The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Final (59/84/13); ended (withdrawn by candidate) by — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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 (added: that is, to learn if I've already earned that trust), my discussion closures will become more acceptable to editors (added: only mean that editors are more likely to trust an admin's decision over a non-admin's close). 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: Sometimes understanding comes hard to me. Intend to reread them as much as it takes for me to learn from them. It's not easy to defend a change of mind. "You were with me, now you're not," doesn't appear to fly right with some people, and yet it's embraced by others. So far, 2 + 2 = 3.1. Be glad to talk more about this on the talk page. What would you say in response? Think there are words that would turn their heads? Put aside their premeses and take pity on this poor excuse for an admin candidate?

Optional question from Bon courage

11. Here[1] you argue for using primary sources for biomedical claims, reject the notion that WP:MEDRS represents community consensus and urge for it to "fought tooth and nail". This is from 2015. What is your view of WP:MEDRS today?

A: Came to that article and discussion because I suffer everyday from neuropathic pain. Had my doubts about that medical guideline, but Doc James is a wonderful instructor, so yet another example where my hard head was pierced by powerful logic and reasoning. WP:MEDRS's community consensus turned out to be very good and helpful.

Optional question from Mach61

12. I have seen many instances of a discussion being derailed because a participant used contentious wording, used humor at the wrong time, or said too much, even if they never violated our rules on civility. Do you intend to be more brevitious and, for lack of a better term, stoic in future communications?

A: According to some opposers, it's brevity that's gotten me into trouble. It's being missed that while I keep my closing statements terse, editors are always welcome to bring their misgivings to my talk page, where I can get much more detailed about their concerns. Most of those talks do not lead to my closures being reviewed, and for the last five years all of my reviewed closes have been endorsed. Must be doing something right. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 16:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional question from AndyTheGrump

13. To what extent do you think it is appropriate to allow users with an extensive contribution history a greater degree of tolerance with regards to enforcement of WP:NOTWEBHOST Policy?

A: To no extent do I think policy should be ignored by or for anyone. Policies and guidelines are shaped by community consensus, and if the community does not tolerate something, then it should not be tolerated by any of us. Having said that, I think it's very important that an editor's perceived non-adherence to policy is not being misperceived.

Optional question from Mach61

14. You wake up one day, open Wikipedia, and find that a long and bitter AN/I thread about your conduct has been started. It's not clear yet where the discussion is going, but at least two editors have suggested bringing the case to ArbCom for desysoping. What's your writing process for your first response on the matter?

A: Good morning! After making some coffee and wiping the sleep from my eyes, I would need more detail about this. Am I guilty? innocent? Are the opposing editors respected ones? or are they new editors with a grudge? My first response to the allegations would have to rely on my having more information than you've given. If appropriate, I would present diffs and other evidence to support my innocence. If guilty, then it would be up to the people who are responsible for WP's safety, the admins and the crats, to determine my punishment, which would hopefully fit the crime. And I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you, as I seem to need to improve my communication skills a bit.

Optional question from Danre98

15. In response to Question 13 you said that "it's very important that an editor's perceived non-adherence to policy is not being misperceived," and it seems to me that you are talking about yourself and WP:NOTWEBHOST. If I'm right, how are your userpages being misperceived?

A: Because they're just "think" pages and created for myself, mainly. Never really thought they'd be read by anyone else, so there is no blog intent and certainly no self-aggrandizing intent. We can leave that to our off-WP personal websites. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 17:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Optional questions from CaptainEek

16. What is the origin of your username?

A: It originated as a pen name for many of my efforts to emulate writers. Given name honors Thomas, and the surname was my dad's given name.

17. Your signature used to be "Painius." My first impression is that it was a juvenile attempt to have a signature that says "penis" without actually saying it. But I recognize I might be wrong. What did it mean, and why did you change it?

A: My pen name devolved into Painius at some point while i posted to Usenet many years ago. Couldn't count the times other Usenet posters liked to call me "Painius in the assius". A well-deserved nickname evidently !>) As for its meaning, I just thought it would sound cool at alt.astronomy, sort of a Greek sound to it. Guess I changed it because I grew out of it here on WP. Still use "Painius" on Reddit, though.

Optional question from Robert McClenon

18. What experience do you have in resolving disputes between editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A: As I'm sure you know, disputes between editors take many forms. There are disputes about edits, disagreements about reverted edits, disputes about page titles, disputes about discussion closures and so on. I've mentioned my long-term experience of helping editors resolve page-move disputes, and I've also helped with closure disputes at move review, sometimes closing, sometimes participating. The edit and reverted edit disputes often result in RfCs, and I have helped with a bunch of those over the years, some of them highly contentious. A recent example is here, when I helped editors with their choice among four portraits to use in the article's infobox. Another is here, where I helped editors in a more contentious discussion with their resolution to maintain the status quo. For years I've monitored WP:CR with an eye on the page itself and helping to keep it well-organized, and also to help with other kinds of contentious disputes such as page mergers, RfD discussions and anything else that I can help with. Thank you for your question! And I sincerely hope that this helps you to see "the whole me" that is Paine Ellsworth just as my supporters have been able to see as strongly depicted in their rationales.

Optional question from Beyond My Ken

19. Given the state of the voting, what is your rationale for not withdrawing your nomination? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A: Good question. I have no plausible rationale for not withdrawing other than I promised myself after withdrawing from my first RfA that I would try to stick it out at all costs. Before I read your Q19, I made a withdrawal statement on the talk page. Again thank you all and please, please, please know that you have done the right thing. Happy Holidays! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Links for Paine Ellsworth: Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Paine Ellsworth can be found here.

---

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

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]

   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]

   Reaffirming my support and echoing North8000 – Paine is unlikely to misuse the tools IMO. Of course, I realise there are areas that Paine may consider for working on, e.g., sometimes he seems to take too lightly other editors' views, arguments and work (sort of – Oh, you guys have failed to reach consensus? Too bad, try harder next time, and anyway your discussion means little in the grand scheme of things), which, not unexpectedly, may cause resentment. Other than that, I think Paine knows very well how Wikipedia works and what policies apply to various situations (sure, occasional mistakes do happen to everyone). I don't care about userspace essays, all fairly innocent if weird. All in all, I'll be comfortable with Paine having the mop. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC) Unable to support after their Talk comment.[reply]

5. Support will be a net-positive to the project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. 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]

   Support (Currently neutral in light of concerns raised by others, will re-evaluate in time) I have now decided to withdraw my vote entirely. I no longer support, and I do not wish to add to the pile on of oppose. - 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]

7. Support - no issues, very happy with responses to the questions so far. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 22:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Welcome! * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Support. LGTM. Moving to neutral for now. This did indeed look good to me, but with the uptick of opposes, I'll strike this and look deeper if possible. Moved to oppose Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 23:30, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

9. 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]

   I'm not as strong support of a support as I once was when I first wrote this. I do feel a bit bad for Paine Ellsworth that they are being characterized as they are (anyone who has worked with them closely wouldn't agree they're that bad at communication), but some of the other stuff that has come up has made me less enthusiastic about this RFA than I initially was. I still support, but yeah... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:50, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support I have only had good impressions of Paine Ellsworth's 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]

    I do now. I was glancing at the URL to make sure I spelled the name correctly and didn't twig to the number not being part of the name. Schazjmd (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

11. 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]
12. Support a very polite and helpful editor. Lightoil (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, of course. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
14. Frostly (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15. 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]

    Let's do this. Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving to neutral. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Support LGTM, experienced Wikipedian. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 03:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Moved to oppose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodraxis (talk • contribs) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16. Support. You're not already an admin? SWinxy (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
17. 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]
18. Support. This user seems very experienced, what with being in 9 user groups. Mox Eden (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19. jp×g🗯️ 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20. 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]
21. Support. LGTM, good response to questions. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Experienced and humble user. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
23. Yup.—S Marshall T/C 07:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Long term user has been around since 2009 ,net positive.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
25. Easy support for me; I've known and collaborated with Paine too often and long to feign concern for his motives, competence, or clue. Anyone vetting this candidacy that does not clearly conclude a net positive result needs to seriously check their own motives and/or vetting skills. Paine makes a good case for tool useage in stating his interest in histmerges; an in-need-task he is well suited to perform. And, by the way, Paine has earned my trust too.--John Cline (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a gentle reminder about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: it's possible for those opposing to hold a different opinion and still be acting in good faith. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

26. Strong Support - Trusted User, ability to make an enwiki admin. 😊~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)
27. Support Yes. Lectonar (talk) 11:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support: Ad Orientem took the words out of my mouth. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 13:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Not a jerk, Has a clue Nagol0929 (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Only done good work that I have seen. Terasail^[✉️] 13:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support - I see no issues here and don't find the oppose reasonings super compelling. Good luck! ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 14:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
32. I supported the candidate previously (although with, admittedly, much more vigor), and I am happy to support him again. Although I do understand opponents' complaints about communication styles, I do think these seem to be misunderstandings rather than a major faux pas on the candidate's fault. As Ad Orientem said above, with the volume of requested moves in which Paine has participated, it inevitably would be very hard to appease everyone. I also acknowledge the NOTWEBHOST concerns, but these are quite irrelevant to me, since (1) we give wide latitude to experienced users for userspace pages; (2) these pages merely express his viewpoints and not his competence. All in all, Paine looks like an okay candidate to me; he is not perfect, but no one is. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Ivan (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - filled to brim with undying dedication, hard work, experience - I believe in you! Brat Forelli🦊 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support - perhaps moral at this point, but all the same. I'm not convinced by the opposes enough to join them, but PE should consider them carefully. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support; no one can be perfect, and Paine seems to show willing to learn from previous mistakes that they've made; I see nothing that would suggest them misusing the bit. Darling ☔ (talk · contribs) 18:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support - yeah, shit at communicating, but we can fix that with some mentoring. Is having no administrator better than having Paine as an admin - probably not. Nick (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38. Whether PE would be a good admin or not is a moot point now, but I want to do my part to emphasize that PE is a devoted and appreciated editor, and I'd like them to stick around. I hate when RFAs that don't pass end up being demoralizing (either meaner than necessary, or unfortunate but necessary, I don't know, but RFA sure seems relentlessly mean), and end up discouraging good editors from sticking around. p.s. Your user page is fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support His answer to Q10 isn't very good but as he said, he is pretty prolific at closing move requests and they have all been endorsed, so he will likely be a net positive in this area. He has also moved 4,840 pages. The userpages can be deleted if necessary. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support No reason to think this user would abuse the tools. I am unconvinced by the opposers --rogerd (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support without reservation, and with confidence that this editor will handle the mop well. BD2412 T 04:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
42. Strong support I've known Paine onwiki for a while, and I very much appreciate their drive to help editors where they can (they often are responding to template edit requests), their willingness to close tough discussions with clear-headed closes, and their general attitude of kindness and compassion towards others. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support on similar grounds to Ad Orientem and Leek. I've hoped for a successful rerun for a bit, which it doesn't look drastically likely will be the case here, but. I don't think the oppose concerns outweigh the significant net positive potential of having (amongst other things) more active histmerging admins. Vaticidalprophet 05:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support I'm not personally familiar with the candidate, however, I have a low-bar criteria for adminship (track record of content creation, experience with permissions-requested tools, good AfD percentage, no recent blocks, and generally congenial attitude) and the candidate easily meets it. Chetsford (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Mostly per Johnbod. I've seen Paine Ellsworth around for a long while and always had a positive impression. While I agree that some of the diffs provided by the oppose !votes are troubling, I think PE's vast other contributions outweigh those concerns.--RegentsPark (comment) 14:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
46. Paine, I hope you see that even among the opposers that many people value you and your contributions and I hope that you dont allow this experience to serve as some sort of rejection of your worth to this place. You are very obviously Team Wikipedia, and I hope that you continue to be so even after having people point out what they see as flaws. This place can be forgetful of how it may feel to put yourself in this position of running for RFA, how isolating it can be to see the tally of opposers increasing, so from one human to another, I value you and your judgment and I hope you dont let this process take away any of the enthusiasm youve had for being a part of this project. nableezy - 15:07, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you, guy, yes it's all good. Learned a lot about m'self here, and if the community sez no then it's no. Won't love WP any less for it. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 15:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

47. Paine, You have my thanks and I could not say it any better than Nableezy. Bruxton (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Notes in 4 areas: 1. I like their propensity for self-analysis / self-review which a good way to navigate, evolve and resolve any issues. 2. More broad wiki experience means more history of working in areas that got tough. Unfortunately, RFA has become biased towards "no such tough experience" and that may be happening at this RFA. 3. I like their direct communication style, although it would need some more polish and focus/coherence for some situations. 4. Many of the opposes referred to (and were thus based on) an oppose post which criticized seeking admin as an indicator of trust with it's resultant effects. IMO the latter is a reality and a good one, and an accurate observation, not a bad indicator.North8000 (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - nobody's perfect, and we shouldn't hold people to expectations we wouldn't hold ourselves to. Candidate doesn't seem to be a bad person, has a clue, giving tools won't destroy the project. Plus all the criticism, the candidate will've learned some valuable lessons about adminship and I see no reason why they would abuse their tools. In other words: why not? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
50. The answer to my second question has given me optimism that this person understands that they need to change their ways a bit. Mach61 (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
51. I trust that they understand the substance of the oppose votes below. — Fox 22:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support - In all my interactions with Pain, he was always polite, patient and knowledgeable. He has contributed enormously to the project. Making him an admin would be a clear net positive. Vpab15 (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
54. Moral support this may not succeed, but I just wanted to say that I personally always had pleasant interactions with the candidate, and I suspect they would learn quickly and throw themselves at the task with gusto. Andre🚐 02:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
55. Will be a help. J947 ‡ ^edits 02:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. It is clear that the candidate isn't going to pass this measure of trust at this time. I can concede several points made by opposers, but IMHO this candidate would be a Net Positive as an admin. I also see no reason why the candidate couldn't return for another measurement some day. BusterD (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
57. Moral support - Impressed with how PE is taking all this in good humour with no excusing or recriminations. Good indication of character, certainly far beyond my limitations. Ceoil (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I opposed, but +1. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 05:18, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

58. Exactly as Ceoil said. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
59. For what it's worth. I had a good impression of them when we were discussing improvements to the {{Redirect category shell}} (at Template talk:Redirect category shell#Restarting discussion on automatically sensing wikidata redirects). I felt they were patient and had a good temperament. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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]

   Bizarrely, in their answer to Q10 responding to opposes like mine, candidate states: Think there are words that would turn their heads? Put aside their [premises] and take pity on this poor excuse for an admin candidate? This too is unconvincing. starship.paint (RUN) 06:41, 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]
5. Oppose. I think the underlying problem here is poor communication. That explains the unfortunate comments involving Native Americans discussed at the previous RfA. It explains why OwenX perceives a patronizing, dismissive tone here, which I'm sure isn't what Paine intended. And it explains the problems I've seen over the years with poorly explained closures. (I remember being really surprised by Paine's comments here that he doesn't like to explain his closures in detail because it opens him up to claims of supervoting: as another user responded, if an editor gets regularly accused of supervoting, then they should probably either fundamentally reconsider how they close or just stop closing, not stop providing closing statements.) I have other concerns too, for instance a very considerable number of userspace pages that seem to violate WP:NOTWEBHOST, but communication is the big issue for me. I don't doubt Paine's good faith, but the ability to communicate effectively is vital for administrators, and sysops without that skill will run into serious problems down the road. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Thank you, Extraordinary Writ! That exchange about the Fatima page was an eye-opener. Owen× ☎ 13:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose largely per Extraordinary Writ and answer to my Q9. I was hoping that the concerns about their communication style could be resolved with my Q, but instead I got an apology it seems. I was looking for a more reflective evaluation of how the consensus building process at that specific discussion turned out, but it appears to be hand-waving and not addressing the question itself. Detaching yourself from a conflict and saying that you learned from it without actually talking about what you've learned, especially whilst you are a candidate at RfA, is not it. Sorry. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 06:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Coming back here because I noticed something on his user talk page that should be worth some eyeballs: For now I shall likely remain a non-admin caught between two worlds... the world of the admins, which means I'm expected not to close controversial discussions (which I sometimes do, sometimes don't), and the world of less experienced editors who don't want me to close the "easy" discussions (which I also sometimes do, sometimes don't), and save those for them. If it's in the backlog, then it's fair game! That's.. not how closing discussions work. NACs happen all the time, and is not restricted to non-controversial closes. Going from the top of my head, many of the large RFCs we have had on this project were closed by non-admins (or a panel of closers containing non-admins).

   The problems with this message is two-fold: 1. It misrepresents the closing process as a game of getting more authority, jumping through the ranks to close discussions (you don't get to close because of your "experience on this project" or being a sysop), and reinforces the view that Wikipedia is a hierarchy of editors (it's not) 2. Shows a lack in self-reflection from controversial closes (if I read this correctly, the subtext is literally "If I became an admin I will have more authority to execute controversial closes", which gives me a lot of unease for their suitability as an admin primarily interested in closing discussions) 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 14:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose poor communication skills, what seems to me like a tendency to explain away all incidents as other people just misunderstanding you than any real personal fault, and a somewhat concerning amount of NOTWEBHOST vio in userspace. AryKun (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, this bit in particular ("What would you say in response? Think there are words that would turn their heads? Put aside their premeses [sic] and take pity on this poor excuse for an admin candidate?") is very unimpressive to me, even if it was just meant as humor. AryKun (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose mostly per Extraordinary Writ. Looking at the previous RfA and the responses in this one, they do not seem to have strong enough communication skills for adminship. DrowssapSMM 11:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. Regretful oppose. PE's dedication, general competence, and good intentions are much appreciated. And I'm not concerned by the specifics of any dust-up 8 years ago (preceeding the unsuccessful 1st RFA). But unfortunately in the links above, there continues a pattern of weird miscommunication that PE explains away as being misunderstood, not wording things clearly, being crunched for time. Always with mea culpa apologies and recognition of a learning experience, but the pattern (occasionally) repeating. Now, we are all fallible and admins are not expected to be perfect. But coupled with their answer to Q1 it makes me disquiet, a sense of "I'd like the sysop bit since then my closes would stick better even if I somehow don't manage to explain them as well as I should." The rest of their question answers have not overcome this disquiet. I guess a lot of my reasoning is therefore similar to Extraordinary Writ's. Martinp (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose Completely bizarre communication—"What would you say in response?", etc—is either so opaque as to be completely uninformative or a curious attempt at humor. Combined with e.g. "that is no longer popular, so I try not to do that anymore", I don't see a lot of self-criticism in the candidate. Let alone all that user page stuff. WP:NOTBLOG applies in spades. User: Paine Ellsworth/on Cosmology? /Grateful? /Evolution? With the greatest mental gymnastics in the world, none of that relates to Wikipedia. It doesn't even mention Wikipedia. It does, however express regret at being unable to stick "I approve this message" into mainspace. On the whole, while their dedication to the project is clearly secioond to none, it comes across as being too emotionally involved. Prone to wing it on the grounds of what their 'philosophy' suggests rather than what P&G dictates. Combined with already odd communicativeness? ——Serial 13:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose I appreciate the occasional helping of, ahem, eccentric userspace subpages as much as the next guy. But not in candidates for adminship. Dr. Duh 🩺 (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose mostly per Extraordinary Writ. It's clear that Paine is a good editor, a net worth for the project and has the necessary skills and knowledge required. Their communication, however, seems subpar as what I would expect from an administrator. Nobody (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose mainly per Starship.paint, Martinp, and Extraordinary Writ. Adminship gives users a considerable amount of power in editing, so it shouldn't be used just as a sign of respect or for convenience during disputes; however, those seem to be the only reasons why Paine Ellsworth wants to become an admin. Also, to expand on the point Extraordinary Writ makes about PE's user philosophy subpages, all of the pages are opinion pieces about topics other than Wikipedia or editing it, and some contain considerable amounts of speculation presented as fact (see PE's page on "life energy essence" as an example). In one of these pages, there is also clear political commentary. Although I'm sure that PE has been making this material with good intentions, it does not demonstrate that PE fully understands Wikipedia's focus as a neutral encyclopedia, which may be a problem for new editors who do not notice content issues with PE's subpages, and who therefore think that they can add similar content to their user spaces; it also does not indicate that PE is ready for adminship. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 13:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
14. Opppose In Q4, PE says "I said some things that were better left unsaid". However, in this diff PE said "(Native Americans committed quite a bit of that genocide thingy themselves, no? both against whites and other red men, no?) Those wars are long over, so why do you keep fighting them?". I frankly find that more than just something "better left unsaid" and expect an admin to have a better grasp of how wrong that diff is and that it goes well beyond "better left unsaid". I would have expected PE to at the very least say that they have reflected on their attitude and know that it's not suited to an admin and that they have changed their views. Added to that is the condescending note I'm getting from their communication as well as a patronizing I-know-best tone and I'm going to have to think that adminship isn't a good fit for this editor. I agree with Extraordinary Writ here about communication being a big concern, so I must oppose. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
15. Reluctant oppose. While it is recognised that the candidate is very much a net prolific positive to the project, there are too many small 'red flags' for me to support giving mop powers (including some unconvincing answers, communication skills, and the philosophies in the user pages). ResonantDis_tortion 13:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose I don't recall having come across this editor before. I don't know what happened years ago, and don't care to find out. I haven't read the previous RfA comments. I'm going mostly by the start of the answer to Q1: hope I'm not completely misinterpreting it, but to me it sounds like "when I'm not an admin, I have to explain my actions, but if I become an admin, I won't need to". The thought of someone wielding the mop with relative impunity, unwilling or unable to explain why they're doing what they're doing, is a dreadful prospect. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose per all of the above. The ideosyncratic rambling manifesto masquerading as user pages convince me that the candidate lacks the understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia, the judgement and the temperament to be given a mop. Banks Irk (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose largely per ExtraordinaryWit and Ealdgyth's example. While I haven't dealt with PE as far as I can recall, communication is a big deal here (especially for an admin). I'm not reassured by what I'm seeing from the candidate. Intothatdarkness 14:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose Discussion closures should be acceptable before becoming an admin. If they are regarded as controversial or unacceptable now, that's a problem. It isn't that becoming an admin makes them more acceptable. In truth, admins aren't supposed to be regarded as superior to the normal editor. Noah, AA^Talk 14:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose On communication, per Banks Irk and Starship.paint (and answer to Q5 - I wished to know why they changed their mind, not who changed it). On judgement - as per DoubleGrazing - this bit of Q1 seems a red flag to me - 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. Surely the mop doesn't make someone's discussion closures more acceptable - your actions should demonstrate the acceptability of the closures.Turini2 (talk) 14:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose: The answer to Q10 (a great opportunity of a question) is very disappointing. I don't believe, at this point in time, that they have the temperament or communication skills that we're looking for in an admin. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose I agree with all above. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose per the answer to my question (Q4). The previous RfA failed for very serious reasons, not just a few "things that were better left unsaid". While it was 8 years ago, the candidate has also had 8 years to reflect on this feedback and carefully consider how to respond. Instead they wrote this: User talk:Paine Ellsworth/The Racist. Also, assuming that more recent comments are more indicative of the candidate's attitude going forward, the power-hungry answer to Q1 is very troubling. People who think that having the bit means they are less likely to be questioned are exactly the sort of people that the RfA process should weed out. – bradv 15:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose - Like anyone, I come to an RfA with a first impression based on past experiences. If I have a lot of experience with the candidate, that can be enough for me to support or oppose on its own. Sometimes I have no impression at all, having occupied entirely different parts of the project. Still other times, as here, I do have an impression but it's based on only a small amount of experience. In such cases I try to suspend my own impression temporarily to review other opinions/contributions. There can be no doubt that Paine is a dedicated contributor, but here I find that my concerns, which could be categorized in the words others have used as "communication issues", are more supported than not. Though I appreciate not everyone has had this experience in my limited exposure to PE I've found him to be downright antagonistic. It's not just that we haven't agreed on much -- I wouldn't be opposing for that, having supported many candidates I've disagreed with many times -- but his style of disagreement is, from what I've seen, completely incompatible with what we expect in an admin. For the sake of providing a diff, I'll link to what I think is the first time I came across the name, with this memorable contribution to the MfD over the infamous SignPost "pronoun humor" column a few years back, in which Paine started by mocking "the weak and the timid". It's this kind of unnecessary antagonism that I've seen in subsequent contributions, too. Maybe what I've been exposed to isn't representative, but seeing other concerns over communication tells me it's a concern worth opposing over. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per the above, but primarily per starship.paint, Extraordinary Writ, and Rhododendrites. I agree with the communication concerns that have been raised above. Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose largely pert Extraordinary Writ's rationale, but also Starship.paint's rationale. While the userspace pages aren't as big a deal for me, the other concerns are, as well as the answer to Q10. - Aoidh (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose I would have been happy to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't believe the candidate has shown that they can communicate clearly. Their answers to questions here are difficult to parse, with meanings far too subject to personal interpretation. This is not a trait which lends itself to adminiship. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose I very rarely participate in RfAs, but feel it necessary to do so here, given the issues already raised. Paine Ellsworth may be well intentioned, and a decent enough contributor to article content, but it seems evident to me that he lacks the communication skills and judgement necessary for the mop. The question I asked above might well be regarded as loaded (it was), but I'd expect a better response than that given. Admins need to enforce policy, and doing so properly requires more than a statement that rules have to be followed, but only if they are actually being broken. We need evidence that admin candidates are capable of looking at specific policy, and then expanding on how they think they should be applied. We don't necessarily have to agree with what they say - a lot of what admins do comes down to interpretation of policy, combined with judgement calls - but at minimum we should expect some sort of explanation how they come to their conclusion, when asked. From what else had been written above, this seems to be a recurring issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
29. Regretful Oppose. I like Paine Ellsworth and think nine times out of ten he would be fine with the tools. However, the repose to my question did not assuage my concerns about communication, and participation in RM and other discussion-based venues needs exemplary communication skills when you intend to close very contentious threads. If he cited closing minor discussions as somewhat of a 'side gig' the rather than as a primary focus of requesting adminship I would have been more likely to support. A big shame considering he is a seasoned contributor, but coming from someone who is quite terse by Wikipedia's standards, I don't think the communication is up to what the community expects. The Night Watch (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose per bradv and Extraordinary Writ. I'm concerned by the perspectives expressed by the candidate regarding discussion closure and superclosures. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose The answer to question four is frankly unacceptable. The only response the nominee has given for his statements amounts to "I'm sorry if you were offended" and "it was all a big misunderstanding". No acknowledgement or apology, just a simple pure dismissal. This reflects very poorly on the nominee's judgement. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. It’s all a bit ‘humble’. Someone pops up to nominate on their behalf, the comments from others about consensus also concern me. Consensus trolling is a massive issue on Wikipedia. I am not commenting on the user under review, but on Wikipedia admin in general: Reverting good changes and demanding the editor who made the content get others to agree to the changes does not an admin maketh. The user can’t do this because they’re not an admin so there are limits on them. Limits which look to be appropriate in this case. Manboobies (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose The inability to give a clear and concise answer to any of the questions is an immediate no for me, aside from the other issues pointed out by Bradv and EW. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 18:29, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - sorry, but too many concerns raised. GiantSnowman 19:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose per the answer to the first question, this is a good user overall from what I've seen but this makes me very concerned that they want to deflect criticism by becoming an admin. Alextejthompson (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 20:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose with regret per Praxidicae and Freedom4U. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 20:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose- There's a few reasons here. Firstly, I found the issues that Starship.paint raised very convincing- while adminship may be no big deal, I'd rather not have editors trying to become admins because they think it will make the community trust them more. That's the wrong order- we should always strive to make editors admins because we trust them, not the other way around. Similarly, I also find myself having to agree with the issues raised by other editors about PE's response to question 10. In an RFA where one of the major issues seems to be around the communication style of the candidate, responding to a question about that issue with a few cliches and vague promises to talk about the issue somewhere else (why not here, on the page, to people who are clearly asking?) does not seem like it was a well though through idea. I'm not going to accuse our candidate of trying to obscure their answers or complicate the issue- it seems to me, based on their behaviour here and in previously linked edits, that this is the way they prefer to communicate. Unfortunately, I see this style of "ask me somewhere else" and vagueness as incompatible with adminship- somewhere where we, as a community, expect the utmost transparency. Finally, there's the issue of their userpage essays. While I wouldn't oppose based only on the fact that somebody has made several pages of off-topic WP:UPNOT musings about life, death, and musings that would fall under WP:FRINGE if they were hosted in the mainspace, it's what happened next that is really giving me pause. When these issues have brought up on this very RFA(comments section), PE has responded by saying: Think it's really important to think things through, thoroughly. That's all those writings are for – they help me think, maybe even help others think. Anyway, I'm honored that you and others have read that, OwenX. Thank you, thank you very much!. There's really two different ways I could take this- assuming good faith, I could assume that when PE says their userspace pages about considering the Moon to be a planet and whatever "Life Energy Essence" is, that they actually believe that by thinking about these topics, other editors will be helped to edit Wikipedia. Assuming less good faith, well, I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of anybody using their userpage in an attempt to promote their fringe beliefs, and I believe this comment could be seen as evidence of PE doing just that. Either way, I'm also very uncomfortable about the idea of a potential admin, when challenged about their conduct, instead of explaining their reasoning or entering a discussion about why they feel it's appropriate, responding they're happy that their essays have gotten more exposure. This not behaviour that makes me think "admin." I'm sorry- RFA is a rough time, and I comment PE for putting themselves through such an arduous process for a second time. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose, mainly per the concerns others have raised about communication, which is a vital trait for any admin. The userspace content is a much more minor concern — it looks to me to be borderline WP:NOTWEBHOST, which (as others have argued) is a nearly victimless piece of guidance to violate, but the candidate's choice to do so gives me slight pause about their judgement. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose due to concerns over their communication style, which is very important to being an admin. Their answers to the questions are also too brief and vague to give me enough to go on.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
40. moved to Oppose from support; NOTWEBHOST-related concerns and the answer to 0xDeadbeef's question is subpar, IMHO, and does not address past issues effectively enough. ~ Prodraxis (Merry Christmas!) 22:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose - Definitely agree with the comments about writing skills and communication. I think this editor is doing some great work, but think it's still too soon to reapply. Ternera (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It may be noted here that the last RfA was eight years ago and the candidate is 73 years old. jp×g🗯️ 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Someone here suggested the candidate's poor communication skills could be "fixed with some mentoring". I think at some point one needs to accept the fact that if it didn't happen in the first 73 years of his life, it's just not gonna happen. Owen× ☎ 23:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think mentioning the candidate's age here is a bit insensitive, and would suggest striking. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sensitive to such, NL, and I recently turned 74, so I guess it's even harder to teach this old dog new tricks!>) OwenX is right, and yet I still keep on larnin'. Go figger. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

42. Oppose. I do think this user has good faith, and they have significant contributions here, but the communication could use some spicing up and improvement.NoobThreePointOh (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose - I have not encountered this user previously, and they seem to have done good work as an editor, but I see some serious red flags as far as becoming an admin. In their answer to the first question, they said "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". Wanting validation that they've earned community trust, and feeling like they have gained some kind of greater "authority" to close discussions, are two very poor reasons to want to become an admin. The bizarre and occasionally fringey ramblings on their user pages are not a showstopper, but don't help convince me that this is a level-headed person who can be trusted to wield the bit. CodeTalker (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose. I'm sorry, but I have to agree with most of the concerns that were mentioned above. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 23:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose. Was going to sit this out as I don't have much experience with the editor but their responses within this RfA make it clear that communication as an admin will be a problem. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose. Answer to Q10 is, frankly, unacceptable. Fermiboson (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
47. While I am not innocent from poor wording, I do think that an administrator should have very clear wording. I think that he might be trying to use too many references but slipped up on them, e.g. 1+1=3.1 in Q10. But anyways, I had to reread his answers to questions to get the gist of what he was trying to say (and even then I'm not 100% certain I read it right). ✶Mitch199811✶ 00:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose I hate to bring more negativity to the party, but ... um ... those user-space essays are on the level of touting the healing energy of crystals. They make me wonder whether I could trust the author's judgment in any dispute that involves evaluating what mainstream scientific consensus is or what counts as a reliable source on a science topic. They're anti-content creation. In some ways, they're worse than a contentious take about this or that guideline or some instances of disputable conduct. They're at odds with something much more fundamental: the goal of a fact-based encyclopedia. Can editors with all sorts of eccentricities contribute here? Sure. Can I, in good conscience, endorse giving additional responsibilities, influence, and even perceived authority to an editor who has gone all in for non-science wrapped up in scientific jargon? I've thought for quite a while about it, and I just can't. XOR'easter (talk) 00:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose This isn't an oppose I really want to make, because I do value the nominee as an editor, and have seen their work. I am fully confident they would not misuse the tools themselves, and that they probably have a fairly good use for them. I'm not entirely concerned by the userspace essays, nor do I usually particularly care what someone puts in their userspace as long as it isn't a blatant attack. However, I cannot find myself moving past their statement in the first sentence of Q1, where they state 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'm not entirely sure how that was meant, but how it comes off is that the editor either is stating they would change how they close discussions solely because they have the mop, which is problematic because how they close discussions when they are given the mop should be how they close discussions after being given the mop. The other possibility is that the editor is stating they want the mop for the social credibility, which I suppose isn't the worst reason I've heard for wanting the mop, but it's not exactly a good reason either. All this isn't even to mention the concerns raised in other opposition about their communication with others. In all, though, I regretfully cannot find myself supporting the candidate based on these problems, despite how much I may respect them personally in their capacity as an editor. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rest your mind ER97, because I fully understand your misgivings and those of others here. What I meant by that first sentence is just that it's important to me to know that I've earned the community's trust. Not that I hope to earn it, but that I've already earned it, which would be born out by an RfA. While I have earned the trust of many editors over the years, it appears that there are other editors who haven't gotten there yet. Greatly appreciate your and their kind words in all this, and I shall try to continue to improve myself and to improve WP. And I still think that you and other opposers are wonderful and discerning editors and people! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 18:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

50. I oppose with regret and contend that Ellsworth might have gotten the order wrong. I posit that it would make much more sense if they (or anyone, really) first make their discussion closures more acceptable before standing for adminship. The fact that Ellsworth argued in Q1 that they should get the mop first before sorting out this sticking point fails to convince me of their worthiness for adminship. I encourage them to continue to contribute with the tools that already have - and be sure to write more palatable closure statements - before running again at a time they deem fit. Silcox (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. Looks to me like the candidate is a positive contributor to the project and has a lot to offer, but per Extraordinary Writ I think poor communication is the problem here. They have had an opportunity to explain and address past concerns and contentious situations, but their responses to questions are unhelpful (I had difficulty understanding them at times) and seem dismissive of legitimate concerns. Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. Per Q1 paragraph 1. I consider PE to be a long-term overly-bold closer who leans too far to supervoting, both in his own closes and in approving others’ supervotes. In Q1 P1, he reveals that he believes that in passing this RfA he will have more authority with this practice. I feel the need to register my disapproval of his closing style, and I do not approve him gaining the admin’s privilege of admin discretion (imposing an arbitrary close to stop wasting time, which is similar but different to supervoting).
    Now, if instead, PE were to step back from closing contentious discussions, and seek to help as suggested in Q1 P2 and P3 instead, I would be supporting. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose per above. Concerns with answers to questions and communication skills -Fastily 06:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose - Communication issues and to a far lesser degree WP:NOTBLOG.--Catlemur (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose, regretfully. As others have said, clearly a net positive here. But despite a good perspective voiced at User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Philosophy#On personal racism, the statement I said some things that were better left unsaid doesn't show me that the issues raised in the previous RFA have meaningfully changed. Q8 was another chance to demonstrate true learning and growth, but I just don't see it. Retswerb (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose I am not really too familiar with this editor, so I can't say anything based on personal experience. It seems that as an editor, their value to the project is beyond doubt. And I note they're also the moderator of two subreddits ... good for them; I honestly prefer being an admin here to being a Reddit moderator, at least in terms of the abuse you take. I would normally consider that a strong plus for support. However I see several problems with giving them the tools.

    The voluminous statements of personal opinion, amply noted and linked above, are not per se problematic for me, but they do open up the possibility of admin actions being reasonably second-guessed as non-neutral due to the positions expressed there. I recall Tamzin's RfA, where she drew a lot of opposes despite support at the levels that usually accompany near-unanimity just because of one statement she made. Yes, she has in my opinion shown those concerns to be meritless ... but here, with a lot more material to work with, can we truly say we didn't have any idea this could happen if/when it does? How many needless discussion threads are we setting ourselves up for?

    What bothers me more about those position pages is that they show a preference for equivocation. See, for instance, this now extremely relevant discussion: It starts "I used to want to be an admin, but not anymore. It is called a "promotion" by some. I've come to view being an admin as a 'voluntary demotion'". OK, fine, perhaps the candidate's views have changed since they wrote that. It would be nice to know. Especially since the very next graf starts "To be honest, I do view being an admin as very important", which leads in to the oft-discussed statement here that the nice thing about being an admin is that it shows that you have the community's trust, which is why, they say above, they want to be an admin.

    Again, I wouldn't be so bothered by that statement if I didn't see the same kind of determined equivocation in the much more current responses to the questions above, to the point that as noted, the candidate's answer to Q10 strains to make sense.

    There is nothing wrong with this sort of intellectual flexibility and willingness to see both sides; indeed we have swiftly rejected past admin candidates who have not demonstrated it, sometimes defiantly so. But one can err as well by going too far in the other direction, especially when it seems to betray an underlying desire to have everyone like you. Administrative decisions and actions require as much an ability to communicate resolve and finality on them as they do a willingness to revisit them if other trusted members of the community persuade you to; I am concerned that as an admin Paine would not be able to do the former effectively enough to not open just about every decision they make up to second-guessing.

    Lastly there is this RfA itself. If it is a question of community trust, the current spread of !votes indicates unambiguously that it is lacking. I know we have had them, but I cannot recall an RfA where the candidate was this deep in the hole this many days into the RfA, where the opposes mounted so quickly, where some supports became opposes, and had not withdrawn it. So the greatest reason for my oppose is to express to Paine that it is really time—well past time, actually—to withdraw this nomination. You and the community gain nothing from letting this continue. Daniel Case (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

57. Oppose Question 1, Answer 1 implies that the user is currently closing things in an unacceptable manner, and is seeking to be an admin in order to compel other users to accept it. Closes should already be acceptable to Wikipedians, admin or not, so it indicates a potential issue that adminship would not solve. One doesn't need to be an admin to close discussions in a proper, acceptable manner, so if that's the basis behind the request, it would appear to be flawed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose Sorry, I don't like doing pile-on opposes, but there are just far too many red flags raised by those above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:52, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose - I'm seeing a lot of long-standing and unaddressed issues and concerns as brought out by those above. --ARoseWolf 19:11, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose - No confidence. Carrite (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose per Extraordinary Writ. Their answer to question 1 is worrying, but maybe they just didn't fully get their feelings across, and the answer came out funny, or the phrasing came out badly. But then in that case there's even more obviously a communication problem. Cremastra (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
62. Weak oppose. I initally !voted support, but with the uptick in opposes, I unfortunately find myself here. While I deeply appreciate Paine's non-admin work and hope that this RfA does not sour their views on that (as has happened before), I unfortuanately see issues in communication (as is key for WP:ADMINACCT) and the whole "adminship for validity in my closes" rubs me the wrong way, as admins are not above other editors. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 22:00, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose starship.paint and Extraordinary Writ summarize it. Shellwood (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose - variety of reasons. Regarding the user pages, we've always given established users more leeway and I don't have an issue in their existence, but their content raised my eyebrow several times. Combine that with the additional issues highlighted in various opposes above. There isn't any one single oppose captures my concerns but parts of many cover all the points that lead me here. Seddon ^talk 23:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose - sarcasm and condescension are undesirable traits in an admin. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose due to communication issues and answers to the questions stated above by the other editors --Lenticel ^(talk) 03:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose per all of the above. Despite being a trusted editor, their communication issues and others are the things that they should improve, rather than continue said issues. – 64andtim ^(talk) 03:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose I didn't intend to vote in this RfA. However, it's become clear it won't pass. The candidate's failure to withdraw is just wasting community time at this point and it causes me to view him negatively. (t · c) buidhe 05:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose they are an admirable editor, but similar to starship.paint, I can't support the first line of the first question being 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.. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose I'm sadly going to come down on the oppose side, mostly in response to the addendum to Answer #1: only mean that editors are more likely to trust an admin's decision over a non-admin's close. Trust is earned by a pattern of faithfully executing the WP:PAG, not by flashing a badge. If anything, I expect that the actions I perform as an admin will be held to higher standards and greater scrutiny than those I perform sans mop. The first sentence of A1 talks about validation. I'm not sure that's a great justification for wanting a mop (it's more of a barnstar thing), but I get it. Expecting the mop to somehow imbue your arguments with additional weight, not so much. RoySmith (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose. So many reasons - in no particular order: (1) his failure to withdraw, (2) his communication skills - some of things he says are so convoluted I can't even understand them; (3) his infamous Philosophy page - I know I don't have to read it, but it's hard to blot out of my mind now that I have - Wikipedia is not a venue for writing one's soul-baring memoirs; and (4) the "Gratitude" section on the RfA Talk page where he literally begs editors to support him ("there is still time for you to do me a big favor? Please reread my supporters' rationales, think it over, and hopefully you'll find reason to approve of me").--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
72. Moved from neutral; didn't want to, but this tone-deaf comment on RfA talk broke the camel's back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose Special:Diff/1189966581/1190008463 has finally motivated me to comment. stwalkerster (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose. I usually don't bother with RfA anymore, but the philosophy page on top of the answers to the questions on top of that new diff just screams of terrible communication. This isn't a "come back in six months" deal either, this is a fundamental incompatibility with this user and adminship. Wizardman 18:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose lack of judgment, including letting someone talk him into this terrible RfA - nominations like this come with very poor consequences. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:38, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose per the lapse in judgement on talk page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose per concerns raised by others about communication skills and the comment on the RfA talk page. ^Complex/_Rational 22:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose Job 1 here is content creation. Maybe not for admins but for people growing into that role. What articles has this super active editor spearheaded? His response: "Of all the edits I've made, redirect categorization has rewarded me the most." --Smokefoot (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose due to concerns about temperament, judgement, and overall maturity. Poor communication is also, unfortunately, evident. Patient Zero^talk 22:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose largely based on the poor communication skills and lack of judgement. I think it's also worth noting that 40% of the articles they created have later been deleted and they've only participated in 43 AfD, which is more than some but not a lot. TipsyElephant (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TipsyElephant On a quick look, I think the "articles" deleted are predominantly redirects overwritten when the article was moved on top of them, or similar. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

81. Many reasons above have been listed to oppose Paine Ellsworth's candidacy, but to provide my own: Having Lourdes listed as an "Awesome Editor" on their user page. Even before it was discovered that Lourdes was desysopped and banned for being a sockpuppet, they were not an admin whom I would want anyone emulating or otherwise giving any sort of admiration to. Acalamari 03:43, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
82. Oppose. This overly long drawn-out RfA is making it clearer and clearer that the candidate lacks the maturity needed for an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:31, 16 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
83. Oppose per the diff presented by stwalkerster demonstrating an inability to self-reflect; the plea for reconsideration on the part of the now-majority who have opposed rather than taking in the criticism offered combined with a stated "philosophy" wanting to be trusted by the community does not give me the trustworthiness in them that they expressly desire. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  06:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose Overall a net contributor and I hope this RfA doesn't discourage editor from staying active, but too many concerns about communication and how it relates to trust as a form of currency. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Moved to oppose because this tone-deaf comment on RfA talk broke the camel's back. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. I want to fully support this candidacy. The candidate gave decent reasons to want adminship and has a good general comportment, as well as a long history of positive contributions. In my off-site experience, I've found that a new role that comes with menial responsibilities can still be worth doing, so recognizing the "janitor-like" (gnome-like?) aspects of adminship isn't a demerit in my eyes. The candidate also showed a willingness to admit to past mistakes and outline future approaches for Q8. Some of their user space contributions are unusual, but there's no indication that they have negatively impacted the candidate's recent work or the project as a whole. In addition, I am impressed by their essays on improving the environment for Wikipedia editors and users.
   However, what holds me back is a few instances where communication and understanding of consensus could be better. For situations where there are disagreements on page moves (such as a move review), Paine Ellsworth should pay special attention to positions endorsed by a clear majority (ie. a rough consensus). This should happen even if the candidate respects an established closer who is endorsing a lone viewpoint, or if a purely procedural approach would remove the need for a MR. Better explanations of closures would also reduce the number of moves that go to review only to be endorsed.
   Most importantly, I would like to see a direct response to Q9 that explains how the candidate would act differently if a similar situation came up. Q10 is open-ended, so it's an opportunity to address criticisms directly or clarify the candidate's positions. Those would be "words that would turn [the] heads" of current Oppose votes, or at least fence-sitters like me.
   I would be happy to re-evaluate my vote if the candidate expands on or adds to their answers to Q9 and Q10. TROPtastic (talk) 08:19, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutral. I've seen Paine periodically around the RM space, and from what I've seen there, I generally trust their policy knowledge and ability to read consensus. However, when reviewing the questions and links discussed in this RfA thus far, there have definitely been some instances of poor communication that have given me pause. For instance, in the In Between MRV, it took several messages for the candidate to clearly explain the rationale behind their !vote; I'm seeing a similar lack of clarity in the current response to Q10. Per WP:ADMINACCT, one of the responsibilities of admins is to be able to explain their actions when requested, and the candidate's record doesn't give me enough confidence that they'll be able to meet that responsibility effectively. (I ended up devoting most of this message to criticism, I realize, but there's a reason I stuck with "Neutral" rather than opposing; I still do believe that the candidate has a good understanding of policy, and if they continue to work on their communication skills I think they could become a strong addition to the admin corps.) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not sure. ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
4. (Moved from "support".) I've edited alongside Paine for years, and have always considered them a net positive to Wikipedia. However, the communication issues regarding closing discussions has made me unfortunately pause and think for a bit. Administrators have to be able to explain virtually every action they take, and the approach above sounds more like a "I got the privilege, so my actions must be right" claim, which is unrealistic since it's human nature to sometimes be fallible. And ... I'm surprised I never noticed this aspect of Paine until now. Stinks I have to take a step back from this RFA given I know Paine is a net positive for Wikipedia, but I'm not sure if that would extend to the role of administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral might move to oppose. Paine is clearly experienced and is a valuable member, but something feels off, particularly the answers to the questions that I read (I did not read Q10 because it was asked after I gave this RfA a serious look) and the philosophy userpages (regardless of personal thoughts, the WP:NOTAWEBHOST were quite convincing). Although WP needs more sysops, can't in good faith support his RFA but I will still extend the best of luck to him. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 00:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral - I don't really know where I stand with this, I don't think I have enough good evidence to support or oppose. So, therefore, I stand neutral for now. -- ThatOneWolf (^Chat_Edits 00:55, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
7. I want to support this candidate, but some of the answers they have given are exceptionally poor. Particularly, the answer to Q10 (the proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card) is just baffling. I'm not familiar with their move reviews and other closures, but good communication skills – particularly the combination of brevity and substantive argument – is very important for an admin, and the candidate is not displaying that here. Curbon7 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral I'm genuinely flummoxed by many of the replies to the questions - a capacity to give clear, reasoned responses is a crucial element to WP:ADMINACCT, it's transversal across all mop work. I'm here, rather than oppose, as a measure of the candidate's good faith intentions, but regretably, those intentions are not enough given the other factors to carry me over to support. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
9. I won't oppose because it wouod be gratuitous at this point but also because I don't think PE wouod be an awful, terrible admin. But the nomination statement suggests they want adminship for the status more than because they would make good use of the tools. Also, they're not open enough about discussing their closes from what I see here; if you close contentious discussions you should expect to take some flak for it and welcome opportunities to clarify because the point of closure is often to provide a way to progress the discussion. While they probably wouldn't be a net negative as an admin, it feels like we would be setting ourselves up for unnecessary drama. None of which is to say that PE is a bad Wikipedian; on the contrary, they're more use to the community doing what they're already doing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neutral, mostly to note that in my opinion, Paine Ellsworth answered my question satisfactorily. I do agree with others wrt communication, and especially agree with the last sentence of HJ Mitchell's comment above. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral - I have read sound arguments in favor of the candidate and sound arguments against the candidate, and I am not ready at this time to !vote Support or Oppose. I don't know whether I will do enough research and study to come to a conclusion, but I probably will not, so that leaves me here in the Neutral zone. I am not playing American football and so do not expect to be called for offside. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
12. Neutral. While I don't think this candidate would be an absolute disaster as an administrator, I think there is enough cause for concern that I would not be able to support either. Of particular concern to me is ...my discussion closures will become more acceptable to editors. First, that's an unrealistic expectation—please believe me, editors are very willing to argue over a close whether it's done by an admin or not, and I've experienced that personally plenty of times. The acceptable thing to do, in that case, is be ready to clearly explain why you made the decision you did. On a tough call, you cannot please everyone, and some people may very well still think you got it wrong; you can't please everyone. But at least they will hopefully feel better knowing that your decision was not arbitrary, and was based upon a careful reading of the discussion, even if they remain unhappy with the ultimate outcome. That, not a set of admin tools, is what makes a close acceptable, specifically when it is based upon careful, thoughtful reading and analysis, and the closer is willing to, within reason, explain how they came to that decision. So, I hope that this candidate will take some of this feedback on board, and come back after demonstrating that they have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
13. Neutral till I understand the opposes better ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 05:15, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I decided to take a cursory glance through the users recent history. There are recent statements the candidate has made in their user space in the past few weeks that even when taken in context, definitely gave me a moment to pause. The very posting of this kind of content on Wikipedia in their userspace to me feels like an unwise move. There are potentially parallels between the views expressed in the candidates user space and the concerns that were raised at their previous RfA. Ultimately though the question shouldn't really be whether people take issue with the candidates personal views. But whether the candidate is capable, competent and has the ability to put personal views to one side and apply policy in a neutral way. This was effectively the core question in the previous RfA. It's the same question this RfA needs to answer. Seddon ^talk 00:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read through the linked comments in the candidate's user space, and while the first topic 'Rumors of war' would be a bit problematic if it was the only comment posted in the user space, the context of the other comment on the same page (and comments elsewhere in the user space) seems to suggest a nuanced view. I do agree that one of the main traits of a good admin is the ability to set aside personal views and apply policy objectively, so I will put most of my weight on the candidate's answers to questions within this RfA. TROPtastic (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not anyone agrees with the candidate's personal views, using Wikipedia to host various personal philosophy pages seems to violate the spirit of WP:NOTWEBHOST. Very little of the material on these pages is specific to Wikipedia, or could plausibly be used to help other editors collaborate with the candidate. On the other hand, live and let live. I don't think these pages are doing any harm. If expressing these thoughts in their own userspace makes the candidate more likely to contribute productively to Wikipedia, I don't see a major issue. —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:35, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:UPYES:

• 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]

• When I saw the RFA notification, I recognized Paine Ellsworth's name, but I haven't really interacted with them sufficiently to be able to state a coherent opinion and haven't yet had the time to do proper research. A cursory search brings up an admin-related interaction in a RM at Talk:Prime (disambiguation)#Should Prime be a WP:D page (Prime (disambiguation)), or be a redirect to Prime number? where I remember thinking how an interesting discussion was cut off with a decision of no consensus after just a week (and I didn't even get a chance to follow up on it because I didn't put in my watchlist, wasn't paying close attention, and nobody pinged me). I am of two minds here as sometimes we don't have enough admins volunteering to keep processes moving without getting backlogged, so maybe this is actually better than the alternative. Anyway, carry on with this interesting discussion. :) --Joy (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not too concerned about the copious WP:UPNOT violations. Someone who spends most of his free time editing WP would naturally see his User page as an online home of sorts, and decorate it as such. Having 13 userspace pages describing one's philosophy is tolerable for someone who has a quarter million edits to his name, I think. I am, however, worried about some of the content I see there. In his missive on life energy essence, for example, he claims to have found a fifth fundamental force of nature at the atomic level heretofore unknown to science, but "soon to be discovered". To be clear, I don't think his personal, non-scientific views would affect his editorial or administrative work here. I doubt this would turn into another Ed Poor saga. But it's not a good look for a prolific editor, let alone an admin, to come across as a science-denier or a kook. Readers look to Wikipedia for a bastion of sanity and verifiable knowledge, and this feels like a blemish. Owen× ☎ 13:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh. They aren't making substantial contributions in mainspace as is. Mach61 (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Think it's really important to think things through, thoroughly. That's all those writings are for – they help me think, maybe even help others think. Anyway, I'm honored that you and others have read that, OwenX. Thank you, thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 14:13, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On the topic of WP:UPNOT, pardon me if I rant a little here. And if you don't pardon me, at least direct your angst towards me and don't hold it against our candidate. Come on people, get a life. This is the kind of stupid crap that gives WP:RfA a bad reputation. I took a look at his user space[2][3]. Most of this is totally legitimate encyclopedia business. And the little bits of it that aren't, are totally harmless. The point of UPNOT is to keep people from using WMF resources to run their businesses, promote their fringe ideas, avoid having to pay for their own cloud storage, or host material that violates the WP:TOS. The material in question here falls squarely into WP:USERESSAY territory. There may be other reasons to object to the candidate, but objecting to little bits of fluff in their userspace is absurd. This project is run by humans and the kind of stuff people are complaining about here is what makes us human. If we want the project to be run by automatons, we know where to find them. RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm puzzled by the assertion that "I believe this editor and prospective admin is currently violating a guideline" is not a fair basis on which to base an oppose. Such users may be mistaken - as you assert in this particular instance. However, as a concept "is this editor following or not following a guideline right now" feels at least fair as "will this editor follow the expectations of an administrator" which is the other category of opposes in this RfA. I personally find it unpleasant anytime I have to speak negatively about a person who has worked hard to improve free knowledge (which as an arb I have volunteered to be forced to do) and witnessing such comments is also unpleasant even if one agrees with the concerns. So for me rather than saying "you don't get to have this (guideline based) oppose reason" if we want to improve the reputation of RfA, I think we instead need to find consensus for another selection format. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm struggling to see how this, this or this are "totally legitimate encyclopedia business". They are obviously not, and we have WP:UPNOT - one of our guidelines - that suggests this isn't something people should have. Admins don't get a free pass from any other policies or guidelines, so why do we think we should make an exception here? Although I personally don't think it's enough to oppose a candidate on its own, it will be a question mark for many, or the final straw while making their decision. It's not difficult: if you want to run for RfA, get your house in order first and ensure you're abiding by some of the basics. (And if you disagree with WP:UPNOT, take it to RFC to drop it or change it). - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The first one, User:Paine_Ellsworth/on_Cosmology looks very much like a WP:FAKEARTICLE to me, despite the disclaimer. Even if misinformed ramblings on such subjects were generally permitted in user space (which is open to debate, to say the least), formatting them as an article in that manner is deceptive - and if the intention to deceive wasn't there, it demonstrates extremely poor judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To editors AndyTheGrump and SchroCat: wasn't going to say anything, but I would like to point out that I use the standard WP disclaimer. I'm just another volunteer editor like ya'll. Those pages are just "think" pages meant to help me with my thoughts. Never thought they would ever be read by anyone else, so they're not bloggish nor are they meant to build me up into something I'm not. So I humbly ask you to do me a favor. Please reread some of the support rationales. My supporters are able to see the whole entire me that is Paine Ellsworth. Really do think I would be a helpful and trustworthy admin, and I would so greatly appreciate it if you would just take another look at my supporters' words. Then maybe reconsider? Thank you for your time and trouble! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 10:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't !voted, but if I decide to, it won't be because of the rationales of others, but based on your answers to the questions. (I have already read your supporters comments, and they are all full of praise for you as an editor, but that's a different thing to being good as an admin). - SchroCat (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my answers to the questions are up to par, then. They seem to be for my full-of-praise supporters, don't they? I truly do think I would be a good and trustworthy admin, but that's just me. I could be wrong. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 11:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• RoySmith, I couldn't agree more with you. Thanks for writing this up. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Something is messed up in the support section, counting starts over after 17. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And fixed by Bradv. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As a supporter, it pains me to write this, but we have now passed the halfway mark and support has dropped below 40%. While I dislike cutting discussions short, there is just no possibility that this is going to pass. Perhaps it's time to lower the curtain. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I second this. Can we have an early closure to this discussion which has a forgone conclusion? – robertsky (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Paine has already withdrawn, so I guess we're just waiting for this to be formalised. - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bureaucrats: ——Serial 12:45, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.