processes are reversible in the event of a mistake by the closer. Pages can be undeleted, moves can be reversed, but granting of adminship is more or less irreversible (other than in the rarest of cases – we lose far more admins through inactivity than for any positive reason for them to be de-sysoped). While we lack any usable mechanism for the community to revoke adminship, it will remain a big deal, because of the massive amount of caution that editors think they must take in granting it. --RexxS (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
This reminds me, I really need to go and write up a recall criteria, because if enough people genuinely think I should no longer have the administrator tools, they should be able to get rid of mine. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:02, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see if it would happen. I predict not. However I do think that a recall system might help with the paranoia.· · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting...I'm of the mind that a 6 mos or 1 yr trial period after election would loosen-up a lot of iVotes and prove far more helpful. Atsme Talk 📧 02:45, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Probationary or trial periods are good for things like driving where the newest drivers are the biggest problem/most likely to cause accidents. But last time I checked our biggest admin problem was after at least three years, trial periods aren't the solution to that, though mandatory retraining might be. ϢereSpielChequers 23:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@Fram: This was the edit. It didn't notify you because as far as the MediaWiki software is concerned, it was not a new post but a modification to an existing post. In order to notify you, RexxS should have either done it as an additional line, leaving the old one alone; or deleted the old line, saved, then added the new line and saved again - the intermediate save is necessary, but was absent in this instance. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
That is an annoying bug/feature. It gets me quite often, and the biggest hassle is that you don't know that the ping has not been sent. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Indeed you're not; but at Preferences → Notifications I have enabled "Successful mentions". In this way, when I intend to notify somebody, I write and save my post and then click the bell icon to verify that the notification was sent. Absence from the notification list is the only way of being sure that it didn't go. Please note that "Failed mentions" doesn't work as you might expect: it merely tells you that you attempted to notify a non-existent user. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Rexx, I am happy to see you finding the good in this strangely controversial RfA even among your opposers, and I find it telling that some of your opposers take the time to come by and talk to you. I, for one, appreciate having you around, and with a tool I'd appreciate that even more. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is quite interesting how very different opinions and attitudes can be from people who really do have the best interests of enwiki in mind, and how needlessly destructive some of them can be in their genuine good intentions. Probably connected to the Dunning–Kruger effect. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 20:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I swear I didn't read this before putting a reference to Dunning–Kruger effect in my RfA !vote just a minute ago. The real reason I am here is to say good luck to RexxS and try not to take the whole thing super personally. I've been at the % you're looking at now and it was hard. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m floored that your RfA is this controversial. At this rate, the only new admins will be newbies with a bare minimum of edits and zero controversy. (And hence, increasingly poor judgement and an increasing inability to recognize trolling from debates and shut it down as appropriate. I concur that the ‘crats need the authority to consider the quality of the conversation. Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • After resurrecting the newspaper last year - until the trolls pissed me off and I let The Signpost go again - I wrote a whole series on what's wrong with RfA. Nobody listened. Anyway, with a bit of luck this should go to a 'crat chat and I usually have confidence that they will make the right decision. And if they don't I will have lost yet more faith in Wikipedia which in many respects is definitely getting to be a nastier and nastier place to work as a volunteer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
It's not that surprising - to most of the first 20-30+ opposers it probably looked like an April Fool's joke - not everyone is aware of Bishzilla's style - and RexxS has of course picked up some anti-fans along the way. And some sensible people are very sensitive to robust discussion, and the diffs are there. I wish I and other supporters had spelled out more how very helpful and patient R is with most people, especially newbies, with examples. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree, Johnbod - the initial presentation/timing threw everything off-kilter and with that came a loss in positive momentum making recovery difficult. I can't recall who it was, but one editor suggested waiting and resubmitting after the dust settles, if the crats don't pass it first. Atsme Talk 📧 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Strongly agree with this Atsme, in the event that the crat chat goes against. However, touch wood, that the initial opposes were preoccupied with the april 1st thing, and that the supports seemed more reasoned than the opposers, who knows. Ceoil (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Agree w/Johnbod, I suspect the numbers would be very different if it weren't for the date and style of the nomination. I was wishing I'd at least referenced the diffs so people would know the support wasn't blind to those and that I meant 'net positive' quite literally. valereee (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks all for the kind words and the support (and I don't mean the votes). Whatever the outcome, I think I'd have stood a better chance if the nominator had also voted for me Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Interesting times! This has been the most interesting RfA for quite a while. I applaud your apparent equanimity, particularly if it is real. Your avowed inability to suffer fools gladly (who does?) contrasts with your demonstration of politeness throughout your RfA. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, RexxS has an RfA! I didn't think you would ever go for that. The sad thing, though, is that it was closed before I knew about it, so I didn't get a chance to take part. I rarely do take part in RfAs, for reasons which I think I have told you in the past, but in your case I would have done so. Haha! Now you will never know which way I would have voted! So there! The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Even though I decided to oppose your RfA, I want you to know that I wish you all the best either way things go. No matter what happens, I highly encourage you to take the feedback left by the community in your RFA to heart, learn from them in a positive manner, and apply them to your edits and habits moving forward. Always take advantage of free feedback and advice; it can only help you, and it's definitely worth following. ;-)
If you were around during my last RFA, it was no easy seven days or a "shoo-in" outcome for me either. Granted it didn't close following a crat chat like yours will, it was one of those RFAs that the community kept eyes on as a "close call" at the time. It's still brought up and referenced in discussions, and cited as an example in various comments and responses to this very day. Regardless, my RFA gave me a great sense of feedback from the community about what I needed to work on, and I can honestly say that I'm happy that it closed the way that it did as opposed to being one of those "shoo-in" cases with 99% support. I needed to be kicked on my butt and to fall on my own sword a little, and my RFA was what did just that. It helped me to put a huge set of brakes on my editing and how I'd respond to situations while I was patrolling recent changes. It helped me to slow down, and it rightfully pointed out some flaws in my maturity and the way I thought of things. Looking back on my RFA today, I would've opposed it too... I was young, immature, and I overstepped my boundaries where I shouldn't have (that the opposition and neutral votes correctly pointed out). I'm sure that you'll look back on this RFA down the road, and you'll understand where you might not today. I sure did. :-)
I (and many other admins) are here for you any time you need. I'm more than happy to give you input, help, or advice with anything you ask - don't be afraid to message me. :-) I understand how stressful and ridiculous the RfA process can be.... trust me. Seven days of being put in front of the entire community to have your contributions and everything put under the microscope, and then reading all of the comments, input, votes, etc that come in... it's a process that very few really enjoy. Should your RFA close as "no consensus", I encourage you to keep an open mind about running again in the future. I know it's a stressful process that you look forward to seeing over and done with either way (I felt that way by the end of my RFA for sure), and I see that you're very hesitant (if not opposed) to the idea of running again in the future... but a lot changes in the span of just a few months on Wikipedia, and if you ran again after some time and after taking the feedback to heart and applying it to your edits, I think that it'll be much easier for you the second time and that you'll be successful. :-)
Like I said, either way things go - you have my respect and I wish you well on Wikipedia, and that you continue to grow and that you see this RFA as a positive learning experience. Don't take anyone's feedback personally, and definitely don't hesitate to reach out to me if I can help you with anything you need. Looking forward to seeing how your crat chat concludes - so far, the vote is in favor of promotion. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 08:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts

I've been mulling this over this afternoon, and what I would advise at this time is to voluntary withdraw from the RfA, in a similar manner to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678.

As you can probably guess, this is not personally the outcome I wanted. However, it would prove to the community that you are genuinely not worried about having the tools, and can clearly and obviously accept criticism with grace. It also avoids the situation that you would be in if the 'crats decided there was consensus to add the bit, which is you would immediately have 30 angry editors watching your every contribution looking for their pound of flesh and screaming the minute you made anything resembling a mistake. The temperature at the 'crat chat is getting hotter, with people starting to argue again, and it's probably best for the project to find a way to nip that in the bud.

I realise that you have said that you don't want another run at this, and frankly, who can blame you? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I think you're absolutely right, Ritchie. I said earlier that I didn't want to put the 'crats into an invidious position, and I'm quite sanguine about not having the extra tools. I can't withdraw on my RfA page (because of the protection, I'd ironically have to have admin tools to post there!), but I think I can make a post on the crat chat talk page. --RexxS (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think–though I'm not sure–that I disagree with Ritchie. Eight 'crats and a couple hundred !voters have already invested a lot of time into this process. Has anything really changed over the course of the past week? Opinion was divided in the way that it was divided throughout. I for one always expected it would go to a difficult (i.e., evenly divided) 'crat chat–that seemed obvious. Sometimes, making a difficult decision is good for a community–better than it remaining unresolved. Consider that, just as a hypothetical, a finding of "no consensus" might be better than you withdrawing. (Personally, I still think a finding of consensus is the best outcome here, to be clear.) Consider the effect of withdrawal on the next editor who stands for RfA and finds themselves in a similar position to you. Consider the larger issues about the 65% threshold, it's-not-a-vote, and the propriety of discounting votes. I wonder if it's better, not worse, for the community (as difficult as this must be for you) to see this process through and get an answer at the end. In "the real world", I don't think anyone has ever shut down a trial or a hearing because of excessive chatter in the public gallery, nor has an election ever been cancelled for the reason that voters disagreed. And for good reason: your withdrawal may have the unintended effect of encouraging, in future RfAs, "loud chatter" to pressure a candidate to withdraw. As to Ritchie's point about a post-approval backlash: again, is that really any different than a week ago (when you, obviously, already had some "enemies")? I don't believe that your editing experience is going to meaningfully change whether or not you are given a bit here–whatever impact this has had on you, that impact has already happened. You started this to test whether it's no big deal; why not find out the answer, for yourself and for all of us? Sorry if I'm putting too much pressure on you–my intent is to be encouraging not demanding. No one can make this decision better than you and I'd support whatever you decide in the end. Leviv ich 17:42, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I think the advice to withdraw was really, really bad advice. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Flower for you, even if you can’t see it. You’re one of the good ones. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Sending you good thoughts. Try to hang in there, RexxS. FWIW, though we've clashed, I have immense respect for what you've done to build an encyclopedia and believe firmly that you should be an admin. My advice is to the let the process spin out if you can hang on for bit longer. If not, be well and all that. Victoriaearle (tk) 18:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Classy move RexxS, and Ritchie333's advice is spot on. I was out of action for this RfA but can see it was draining. It is now going down paths that are not good for your own long-term enjoyment to WP (regardless of outcome), notwithstanding the battering this RfA would have given it. However, I can also see that in the "opposes" are a material amount of goodwill to you. I think the bar you have been asked to meet will be easy for you; and a 1 April 2020 RfA (minus the dino-sock, but you deserve to "own" the date!) will be a +200 "support" RfA. Your recent comments on the Pppery SPI are also a classy touch [1], and given the huge strain of this RfA, to make such a calm and fair comments on the Pppery SPI, shows you have admin qualities. regards, Britishfinance (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dear RexxS, it is close, so close that the crats are for once earning their keep, and there can't be many more crats to come out of the woodwork and participate. Withdrawing now in order to address the one concern that dominated the oppose section means you could return in a few months and pass by acclamation. You have already made a commitment to address that concern, and I'm confident that you can and will do so. My first RFA also started in a more humorous manner than some were comfortable with, the Lolcat "nominator" in particular was a step too far for some, but unlike yours, mine stayed at 60% all week with a string of different reasons raised by the Opposse. A few months later my second RFA was a much less stressful experience. So I'm going to ask you to reconsider, not the withdrawal as that's happened, but your commitment not to run again. Nobody gains from such a commitment, everyone, the supporters, the Opposse, the project, and I believe you, would feel better in a few months time if you were to run again and pass nem con. ϢereSpielChequers 00:38, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Keep on doing your good work, Rexx. I find myself agreeing with Ritchie333 and Britishfinance -- classy move. I've always admired your work here, which is impressive. Becoming an admin is overrated and during my 15 years here I've seen this thing happen over and over -- once someone has the admin toolset their article work falls off as the other demands pile up. (It's even worse for ArbCom. Through those Portals of Despair there is no return.) I admire the people who never go down the admin path, but just keep on building an encyclopedia, which is, after all, the point. Carry on; you're one of the best. Cheers -- Antandrus (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Don't withdraw. At the moment the 'crat chat is looking good. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Kudpung and the others who are encouraging you not to withdraw and to stay the course. Leave your RFA open and don't withdraw it. As things stands right now (at the time of this writing), the crat chat votes are in favor of promotion by having a higher number of conclusions that there is a consensus to do so. I know that the RFA is stressful and it's not fun at all; just hang tight. :-) I think that Ritchie333 has good points in his message and his thoughts regarding your withdrawal, and I'm inclined to agree with him regarding what will happen if your RFA passes. What I can say from my RFA though, is that I personally didn't feel like I was being chased or haunted by editors looking to point out any flaws or decisions I made after mine closed, but I made sure to take things very slow for awhile. ;-) While, yes, people do get heated and worked up in Wikipedia discussions for sure, people also get over things and they move on. :-) So long as you do what any new admin should do, and go slow for awhile until you get used to things, ask questions if you're not sure about something, and don't take any admin actions unless you're absolutely sure that it's the right thing to do - then there won't be anything for anyone to follow you around and jump on your case for, and they'll quickly get bored of spending the time trying to find things and move on. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 09:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Here's one way to look at it... You take the bit, you use it the way you inevitably will (which is wisely and without controversy), and there will be no reason for any opposer to come back later and complain. Also, if withdrawal is to reduce the burden on anyone, it's too late already - don't waste all the effort people have already put in. Oh, and I'll just add, everyone's advice here is well-meaning, but listen to those who know you best ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

I remember those days as if it was yesterday. - Today, I met someone (here) who said: "Did I really waste all those years arguing about that?" - I came this morning ready to argue, but it made my day (and will save others some comments). Enjoy. I know that I can trust you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Back to real work: you kindly moved an article from draft, - could you check another please: Draft:Bohumil Herlischka, same team. Found a birth date and place ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, Gerda, I've been somewhat out of action since yesterday, and I've been beaten to it. What a pleasant surprise, though, to see all the work done by yourself and Serial Number 54129 there. I must add that I think it's well beyond what I would consider stub class, and perhaps I can ask Serial Number 54129 to have another look at the assessments on Talk:Bohumil Herlischka, please? --RexxS (talk) 13:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
...indicating, in fact, that I did no substantive work whatsoever on the article, and that I merely copied /pasted the wikiprojects from Talk:Václav Kašlík  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, both, much better now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Why don't you give up the bit after you get it? It's not an infinity stone dammit

Rexx, if it's no big deal, then it's no big deal to get the bits through a crat chat. I was spanked thoroughly by the community in my first RfA; but if it had gone to the crat chat, I would have clung on. Give up your bits after you get them through the crat chat. I gave them up right on the day I passed my second RfA (not for the right reasons though :D) That will allow you to be on the same ground where you wish to be. r.e.c.o.n.s.i.d.e.r. please. Lourdes 02:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I respectfully, but strongly disagree with the above. Look, if you want the bit, and think you would be a good admin, then don't withdraw. The crats will have their chat and let the chips fall where they will. If not, then let your withdrawal stand. But dragging the community + the crats through all of this and then if you do get the bit, turning around and saying "thanks but no thanks" would almost certainly piss off a lot of people. I think most folks will respect a decision to withdraw or fight it out. But not your getting the bit, and then throwing it back. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Ad Orientem. I have no doubt you would use the bit well, and you need only use it where you know you are using it well. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 16:35, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree, this is poor advice. I would also add that although I did (somewhat reluctantly) opposed, I have found your demeanor and attitude during this process beyond reproach. I think you ran for the wrong reasons, and maybe should've been aware that some of those recent remarks would cause trouble, but I did basically the same thing so what do I know... Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Congratulations on a successful RfA! Mona.N (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I see that your RFA has been closed as successful. Welcome to the admin corps! If you need any help, input, advice, mentoring, or anything I can provide that will make things easier for you - please don't hesitate to message me and I'll be more than happy to help with anything you need. Stepping into the role as an admin will be quite different; be prepared to re-learn a bunch of things and re-read a bunch of policy and guideline pages to make sure that you're doing the right thing... I know that I sure did! ;-) That RFA was one of the closest and most grueling ones I've seen in a long time that ultimately passed. It even beat mine... lol :-) I know that I ultimately decided to oppose your RFA, but I'm happy that you stuck it through, decided not to withdraw, and I sincerely wish you the best and hope that you'll excel in this role. YOU CAN RELAX NOW! IT'S OVER! YAY! :-D ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 12:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Congratulations
Congratulations from me too, and welcome to the corps! Enjoy a beverage of some sort to celebrate. It's unfortunate that it was so drama-filled and extended, but worth it in the end. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to travel to Manchester this June...

...so I can buy you a pint to celebrate! :D Well done, RexxS, I am delighted for you! I hope you can now relax after what I am sure was an extremely brutal week. Acalamari 13:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Congrats!

I wanted to be the first to congratulate on your successful RfA before the pitchfork army comes here to burn down your talk page and BN. Although I initially opposed before changing to neutral, I trust that you are now well aware of the concerns others had, and that you will make an excellent administrator. EclipseDude (Chase Totality) 09:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Btw - Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#RexxS_RfA_bureaucrat_chat - but don't worry, you aren't involved. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn't notice you had an RfA, but if it did, I definitely wouldn't support it based upon behavior like this and this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:10, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations on passing the RfA!

This (clearly sensible) decision by the !voters and the crats has done much to restore my confidence in the way Wikipedia is managed. Maproom (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Wasn't sure which section to post to so that I could offer my congrats, but this section seems well enough to me. That RfA was an ordeal and the 'crat chat was handled excellently. Abzeronow (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your RFA

Welcome to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
File:Successful requests for adminship 2019.png
With 164 supporters, RexxS's request for adminship is the fourth to succeed in 2019.
Congratulations! Linguist111my talk page 11:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
From someone who passed RFA back in 2006 when it was a lot less contentious, welcome to our ranks and congratulations! --rogerd (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations. Hope this inspires more people to run for RfAs. Now we just need to get Jbhunley to run again.... —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
*<:o)-<-@yes The gods either smiled upon you or showed you their wrath, depending on how one views adminship. Let the celebration begin!! 🍺🍻🍷🍸🍹💃

Back online

Some of the trolls, vandals and socks are so stinky you'll need "Mjöllnir".

First of all, thanks to everyone who posted here. I'll try to get around to thanking each of you personally as soon as I get a chance to catch my breath.

Secondly, apologies for not being online: on Thursday I was flat-out with the flu/cold that caught up with me a few days ago. Today I'm back to rude health (as they say), but I've been at the Theoretical Roman Archaeology Conference in Canterbury all day with ClemRutter delivering a Wikipedia workshop. Everybody enjoyed it! I've now read all 65,000,000 notifications that had accumulated over two days, so you can now get my attention again with a ping . Cheers --RexxS (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, we now have proof that the notifications system has a flaw in it... 65,000,000 notifications! That means at least half of the notifications sent must have gone astray! :P EdChem (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, just wanted to suggest you don’t bother following along with any of the ongoing aftershocks of your RfA, they need not concern you at present. Roll up those sleeves, go forth and do good unto the wiki. Let me know if I can be of any assistance as you step into your new role. –xenotalk 15:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

^^^ ditto, which is gradually descending into trolling in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 16:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
+1. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
+1. Also, my warmest congratulations to you on your successful RFA. I was travelling for the past 15 days and did not notice your RFA, else I would have most definitely supported. Your work on the project is of immense value and no one can deny that; you certainly earned the bit. Sit back and relax; take a week off if you need to (I did!). I will still bug you regarding that infobox template though ;) Rehman 03:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RexxS/Archive_49&oldid=1140272029"