 | This is an RfA talk page.
While
voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
Unless the nominator or the nominee confirm this is not an April Fool's joke, I propose this RfA be closed in the next some time. Of course, if I've missed a confirmation to the contrary, please do point it out. Thanks, Lourdes 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- How many times does he need to say this is not a joke?
Natureium (
talk)
03:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- See his answer to question 8, which more or less says that it's not a joke. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
03:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Natureium, Mark, yes, you're right. Lourdes 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- See his answer to question 8, which more or less says that it's not a joke. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
03:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- the RfA nomintor is not an admin. So I cannot believe the candidate will become a good admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hhkohh, the nominator is an admin, and this may very well be a real RfA.
Bradv
🍁
17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- ?!
Bradv, why did they not use their main account to nominate RfA? Also @
Bishonen:
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, the nomination by Bishonen's alternate personality is clearly an April Fools joke. Secondly, who the hell cares?! Even if the nominator weren't an admin, how the hell could you possibly justify opposing a qualified RfA candidate automatically, without even looking into them? WTF???
~Swarm~ 🐝
{sting ·
hive}
17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- yeah. Today is fools day. Anyone can nominate an RfA. Bishonen can also use her alternative account to take their time. But, if she uses her alternative account to nominate an RfA, I do not think it is ready for now because they will be too hurry to conclude a conclusion if they are an Admin. I do not think we need this kind of hurried admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Huh?
Natureium (
talk)
17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find the part of
WP:RFA/NOMELSE that says that the nominator must be an admin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- again,
Anyone can nominate an RfA.
Hhkohh ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- Little
Hhkohh perhaps concerned Bishzilla as nominator will be in hurry to get result of nomination finished on April 1? But not worry. Bishzilla never hurry!
bishzilla
ROARR!!
pocket
18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC).
- Yeah, you are not, but RexxS is Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Even though it is not required, I am happy to co-nom. Just let me put this T-Rex costume on.... -
CorbieV
☊
☼
22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: my vote is not a joke, instead, it is a real one
Hhkohh (
talk)
13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hhkohh, so you wouldn't allow someone to nominate themselves? We do this all the time. I don't know who's in charge here (not me and not that 'Zilla character), but this vote has no base in policy or practice and only muddies the waters in a contested RfA. I believe it should be struck. Drmies ( talk) 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Quite frankly Hhkohh, back in the day during my 10-year campaign to get RfA smartened up and decent voter behaviour introduced, if I'd had my way, people who make votes like yours would be perma-topic-banned form voting on any electoral discussions. I hope you realise now that you are the joke - a bad one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: my vote is not a joke, instead, it is a real one
Hhkohh (
talk)
13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Little
Hhkohh perhaps concerned Bishzilla as nominator will be in hurry to get result of nomination finished on April 1? But not worry. Bishzilla never hurry!
bishzilla
ROARR!!
pocket
18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC).
- again,
- I can't find the part of
WP:RFA/NOMELSE that says that the nominator must be an admin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Huh?
Natureium (
talk)
17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- yeah. Today is fools day. Anyone can nominate an RfA. Bishonen can also use her alternative account to take their time. But, if she uses her alternative account to nominate an RfA, I do not think it is ready for now because they will be too hurry to conclude a conclusion if they are an Admin. I do not think we need this kind of hurried admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, the nomination by Bishonen's alternate personality is clearly an April Fools joke. Secondly, who the hell cares?! Even if the nominator weren't an admin, how the hell could you possibly justify opposing a qualified RfA candidate automatically, without even looking into them? WTF???
~Swarm~ 🐝
{sting ·
hive}
17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- ?!
Bradv, why did they not use their main account to nominate RfA? Also @
Bishonen:
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hhkohh, the nominator is an admin, and this may very well be a real RfA.
Bradv
🍁
17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing like bludgeoning people and being uncivil at the same time, Kudpung. Did you really have to try and stir the pot, or could you have tried out some of your "decent" behaviour and held your tongue. The 'crats will put what weight on the comments as they see fit - your inopportune kicking isn't going to sway them. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The oppose reason I put while voting (17:16, 1 April 2019) is a joke. But my vote is still real. My actual oppose reason is that I concerned that RexxS may conclude his opinion too fast and see their DRVs Hhkohh ( talk) 08:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
Noah
Talk
19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Emperically, that's not true. As you can see
here, Iridescent has just said ""clerk" doesn't equate to "allowed to fuck about with other people's posts unilaterally to enforce a non-existent rule". yet I would hope many, if not most regular editors would consider him one of the most sensible, insightful and level-headed admins on the entire project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That may be so, but I simply don't find it appropriate for such interactions to take place. I was a moderator and administrator for a MMO game for over 2 years. Such interactions would have gotten me fired with possible punishment to my account. Swearing at community members is one way to upset and drive them away.
Noah
Talk
19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been moderating BBSes and web forums on and off since 1995 (primarily
Monochrome BBS and
SABRE), and I always take context into consideration. I recently ran into trouble in a discussion forum after somebody said (in summary) : "Anyone who cannot afford to buy a house only has themselves to blame. I worked on my own business for 7 years and bought a £250K house; anyone can do that and those that don't are lazy and bone idle and should not be complaining" to which I replied "You know what, if I went into a pub and pontificated like that, somebody would probably tell me to fuck off". Which of the two of us do you think was being more upsetting? I know which one I'd choose. I also supported a ban for somebody who basically persistently said women were incapable of driving, but without using any swear words. Context is important.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, context does not matter as much, but certain usages are definitely more severe and should be treated as such. If you are a clerk in a store and are talking with a coworker nearby (swearing casually in the conversation), customers will find it offensive and leave. Such employees may also find themselves terminated as it is not attractive in the least. It simply shows a lack of proffessionalism to have people in high positions swearing at other users on their talk pages. The admin position is held to such a high regard. Having people swearing at users that may not fully understand a situation is what I don't want to see occur. The position of admin mustn't be dragged through the mud.
Noah
Talk
20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think
I thought I told you
is the worse part of that sentence, and says more than the mere use of harsh language. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- @
Amorymeltzer: How, exactly, is that part worse, given that
that thought appears to be correct.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would oppose regardless... That wording simply makes the statement very rude, which is not a quality of an admin.
Noah
Talk
20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Pppery and
Hurricane Noah: Sorry if I was unclear, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but pointing out while swearing may not be 100% an issue to some, the
I thought I told you
portion likely would be. It conveys a sense of WP:OWNership and feels mightier-than-thou; it might as well said "how dare you‽" The comment on your talk, Pppery, supports that even further. As Ritchie states, harsh language happens and we are all free to have our differing views on its time and place here, but the sentiment implied when sayingI thought I told you
is unambiguously unpleasant. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- I am just curious as to how often this has happened in the past. @
Amorymeltzer: Am I still allowed to ask questions even though I have already put my opinion here? I feel everyone here is deserving of clarification on these issues.
Noah
Talk
23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As you can see above, I have already asked a question on this (despite having already voted) and RexxS has delivered a thorough explanation of the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a little late here as you've already asked, but yes, anyone may ask questions. It's generally best if the question(s) is/are helpful to either the asker or the broader community of participants and not too closely related to other questions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am just curious as to how often this has happened in the past. @
Amorymeltzer: Am I still allowed to ask questions even though I have already put my opinion here? I feel everyone here is deserving of clarification on these issues.
Noah
Talk
23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Pppery and
Hurricane Noah: Sorry if I was unclear, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but pointing out while swearing may not be 100% an issue to some, the
- I would oppose regardless... That wording simply makes the statement very rude, which is not a quality of an admin.
Noah
Talk
20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Amorymeltzer: How, exactly, is that part worse, given that
that thought appears to be correct.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think
- In my opinion, context does not matter as much, but certain usages are definitely more severe and should be treated as such. If you are a clerk in a store and are talking with a coworker nearby (swearing casually in the conversation), customers will find it offensive and leave. Such employees may also find themselves terminated as it is not attractive in the least. It simply shows a lack of proffessionalism to have people in high positions swearing at other users on their talk pages. The admin position is held to such a high regard. Having people swearing at users that may not fully understand a situation is what I don't want to see occur. The position of admin mustn't be dragged through the mud.
Noah
Talk
20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been moderating BBSes and web forums on and off since 1995 (primarily
Monochrome BBS and
SABRE), and I always take context into consideration. I recently ran into trouble in a discussion forum after somebody said (in summary) : "Anyone who cannot afford to buy a house only has themselves to blame. I worked on my own business for 7 years and bought a £250K house; anyone can do that and those that don't are lazy and bone idle and should not be complaining" to which I replied "You know what, if I went into a pub and pontificated like that, somebody would probably tell me to fuck off". Which of the two of us do you think was being more upsetting? I know which one I'd choose. I also supported a ban for somebody who basically persistently said women were incapable of driving, but without using any swear words. Context is important.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That may be so, but I simply don't find it appropriate for such interactions to take place. I was a moderator and administrator for a MMO game for over 2 years. Such interactions would have gotten me fired with possible punishment to my account. Swearing at community members is one way to upset and drive them away.
Noah
Talk
19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Emperically, that's not true. As you can see
here, Iridescent has just said ""clerk" doesn't equate to "allowed to fuck about with other people's posts unilaterally to enforce a non-existent rule". yet I would hope many, if not most regular editors would consider him one of the most sensible, insightful and level-headed admins on the entire project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
User:RexxS, is there any relation between you and RxS (a former admin) or is the striking similarity of your two usernames purely coincidental? 78.28.54.103 ( talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a complete coincidence. Back in the early 1990's I participated on Usenet groups and lists like rec.scuba and Scuba-L using my real name. I created a joke alter ego called "Rex Schneider" as a deliberate bad pun on my real name, just to tease some of the folks on those groups. As a fan of the sci-fi series
Lexx, I often signed myself Rexx. To make a convincing smokescreen, I registered a few domains to Rexx and created email addresses. I even played Quake III online around 2001 as "Rexx". Unfortunately when I came to register a Wikipedia user name in 2008,
Rexx was taken (also no relation to me), so I settled for RexxS. Similar-looking usernames aren't really surprising: I just found over 5,000 registered usernames starting with "Rex". Only RexxS and Rexxbot belong to me. --
RexxS (
talk)
20:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, I think you'll find the answer to your question here. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-
Takes one to know one. I'll be quite honest and frank, I'd take 1 RexxS over 50 Oshwahs, at least they're not as likely to make stupid blocks.
See here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 - Jeez, man... was that response really neccessary? ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fucking hell Ritchie, time to let that particular grudge go. We get it, you don't particularly like Oshwah, but there really is no need to ram it down all of our throats at every possible opportunity. There's fuck all you can do about Oshwah being an admin, so sit down and shut up. Nick ( talk) 09:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, I know you've apologized, but I strongly urge you to remove this. It's an attack that doesn't belong at an RfA by a completely unrelated editor. You'll make your case to support RexxS much better if you say something like "Disagree, he always thinks before acting" rather than going after Oshwah. It's cruel and certainly has no place on this page. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you realize your support in this manner reflects badly on the very candidate you're trying to defend. --
QEDK (
後 ☕
桜)
15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the "every single one of their edits" expectation was a little tough to accept from someone who, like me, is not imbued with divinity, but I agree that further personalizing it isn't helpful. Ritchie's already apologized to Oshwah, though, so we can probably lay this one to rest. 28bytes ( talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Takes one to know one. I'll be quite honest and frank, I'd take 1 RexxS over 50 Oshwahs, at least they're not as likely to make stupid blocks.
See here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't edit the page (only 158 edits) but my vote is Support.
My question is, do you think you will be admin? AltoStev Talk 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi
AltoStev, are you sure that you can't edit the page and that the reason is your edit count? The page should be (and appears to be) open for editing even by unregistered users. Please try again.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page can only be edited by extended-confirmed people.
- Look at the padlock at the top.
AltoStev
Talk
21:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
I just logged out and edited it just fine as an IP. It's not under any form of protection. ‑
Iridescent
21:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think AltoStev may have been confused by
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship being extended-confirmed protected.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS is not protected, and never has been.
Here is its protection log. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! (Isn't there an essay about that excuse?) I'll put my question and vote there. Sorry.
AltoStev
Talk
22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- AltoStev, I believe you may be looking for WP:Oops Defense. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! (Isn't there an essay about that excuse?) I'll put my question and vote there. Sorry.
AltoStev
Talk
22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS is not protected, and never has been.
Here is its protection log. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think AltoStev may have been confused by
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship being extended-confirmed protected.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
I just logged out and edited it just fine as an IP. It's not under any form of protection. ‑
Iridescent
21:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
|
| This is an RfA talk page.
While
voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.
|
Unless the nominator or the nominee confirm this is not an April Fool's joke, I propose this RfA be closed in the next some time. Of course, if I've missed a confirmation to the contrary, please do point it out. Thanks, Lourdes 03:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- How many times does he need to say this is not a joke?
Natureium (
talk)
03:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- See his answer to question 8, which more or less says that it's not a joke. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
03:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Natureium, Mark, yes, you're right. Lourdes 03:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- See his answer to question 8, which more or less says that it's not a joke. —
MarkH21 (
talk)
03:10, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- the RfA nomintor is not an admin. So I cannot believe the candidate will become a good admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hhkohh, the nominator is an admin, and this may very well be a real RfA.
Bradv
🍁
17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- ?!
Bradv, why did they not use their main account to nominate RfA? Also @
Bishonen:
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, the nomination by Bishonen's alternate personality is clearly an April Fools joke. Secondly, who the hell cares?! Even if the nominator weren't an admin, how the hell could you possibly justify opposing a qualified RfA candidate automatically, without even looking into them? WTF???
~Swarm~ 🐝
{sting ·
hive}
17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- yeah. Today is fools day. Anyone can nominate an RfA. Bishonen can also use her alternative account to take their time. But, if she uses her alternative account to nominate an RfA, I do not think it is ready for now because they will be too hurry to conclude a conclusion if they are an Admin. I do not think we need this kind of hurried admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Huh?
Natureium (
talk)
17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I can't find the part of
WP:RFA/NOMELSE that says that the nominator must be an admin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- again,
Anyone can nominate an RfA.
Hhkohh ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- Little
Hhkohh perhaps concerned Bishzilla as nominator will be in hurry to get result of nomination finished on April 1? But not worry. Bishzilla never hurry!
bishzilla
ROARR!!
pocket
18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC).
- Yeah, you are not, but RexxS is Hhkohh ( talk) 01:51, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Even though it is not required, I am happy to co-nom. Just let me put this T-Rex costume on.... -
CorbieV
☊
☼
22:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: my vote is not a joke, instead, it is a real one
Hhkohh (
talk)
13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hhkohh, so you wouldn't allow someone to nominate themselves? We do this all the time. I don't know who's in charge here (not me and not that 'Zilla character), but this vote has no base in policy or practice and only muddies the waters in a contested RfA. I believe it should be struck. Drmies ( talk) 17:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Quite frankly Hhkohh, back in the day during my 10-year campaign to get RfA smartened up and decent voter behaviour introduced, if I'd had my way, people who make votes like yours would be perma-topic-banned form voting on any electoral discussions. I hope you realise now that you are the joke - a bad one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:55, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Disclaimer: my vote is not a joke, instead, it is a real one
Hhkohh (
talk)
13:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- Little
Hhkohh perhaps concerned Bishzilla as nominator will be in hurry to get result of nomination finished on April 1? But not worry. Bishzilla never hurry!
bishzilla
ROARR!!
pocket
18:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC).
- again,
- I can't find the part of
WP:RFA/NOMELSE that says that the nominator must be an admin. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
18:01, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Huh?
Natureium (
talk)
17:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- yeah. Today is fools day. Anyone can nominate an RfA. Bishonen can also use her alternative account to take their time. But, if she uses her alternative account to nominate an RfA, I do not think it is ready for now because they will be too hurry to conclude a conclusion if they are an Admin. I do not think we need this kind of hurried admin
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Firstly, the nomination by Bishonen's alternate personality is clearly an April Fools joke. Secondly, who the hell cares?! Even if the nominator weren't an admin, how the hell could you possibly justify opposing a qualified RfA candidate automatically, without even looking into them? WTF???
~Swarm~ 🐝
{sting ·
hive}
17:25, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- ?!
Bradv, why did they not use their main account to nominate RfA? Also @
Bishonen:
Hhkohh (
talk)
17:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Hhkohh, the nominator is an admin, and this may very well be a real RfA.
Bradv
🍁
17:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Nothing like bludgeoning people and being uncivil at the same time, Kudpung. Did you really have to try and stir the pot, or could you have tried out some of your "decent" behaviour and held your tongue. The 'crats will put what weight on the comments as they see fit - your inopportune kicking isn't going to sway them. -
SchroCat (
talk)
07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- The oppose reason I put while voting (17:16, 1 April 2019) is a joke. But my vote is still real. My actual oppose reason is that I concerned that RexxS may conclude his opinion too fast and see their DRVs Hhkohh ( talk) 08:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- 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.
Noah
Talk
19:35, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Emperically, that's not true. As you can see
here, Iridescent has just said ""clerk" doesn't equate to "allowed to fuck about with other people's posts unilaterally to enforce a non-existent rule". yet I would hope many, if not most regular editors would consider him one of the most sensible, insightful and level-headed admins on the entire project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That may be so, but I simply don't find it appropriate for such interactions to take place. I was a moderator and administrator for a MMO game for over 2 years. Such interactions would have gotten me fired with possible punishment to my account. Swearing at community members is one way to upset and drive them away.
Noah
Talk
19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been moderating BBSes and web forums on and off since 1995 (primarily
Monochrome BBS and
SABRE), and I always take context into consideration. I recently ran into trouble in a discussion forum after somebody said (in summary) : "Anyone who cannot afford to buy a house only has themselves to blame. I worked on my own business for 7 years and bought a £250K house; anyone can do that and those that don't are lazy and bone idle and should not be complaining" to which I replied "You know what, if I went into a pub and pontificated like that, somebody would probably tell me to fuck off". Which of the two of us do you think was being more upsetting? I know which one I'd choose. I also supported a ban for somebody who basically persistently said women were incapable of driving, but without using any swear words. Context is important.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, context does not matter as much, but certain usages are definitely more severe and should be treated as such. If you are a clerk in a store and are talking with a coworker nearby (swearing casually in the conversation), customers will find it offensive and leave. Such employees may also find themselves terminated as it is not attractive in the least. It simply shows a lack of proffessionalism to have people in high positions swearing at other users on their talk pages. The admin position is held to such a high regard. Having people swearing at users that may not fully understand a situation is what I don't want to see occur. The position of admin mustn't be dragged through the mud.
Noah
Talk
20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think
I thought I told you
is the worse part of that sentence, and says more than the mere use of harsh language. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- @
Amorymeltzer: How, exactly, is that part worse, given that
that thought appears to be correct.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I would oppose regardless... That wording simply makes the statement very rude, which is not a quality of an admin.
Noah
Talk
20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Pppery and
Hurricane Noah: Sorry if I was unclear, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but pointing out while swearing may not be 100% an issue to some, the
I thought I told you
portion likely would be. It conveys a sense of WP:OWNership and feels mightier-than-thou; it might as well said "how dare you‽" The comment on your talk, Pppery, supports that even further. As Ritchie states, harsh language happens and we are all free to have our differing views on its time and place here, but the sentiment implied when sayingI thought I told you
is unambiguously unpleasant. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 20:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)- I am just curious as to how often this has happened in the past. @
Amorymeltzer: Am I still allowed to ask questions even though I have already put my opinion here? I feel everyone here is deserving of clarification on these issues.
Noah
Talk
23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- As you can see above, I have already asked a question on this (despite having already voted) and RexxS has delivered a thorough explanation of the situation. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I'm a little late here as you've already asked, but yes, anyone may ask questions. It's generally best if the question(s) is/are helpful to either the asker or the broader community of participants and not too closely related to other questions. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 00:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
- I am just curious as to how often this has happened in the past. @
Amorymeltzer: Am I still allowed to ask questions even though I have already put my opinion here? I feel everyone here is deserving of clarification on these issues.
Noah
Talk
23:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Pppery and
Hurricane Noah: Sorry if I was unclear, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but pointing out while swearing may not be 100% an issue to some, the
- I would oppose regardless... That wording simply makes the statement very rude, which is not a quality of an admin.
Noah
Talk
20:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- @
Amorymeltzer: How, exactly, is that part worse, given that
that thought appears to be correct.
{{3x|p}}ery (
talk)
20:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think
- In my opinion, context does not matter as much, but certain usages are definitely more severe and should be treated as such. If you are a clerk in a store and are talking with a coworker nearby (swearing casually in the conversation), customers will find it offensive and leave. Such employees may also find themselves terminated as it is not attractive in the least. It simply shows a lack of proffessionalism to have people in high positions swearing at other users on their talk pages. The admin position is held to such a high regard. Having people swearing at users that may not fully understand a situation is what I don't want to see occur. The position of admin mustn't be dragged through the mud.
Noah
Talk
20:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've been moderating BBSes and web forums on and off since 1995 (primarily
Monochrome BBS and
SABRE), and I always take context into consideration. I recently ran into trouble in a discussion forum after somebody said (in summary) : "Anyone who cannot afford to buy a house only has themselves to blame. I worked on my own business for 7 years and bought a £250K house; anyone can do that and those that don't are lazy and bone idle and should not be complaining" to which I replied "You know what, if I went into a pub and pontificated like that, somebody would probably tell me to fuck off". Which of the two of us do you think was being more upsetting? I know which one I'd choose. I also supported a ban for somebody who basically persistently said women were incapable of driving, but without using any swear words. Context is important.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- That may be so, but I simply don't find it appropriate for such interactions to take place. I was a moderator and administrator for a MMO game for over 2 years. Such interactions would have gotten me fired with possible punishment to my account. Swearing at community members is one way to upset and drive them away.
Noah
Talk
19:43, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- Emperically, that's not true. As you can see
here, Iridescent has just said ""clerk" doesn't equate to "allowed to fuck about with other people's posts unilaterally to enforce a non-existent rule". yet I would hope many, if not most regular editors would consider him one of the most sensible, insightful and level-headed admins on the entire project.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
19:38, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
User:RexxS, is there any relation between you and RxS (a former admin) or is the striking similarity of your two usernames purely coincidental? 78.28.54.103 ( talk) 19:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- It's a complete coincidence. Back in the early 1990's I participated on Usenet groups and lists like rec.scuba and Scuba-L using my real name. I created a joke alter ego called "Rex Schneider" as a deliberate bad pun on my real name, just to tease some of the folks on those groups. As a fan of the sci-fi series
Lexx, I often signed myself Rexx. To make a convincing smokescreen, I registered a few domains to Rexx and created email addresses. I even played Quake III online around 2001 as "Rexx". Unfortunately when I came to register a Wikipedia user name in 2008,
Rexx was taken (also no relation to me), so I settled for RexxS. Similar-looking usernames aren't really surprising: I just found over 5,000 registered usernames starting with "Rex". Only RexxS and Rexxbot belong to me. --
RexxS (
talk)
20:37, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
- Andrew Davidson, I think you'll find the answer to your question here. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
-
Takes one to know one. I'll be quite honest and frank, I'd take 1 RexxS over 50 Oshwahs, at least they're not as likely to make stupid blocks.
See here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ritchie333 - Jeez, man... was that response really neccessary? ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Fucking hell Ritchie, time to let that particular grudge go. We get it, you don't particularly like Oshwah, but there really is no need to ram it down all of our throats at every possible opportunity. There's fuck all you can do about Oshwah being an admin, so sit down and shut up. Nick ( talk) 09:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ritchie333, I know you've apologized, but I strongly urge you to remove this. It's an attack that doesn't belong at an RfA by a completely unrelated editor. You'll make your case to support RexxS much better if you say something like "Disagree, he always thinks before acting" rather than going after Oshwah. It's cruel and certainly has no place on this page. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 10:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
- I hope you realize your support in this manner reflects badly on the very candidate you're trying to defend. --
QEDK (
後 ☕
桜)
15:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the "every single one of their edits" expectation was a little tough to accept from someone who, like me, is not imbued with divinity, but I agree that further personalizing it isn't helpful. Ritchie's already apologized to Oshwah, though, so we can probably lay this one to rest. 28bytes ( talk) 17:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
Takes one to know one. I'll be quite honest and frank, I'd take 1 RexxS over 50 Oshwahs, at least they're not as likely to make stupid blocks.
See here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont)
09:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can't edit the page (only 158 edits) but my vote is Support.
My question is, do you think you will be admin? AltoStev Talk 20:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Hi
AltoStev, are you sure that you can't edit the page and that the reason is your edit count? The page should be (and appears to be) open for editing even by unregistered users. Please try again.
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
20:54, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page can only be edited by extended-confirmed people.
- Look at the padlock at the top.
AltoStev
Talk
21:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
I just logged out and edited it just fine as an IP. It's not under any form of protection. ‑
Iridescent
21:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think AltoStev may have been confused by
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship being extended-confirmed protected.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS is not protected, and never has been.
Here is its protection log. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! (Isn't there an essay about that excuse?) I'll put my question and vote there. Sorry.
AltoStev
Talk
22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- AltoStev, I believe you may be looking for WP:Oops Defense. — pythoncoder ( talk | contribs) 19:20, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Oops! (Isn't there an essay about that excuse?) I'll put my question and vote there. Sorry.
AltoStev
Talk
22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- The page
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RexxS is not protected, and never has been.
Here is its protection log. --
Redrose64 🌹 (
talk)
21:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
- I think AltoStev may have been confused by
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship being extended-confirmed protected.
Galobtter (
pingó mió)
21:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
-
I just logged out and edited it just fine as an IP. It's not under any form of protection. ‑
Iridescent
21:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)