User:Paine Ellsworth/RfA 2

My first RfA went live on 6 October 2015 – 2nd went live on 12 December 2023. This page will house the oppose rationales that are not repeats.

Cited questions

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.

3(1st RfA). 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(1st RfA): Yes, in the course of my presence here I have several times been in conflict with other editors who felt that my edits were not improvements (or with vandals, some of whom were persistent). It is common in this environment for two or more people with only the improvement of Wikipedia in mind to disagree and lock horns. Civility rules. Since this is a form of volunteer work, and since I have grown to really like Wikipedia, I've endured little actual stress in those cases. I dealt with it by presenting my views, by listening to the views of other editors and by practicing forgiveness. At times my edits prevailed and other times they didn't, and all these instances were learning experiences in some way or another. It's the (rare) unwarranted personal attacks one must watch out for. Whatever happens one cannot take those too seriously, because most often they are just people trying to push your buttons and manipulate you. Those times when you do take button pushers seriously, then some time off is warranted and a very good idea. I feel it's important to listen carefully when others disagree with me. That's what can turn conflict and attempts at manipulation into consensus and improvement.

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.

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.

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.

Oppose

1. Oppose. PE is a good editor, and has helped me with template edits in the past, but I respectfully must oppose the RfA largely due to comments made in a long move review last year, in particular their views and understanding of WP:NOGOODOPTIONS, and that the move review itself was procedurally out of line. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)