Paine Ellsworth

Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (28/4/1); Scheduled to end 21:45, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination

Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) – Wikipedians, I present to you ... Paine Ellsworth, a long-standing editor who is always friendly, trustworthy, helpful, courteous and a pleasure to work with. For anyone who has submitted an edit request to a template-protected page, then Paine will need no introduction as he is extremely active and efficient in processing these requests, and has proved to be a careful and diligent template editor. Paine can and has written content but his main activies on Wikipedia are administrative and/or gnomish in nature. He is Wikipedia's resident expert on redirect categorisation and has also closed hundreds of requested move discussions, during which he carefully assesses consensus. I believe Paine will be a positive addition to the administrator team as it will allow him to work on more administrative tasks and further reduce backlogs.

Paine Ellsworth was previous nominated for adminship in 2015, which did not succeed. I believe the reasons were due to misinterpreted remarks which became blown out of proportion. I am happy to confirm that in 14+ years of Paine's editing history, there is absolutely nothing that has suggested to me any hint of racism or discriminatory behaviour. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here: many thanks for sponsorship above. Have always edited Wikipedia for free, both project and encyclopedia, and will never accept payment for my work or status. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 17:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. Please answer these questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?
A: If we find that I have earned the trust of our community, which for me is an important reason I'm here, my discussion closures will become more acceptable to editors. I have closed contentious discussions as a non-admin in order to gain the experience, and when an editor comes to my talk page, I do my best to explain my logic and reasoning behind a closure. That usually suffices. In past years I've closed discussions for which I did not have the tools to implement, and would then ask an admin to help. As you may know, that is no longer popular, so I try not to do that anymore. It would be helpful to be able to delete pages and move fully-protected pages, when consensus is in favor, quickly with no edit request needed. At move review I have closed several talks, usually those with clear outcomes. I study the closes of the more contentious discussions by admins and other experienced editors.
Another area of study is the history merge (histmerge). Over the years I've asked for several histmerges, and almost everytime I asked, one editor, Mr. Appleyard, was the one who came to the rescue. As you may know, Anthony has left WP hopefully for a better place, and he is sorely missed. Good hunting, AA. I know I could never fill his shoes, but I have been looking into histmerges to see if I can find my own reason to be helpful in that area.
As for backlogs, like many editors I like to help out where I can. Will learn as I go (as usual) and won't think twice about asking more experienced editors for help. And I like granting edit requests, especially on templates. When successful here will be able to help more with fully-protected requests.
2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?
A: Of all the edits I've made, redirect categorization has rewarded me the most. From tagging redirects to updating rcat templates, their documentation and their indexes, that job has kept me the busiest from when I first registered. In more recent years I've practiced and learned the art of closing discussions, especially move requests. That was a direct result of an issue raised in my first RfA. Several editors there taught me that I had yet to master the difference between the dicdef of consensus and Wikipedia's unique meaning of consensus. Found that the best way to learn was to do, and to do meant learning how to correctly assess consensus here within this project. Have also created some articles, categories, disambiguation pages, essays and many redirects. And happily there are a growing number of editors who have joined in to work with redirect categorization. Many of them have improved my work considerably. For me that's the real beauty of this encyclopedia – a community of editors who continuously improve upon our work!
Several years ago I completed a long-term job that I particularly liked. I updated all the redirect category (rcat) templates and their documentation, and I brought both rcat indexes, alphabetical and functional, completely up-to-date. This was very much a Wikignome job, and I'm probably way too happy with myself. I consider Wikipedia to be about "fun with editing", so I try hard not to take myself too seriously, and that's not always easy.
I've used AWB to edit, and I do recognize its usefulness and that of bots under certain conditions; however, better still are the manual edits I've made. It is only while I edit manually that I can be led to a sometimes long string of articles, project pages or templates that need to be improved, pages that would be missed by bot or AWB editing. Probably some of my best edits were those times when I made mistakes and was reverted by more experienced editors. I've learned a good deal about editing from the discussions that ensued. That has also compelled me to go back over my oldest contributions to make corrections based on what I know now vs. what little I knew then. I recommend that for everyone, because our edit history is a map of how we as editors have gotten better at it.
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 there have been some times when disagreement could not be avoided. Possibly my worst conflict happened in 2015 when I was involved in a page title dispute on the ceremonial pipe talk page that escalated well beyond just the page title and AGF on both sides. That was a learning experience for me, and the more in-depth learning came a few weeks later at my first RfA. While I had thought that the dispute was over and that all parties had been satisfied by the outcome of the requested move, I found that the dispute spilled over into the RfA. I dealt with it by withdrawing from the RfA for reasons I gave in a statement at the top of that page. In the future, I will take what I have learned from these interactions – patience, tolerance, restraint and above all, increased self-scrutiny – and use those to help me to improve conversations and have better results with editors. Conflict is related to stress level, which can sometimes get very high as in my first RfA. Now I go with what one of my mentors said some time back, that Wikipedia should be fun to edit, and now I enjoy it so much more!
In recent times I have closed move requests some of which were taken to move review. Editors thought that I had misread consensus. I'm human and can be wrong, so I consider MRV to be a place where good lessons can be learned. An example is this move review page from 2018 that has two of my closes, both overturned, and both were enlightening for me. As long as one reads with understanding, and listens to editors who oppose one's viewpoint, such mistakes make one a more educated editor and closer. At the end of last year, 2022, I did an analysis of some of my closes. That year I closed nearly 200 move requests with four, or about 2%, taken to move review. All four were endorsed. Since those two overturn decisions in August 2018, all of my reviewed closes have been endorsed. When we put our heads together in a spirit of harmony, that's when the magic of building the encyclopedia, improving Wikipedia, can take place.

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.

Optional question from Bradv

4. Do you agree with your nominator's explanation for why your previous RfA was unsuccessful? – bradv 22:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A: Yes, I said some things that were better left unsaid, and learned a lot about RfA, myself and the project. We all make judgements as part of the process, and hope I've learned from that to make every word count. Things once said cannot be unsaid.

Optional question from Turini2

5. On your user talk page named "Philosophy" User_talk:Paine_Ellsworth/Philosophy you state I used to want to be an admin, but not anymore. and that I've come to view being an admin as a "voluntary demotion". I appreciate some time may have passed since you wrote that - but I'm curious what changed your mind?
A: As for wanting to be an admin, my sponsor Martin changed my mind. As for voluntary demotion, it's called having the mop for good reason. More important than duties or tools, though, is the knowledge that one has earned the trust of the community. Tipped the scales for me.

Optional question from The Night Watch

6. Some of the opposes in your previous RfA focused on how your dispute resolution ability and communication skills. Can you give some examples of how you have changed in regards to your ability to communicate and/or resolve contentious disputes?
A: All boils down to learning how to read WP consensus, and how to convey the reasoning for a decision in a way that other editors will find a common thread for agreement. When the 2nd part does not happen, then I learn. Examples to show how I have been able to learn the art of closing over time are found here, here, here, here and here. First two are RfCs with varied levels of contentiousness; neither closure was contested. After that there are two move requests, both highly contentious. One went uncontested and the other went to move review. The fifth link is to a discussion on my talk page about another move request here. That was one of several talks I've had that did not end with a move review. Hopefully all this shows you that I've shown improvement and am better able to communicate and to help editors resolve their differences.

Optional question from Red-tailed hawk

7. You have made over 244K edits to the English Wikipedia since your joined in 2009, but it hasn't been the only Wikimedia project you've volunteered on—you have made thousands of edits on Wikidata and have served as a filemover on Wikimedia Commons. To what extent has your volunteering on other projects shaped you as an editor on the English Wikipedia?
A: A large extent, very large. I am not really a Wikidata expert in any sense. Just about all those edits were associated somehow with pages on the English Wikipedia. A very few of those edits stemmed from other-language Wikipedias. It was my experience on Commons that led me to the Cat-a-lot gadget, which can also be used on other WPs to include the English WP. Commons work also led me to Meta-Wiki's TemplateScript. Both gadget and script are really good tools that have helped me do so much more in short periods of time! Yes, helping out on other projects has had a net positive effect on my editing on Wikipedia.

Optional question from TROPtastic

8. In an oppose from your previous RfA, a user pointed out your engagement in edit-warring to preserve content that described Native Americans in the past sense, in addition to describing other problematic behaviour and conflicts about Wikipedia policy. I am a firm believer in the capacity for individuals to change and mature over time, so I would like to ask: how have your views and editing behaviours changed since 2015? You say "I said some things that were better left unsaid," but I'd like to know if you are referring to your 2015 RfA or your prior comments that sparked criticism.
A: It would have to be my referring to both my first RfA and my bonehead comments in the title dispute. Certainly did not mean to revert the content of the ceremonial pipe article when I reverted the page move. But that is what happened. To me, the content changes over the previous six years had shown an excellent knowledge of the subject on the part of the involved editors. While the dispute for me was completely over the name of the article, I was wrong to change the content back, and that has made me more careful when I move pages.

Optional question from 0xDeadbeef

9. I realize our only interaction has been on here and here, which were not entirely positive. Without relitigating or talking about the specific disagreement, would you have done or said anything differently? I'm mentioning this since you suggested closing discussions as one of the areas you would like to work on, and I'd want to hear from you about the tone, interpretation of consensus, and consensus building at that specific discussion. More specifically, whether the tone which could give off an impression of "lecturing the newcomer" and the comments starting from Editor Bsherr of longstanding experience, what do you do, giving a lot of weight to editor experience are entirely appropriate.
A: Seeing that again doing my darndest to think of that Ellsworth as someone else, what a bad day at Blackrock that jerk must have been having. That is no way to convince anybody, no way to even talk to somebody. Such a tone cannot succeed, because all one does is make the other person want to be more entrenched, to dig in and be argumentative. Don't know what I was thinking, 0xDeadbeef. Wasn't thinking at all. I'm sorry I bore such a tone. Can do better.

Optional question from JPxG

10. Currently, there are a few opposes; they mention a couple comments made during a move review last year, an answer to a question in the previous RfA, and your answer to some questions on this RfA. Is there anything you would say in response to these?
A:

Discussion

RfAs for this user:

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

RfA/RfB toolbox
Counters
Analysis
Cross-wiki
Support
  1. Support: Seems like a good candidate to me. NASCARfan0548 (alt) ↗ 22:04, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. I had issues with the candidate in the past (and in this particular case I believe they were wrong and I was right), but they decided to take an opportunity to learn from the incident and to improve their behavior, so happy to support.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Leijurv (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Don't see any issues. Demonstrates a clear need for the tools. Willbb234 22:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong support Bumped into them countless times, they are always courteous, always willing to work collaboratively. My unreserved support. — kashmīrī TALK 22:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Based on many years of favorable impressions from this editor. Also, the fact that they were nominated by a very respected longstanding editor means a lot to me. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - At this time, I don't see any reason to oppose. Their old RFA concerned me however this was eight years ago and so moot as of now in my view. I do not see any reason to believe this person will misuse their toolkit, and if they can assist with admin work, I'm happy to support them doing so — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - no issues, very happy with responses to the questions so far. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Welcome! * Pppery * it has begun... 23:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The only possibly contentions that might arise here are with regard to closing, and looking at their talk page they aren't exactly being swamped with complaints Mach61 (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. LGTM. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support. Paine Ellsworth is amazing and is single-handedly one of the most valuable contributors when it comes to shaping our redirect infrastructure. I know I highly value their opinion whenever I see it, and I am sure I am not alone in that regard. Seriously, I'm so glad to see this published. If the tools will help them in any way, then I'm here for it! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support I have only had good impressions of Paine Ellsworth 2's editing. I read through the discussion that Mdewman6 linked and was impressed by PE2's demeanor and temperament. Schazjmd (talk) 23:44, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Schazjmd, you do realize that the user's name is Paine Ellsworth, not Paine Ellsworth 2, and the 2 is because it's their second RfA run, right? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 01:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support after a decade and a half, and a quarter million edits one is bound to have some friction with others. It would worry me if they did not have any difficult interactions. I see a valuable Wikipedian who needs the tools. It worries me that many editors promote candidates who Milquetoasted their way to adminship. I looked over the candidate's many contributions and read through the previous RFA before making my decision. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support a very polite and helpful editor. Lightoil (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Frostly (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Obvious net positive. No red or yellow flags. The opposes are not persuasive. As noted by Lightburst above, if you've got a quarter million edits, you are going to have had a few moments where you were either cranky or rubbed someone the wrong way. We are deciding on whether or not to trust a highly experienced editor with a few extra tools for the good of the community. We are not voting to canonize anyone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Let's do this. Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support LGTM, experienced Wikipedian. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 03:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. You're not already an admin? SWinxy (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The opposes seem pretty weaksauce to me, really. I'm not about to go badger the two fine fellows down in the oppose section, because they're mostly a symptom of the larger problem. An oppose vote should put together a solid argument – evidence that demonstrates a pattern of behavior or serious incident – that casts significant doubt on the candidate's fitness for the tools. If it's just a diff or two that comes off wrong or where the candidate is on the "wrong side" of the discussion, then... meh. That's not really proof – I don't begrudge voters their grudges, but as an argument on the merits of the candidate, it's not convincing and just turns up the temperature. I wish we'd see less of those kinds of votes and more thoughtful discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. I'm now mainly on Commons, a project that is slowly dying from not having enough admins to handle the backlogs, so I'm of the opinion that one mediocre moment shouldn't derail an otherwise fine candidate's RfA. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. This user seems very experienced, what with being in 9 user groups. Mox Eden (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. jp×g🗯️ 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support... Per Lightburst and others with similar opinions. Besides, this editor passes my simple criteria - Courage to take the stand (accept an RfA nom) and they've done it twice. Volten001 ☎ 04:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. LGTM, good response to questions. Dr vulpes (💬 • 📝) 04:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Oppose. PE is a good editor, and has helped me with template edits in the past, but I respectfully must oppose the RfA largely due to comments made in a long move review last year, in particular their views and understanding of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and that the move review itself was procedurally out of line. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds a bit like waiving your fist after the fight. You disagreed with them there and didn't like that he reconsidered. I think that the ability to reconsider makes the difference between a good editor/person and a jolly good one, and PE is a jolly good one. Debresser (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dunno how much strength I give this either. I make closes at AFD, most have been helpful (I believe) with the odd mistake. I think its important that errors are in the minority of actions and fixed without any drama. No admin or editor is going to be error free 100% of the time. We are human. That's why we have the undo button. Most important factor is how someone responds to their errors. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. I was not involved in that move review, but his patronizing, dismissive tone there was eerily similar to the one he expressed in his reply to Q3 in the previous RfA, along the lines of, "I endorse the close because that is how it was closed, and if you disagree with me, you're only doing so to waste my time with an argument, but it's okay, I forgive you, my friend." His answer to this RfA's Q3 is no better: "Editors thought that I had misread consensus". Not "I misread consensus", but rather, editors thought he was wrong, and he "learned his lessons", not "realized his mistakes". It's the equivalent of the classic, "I'm sorry you feel this way" apology. This difficulty he has admitting an error is troubling. No one would have thought any less of him had he answered Turini2's question with, "It was just sour grapes on my part after losing the first RfA. Of course I want to be an admin." Instead, he goes on his usual verbal acrobatics, and wants us to believe that he still sees adminship as a demotion, but goshdarnit, he's grudgingly willing to make this sacrifice if we really insist. Sorry, I don't wish to inflict this demotion on the candidate. Owen× ☎ 23:51, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am unconvinced by the answer to Q5, coupled with User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Philosophy, last updated 31 October 2023. The Q5 answer says: More important than duties or tools, though, is the knowledge that one has earned the trust of the community. and the philosophy says: the best reason for even wanting to be an admin, to show yourself that you have the trust of the Wikipedia community of editors. This probably links to the answer to Q1, which states: If we find that I have earned the trust of our community, which for me is an important reason I'm here, my discussion closures will become more acceptable to editors. I just feel a bit uncomfortable here. starship.paint (RUN) 03:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Starship.paint. I find it hard to trust someone who intends to use that trust as a means to their ends. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General comments
  • What may I have on my user page?
  • A small and proportionate amount of suitable unrelated material
  • A number of users have Wikipedia and sister project content such as (free use) pictures from Wikimedia Commons, favorite Wikipedia articles, or quotations that they like.
  • Pages used for blatant promotion or as a soapbox or battleground for unrelated matters are usually considered outside this criterion. For example: a five-page résumé and advertising for your band will probably be too much, a brief three-sentence summary that you work in field X and have a band named Y will be fine.
  • Editors may not use their userspace to solicit compensation for their Wikipedia contributions.
I see no violation in those comments, which appear to me to be perfectly reasonable musings about the nature of human aggressiveness. Certainly there's nothing there that would disqualify the nominee from becoming an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UP#GOALS seems pretty clear, but I agree it's not disqualifying. This is an area where aggressive enforcement of the letter of the law against good faith editors does not serve any real purpose. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]



More