Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (15/16/12); Scheduled to end 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Paine Ellsworth (talk · contribs) – I bring before the community User:Paine Ellsworth. A tireless, caring, and dedicated Wikipedian. Paine has been an editor for over 6 years now and has racked up a whopping 88,039 edits to his name! He has been trusted with Template Editor rights since 2013 and is very skilled at improving templates. I've encountered Paine many times when editing and categorizing redirects and sought his help and expertise on these matters. Paine is civil, and being a writer in RL, his grasp of English makes him an excellent communicator. His dedication to improving Wikipedia shines through on his lengthy workpage. His userboxes show varied interests including Astronomy, Electronics, Human Prehistory and Space Exploration! Paine Ellsworth is a helpful and pleasant individual. But above all else, he can be trusted with the tools, and that's what really matters. Because we need more admins, and quality, long-term, dedicated, and intelligent editors that actually WANT to be admins are hard to come by these days. Paine is all these things and more. œ^™ 14:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had been considering Paine for a while as an excellent prospective candidate and while revisiting the matter again this morning, OlEnglish left the RfA notice on his talk page. I take that as a good sign that more than one of the admin corps have reached this decision. I find that Paine is level-headed, mature and calm which are all traits that we look for in our admins. He is a very adept editor and I feel that he will be an adept admin if given the chance. It is clear that he is dedicated to the project and will serve it well if given the mop.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

I greatly appreciate both your supportive comments above. With highest regards I hope that I may live up to them as a project administrator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2 October 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

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

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I would like to start small and learn as I go; however from what I've read, starting too small might not be an option. "Backlogs" and near-backlogs will be what pretty much drives my editing. I've worked on several, am working on some now and will find others to work on for which the tools of an admin are needed. It's "behind the scenes", which defines nearly all of my edits. I've spent a lot of time with redirect categorization, so I'll learn more about closing deletion discussions, especially at RfD and other discussion pages. And I'll check for fully protected edit requests to decrease the backlog and to work to keep the numbers from climbing again.

I've learned from my supporters that there are other areas, such as PRODs and CSDs, where I could have been doing more work as a non-admin. While I am definitely for the creation of good pages/articles on Wikipedia and the deletion of the bad things, these generally are not areas in which I've made a great deal of edits. That may change as I steep myself into Twinkle and its helpful tools.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I've created articles, redirects, disambiguation pages, categories, an essay or two; the two articles I would call "best" are that for different reasons. The George Claghorn article I started from a red link in the Old Ironsides article, and very few other editors have contributed to it. On the other hand, James F. Thomson (philosopher) I began as a redirect and, through the efforts of several other editors, it has blossomed into a fine, still growing article. Some editors moan about how their improvements become squished over time by other editors. I see that in a different light: I make improvements and other editors come along and build on my work. That's the real beauty of this encyclopedia!

Just recently I completed a long-term project, of which I am way too personally proud. I updated all the redirect category (rcat) templates and their documentation, and I brought both rcat indices completely up to date. Again, this was very much out of public view, and I did appreciate the barnstar or two I received along the way.

I've used AWB to edit, and I do recognize its usefulness and that of bots under certain conditions; however, better still are those manual edits I've made. It is only while editing manually that one can be led to a sometimes long string of several articles/pages that need to be improved, pages that are missed by non-manual editing. 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. They've made me 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 contributions pages are a history of how we've evolved as editors.

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, 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.

Additional question from Beyond My Ken

4. To what would you attribute the fact that 16 of the 51 articles you created have been deleted?

A: As can be seen by visiting that tools link you provided, several of the deletions were to make way for page moves, some had been redirects the targets of which had been deleted (housekeeping), and some were the result of community consensus to delete. In the "community consensus to delete" category there are several redirects from other languages to the Main Page that were needed when I created them, but due to software improvements they became unnecessary and were deleted. There were one or two with which I mildly disagree. Thank you for your question! Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  22:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional questions from Mww113

I recognize that this is quite a bit, but I feel I must ask them before I can make a fully informed decision to support or oppose. I hope your answers to these questions may help those in the neutral column to make a decision, and will inform people who might be inclined to pile on in any column. Thank you for your time. Mww113 (talk) 04:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. While some of the diffs provided in the oppose section do seem to be taken out of context, there are some that seem to be based on legitimate concerns. Particularly the first 3 diffs concerning the use of the term "red men" [1], the comment about Native Americans saying "they should realize that they are Americans first and Natives second" [2], and your use of the following: "GregJackP – you would like me to disappear from here, much like the old ex-Europeans wanted Native Americans to just "go somewhere else"? [3]" in a content dispute. Do you understand why some editors may find these comments offensive or objectionable? Would you be willing to apologize for any of those statements? And if you could go back in time knowing what you know now, would you still make those statements?

A: Mww113, I don't know if I can answer your questions in a way that would deserve and bring forth your trust in me, but I shall try, and hopefully not step on my tongue too much. In response to your thanks, it's a pleasure! 5a) Yes, I do understand why some editors may find those comments offensive or objectionable. 5b) Yes, I do apologize because I did not mean to offend anyone, and my "last words" on that subject can be found here and here. 5c) If I could go back in time? We can never take back what has been said; however, if I could go back in time, I would try even harder to keep my focus on the only issue that should have been discussed: the title/page-move dispute. That was the only issue that should have been on everyone's mind.

6. Recognizing that single diffs do not always tell the whole story, do you feel that there is any context or set of circumstances that would mitigate the seemingly problematic comments you've made?

A: Yes, I do. For one thing, after I archived the discussion on my talk page, another editor and friend pinged me and assured me that the discussion did not change that editor's mind about me nor would it alter the opinion of any of my other friends and fellow contributors. For another, while I realize that some of my comments may have been better left unsaid, I look at the reason and logic found in the words of my nominators and supporters. They seem to know that I can learn from my mistakes, and whether I succeed or not, I intend to do just that, that is, I intend to continue to learn from my errors.

7. Could you please explain why you removed the following from your talk page? [4]

A: As I stated in my edit summary, the discussion was dishonorable, dishonorable to all parties concerned, so I archived it and left this statement in its place.

8. You made the following statement on your talk page prior to its removal, "it's very difficult for me to be "racist" when NA blood flows through my veins, dear one." Do you believe it is possible for a person to make racist and/or offensive comments about a racial or ethnic group of which they are a member?

A: Sure, yes, and within that context no "slur" is meant nor taken. To clarify, if a person calls another person of the same race a "  (insert racial slur here)   " (a word that has been used as a slur by persons of a different race), it is treated as just another word. Of course if a person of a different race should use that same word, it sometimes (not always) elicits a negative reaction.

9. Given the recent nature of this conflict (August 2015), how would you assure the community that this incident does not reflect how you would behave if you were promoted?

A: With gratitude for the rationales of those who have so far supported me, I would have to point out that "racism", or just the topic of "race" itself, is a volatile subject. It's one of what I call the "big four": religion, politics, sex and race. That was one of the first things we were taught when I joined the Peace Corps back in '73. Those four subjects were taboo; they were not to be discussed under any circumstances with the local population – not ever. It is difficult to form an intellectual response to anyone who changes the subject to one of race. In the discussion you cite above, in that conflict, I did my best to remain calm and civil to other editors, and I honestly feel that I succeeded to some degree. Whether or not I use the admin tools, I will do my best to behave wisely. Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  12:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional question from Ottawahitech

10. When i look up your Pages Created I see 14. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness · (Deleted) 2013-08-19. Can you please explain how this came about since Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is an article which was created by user:Ed Poor on October 01 2003.

Can I interrupt here to point out that Paine's creation was a redirect to '... happiness' as Ed Poor's article was then titled. That then got moved to '... Happiness' with the capital, with Paine's redirect deleted in the process. Peridon (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A:

• 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 his contributions before commenting.

1. Support I have worked with Paine in several areas, primarily concerning redirects, and have always found him or her courteous, sensible, willing to listen and appreciative. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Easy support: helpful, trustworthy, courteous. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support - Highly active, trustworthy long term editor in good standing who has contributed much to the project. Reviewing the links provided, the first oppose and the ensuing ones appear to be fairly exaggerated, hyperbolic assessments based entirely around one heated conflict that the opposers found themselves in with the candidate. It seems unfair if not deceptive, given the candidates breadth of experience and involvement here; no effort is made to even attempt to demonstrate that it's a problematic behavioral pattern with this editor but instead less-than-ideal language and unpopular opinions are being twisted and exaggerated into flimsy accusations of racist motivations that seem unlikely and inflammatory given the editor's own self-identification of being partially Native American themselves. Not going to oppose based on one incident, though it seems people are gladly piling on anyway. Swarm ♠ 22:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. SUPPORT (in ALL CAPS!! mainly per Juliancolton's neutral.): Paine seems competent, and it appears that, per Swarm's reasoning, one of the main reasons for the oppose was due to one bad interaction. It is unfortunate to see oppose votes that are vengeful. These diffs show one bad incident out of many other, good interactions that Paine has no doubt had. Epic Genius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support per Swarm: I too recognize a grossly exaggerated "oppose" rationale when I see one and can read the diffs for myself. Those oppose voters should reconsider their misguided attempt to start pile-on opposition of this well-qualified, good-natured and mild-mannered candidate. Grudge votes are never pretty, and these appear to be particularly ugly. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support. Paine Ellsworth is fully qualified. Blatantly vindictive oppose votes are typical of what brings the RfA process into disrepute and keeps candidates away. The totally exaggerated oppose theme is highly reminiscent of a sysop's attempt to derail my own RfA. The problem then, as it is now, is that later voters take it on face value without doing any research and simply pile on. I researched. I followed all the diffs. I see nothing particularly egregious in what is essentially a storm in a pipe bowl and I'm saddened to see a sysop at the root of it. AFAICS it's basically that typical Internet syndrome in which people deliberately look under every stone to see if they can find a cause to yammer abut being offended. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Vindictive is a strong word, I read those same diffs and I see a valid point by those opposing based on them. What is worse this users response to complaints about the issue are a separate cause for concern. Trying to belittle other people's rational by accusing them of being vindictive or "piling on" is a poor debating practice. HighInBC 04:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7. Tentative Support – (moved from neutral) As brought up by Athomeinkobe in the neutral section, the first oppose by CorbieVreccan, which has been the crux of pile-on oppose shenanigans, was posted 7 minutes after the RfA was transcluded. This means the response was either crafted long in advance anticipating the candidate would seek adminship, or they were edit stalking (which is not in and of itself a bad thing) and pre-emptively created their response to—in my opinion—shut down the RfA as fast as possible. This seems very much like a personal vendetta after the two users butted heads and I certainly agree with Kudpung and Dirtlawyer1 in their statements calling the comments "vindictive". The analysis is inherently subjective and should not be used as a point of opposition without additional analysis beyond what is put forth on this page. I don't expect admin candidates to be perfect, we're all human. Editors will get into heated arguments at times and say things that rub people the wrong way. We're all guilty of it. Beyond the incidents involving CorbieVreccan, I don't see any major issues from this long-tenured editor that says they'll abuse the tools. Of course, I will be checking back to read the candidate's responses to the currently open questions as well as other ones put forth down the line. But as it stands I'm comfortable supporting. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Hi Cyclonebiskit :) So you think being prepared to protect the 'pedia is a bad thing?

   When dealing with persistently disruptive editors (and this was not "one" incident, it was a series of quite a few incidents over an approximately three week period of time), yes, I start saving diffs and making notes because it is probable that there will be further issues with the person in the future. If the person takes the group feedback and changes their approach, Yay! I don't need the writeup and it sits on my hard drive. But if they start in with it again, or stand for RfA when I know they are unsuitable, yes, I've got some notes.

   The general RfA page is on my watchlist, as is Paine's talk page as we have recently interacted. So when he posted the RfA several days ago, I saw his name pop up in the recent edits to the RfA page. I came over and read this page. It was not yet transcluded, but it was here. I went over the diffs again, and looked over Paine's recent activity, and the answers he'd already posted here; I thought it through and did a writeup. When it showed as live in my watchlist I came and posted my comment.

   I realize there are many, many editors on WP who do not care about him making racial insults. But Paine also misrepresented consensus, refused to recognize consensus, and did the non-admin equivalent of wheel-warring: reverting admins against consensus because he was the sole person who didn't like a decision. These are all policy violations. I was taught to provide diffs for these things, and I did. I hope people will look at them before making a decision. I don't say or do these things lightly or rashly. Best. - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8. Support per Swarm. One heated interaction and its accompanying sarcastic comments doesn't indicate a willingness to abuse the admin tools in my opinon. clpo13_(talk) 06:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per Dirtlawyer1 and Swarm HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Very Strong Support Obviously a great editor and has more than enough experience. We need more admins like him. Supdiop (T🔹C) 09:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Tentative Support It's unfortunate this RFA has been derailed by what is an apparent and recent content dispute with the first opposer. Reading the diffs provided, and taken as a single incident in a six year Wikipedia editing career, I see insufficient reason to oppose and lots of good reasons to support. If candidate has made poor choices of words in a heated disagreement, well, welcome to the club. If this process fails, I'd expect this otherwise qualified candidate to learn from the feedback given here and return after six months or a year. I'm awaiting responses to the questions posted by Mww113 above. BusterD (talk) 09:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support Looks like they will manage fine. The gripes in the oppose section below don't hold any water with me - that sort of stuff about one incident will not prevent them from doing the job properly, and as we all know, we need more admins. Rcsprinter¹²³ (spill beans) 10:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support per Swarm. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support as nominator. -- œ^™ 14:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. If one single move dispute can cause so many people to vote oppose, no wonder there are too few admins on Wikipedia. sst✈ 15:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. Strong Oppose - Ellsworth has a history of incivility and racial insensitivity (calling Native Americans, "red men":[5], telling Natives that "they should realize that they are Americans first and Natives second", that "full blooded" Native Americans are "long dead" and Natives now should "[rise] above the old ways"[6], as well as joking(?) about the genocide of other users' ancestors:[7].)
   I have seen him repeatedly misrepresent policy:[8][9][10][11]. My main experience of this user was on the Ceremonial pipe article, where Ellsworth edit-warred with admins and other experienced Wikipedians to repeatedly move a page against consensus, because he "liked the ring of"[12] an antiquated, colonial, and culturally-inappropriate article name: Page moves: [13][14]. Whole discussion here. Ellsworth also disrespected talk page etiquette, inserting his comments out of order into other discussions, throwing off the chronology, and reverted other editors who reconfigured for readability. When editors experienced with Native articles attempted to discuss his edit-warring with him, he doubled-down on the racial insults, comparing his losing a content dispute to the genocide of Native Americans:[15]. I don't know if he thought this was funny or what, but those sorts of racial insults do not belong on the 'pedia, and someone who behaves that way should not be an admin. He also attempted to hide these conflicts with, and warnings by, other editors by deleting the discussions from his talk page[16] with insulting edit summaries:[17]. While current WP consensus holds that individuals can remove things from their talk pages, this was again inflammatory behaviour and trying to avoid consequences for his disruptive behaviour.
   Paine has been repeatedly warned for disruptive editing, edit-warring, and racism. He repeatedly inserted content in the encyclopedia that describes Native Americans solely in the past tense,[18][19][20] which disappears contemporary Native peoples and cultures. He has edit-warred to preserve this racially insensitive content. His edits have focused on privileging outsider, colonial terms for Natives, Native sacred objects and ceremonies, and asserting that Natives only exist in the past and are best described by non-Natives.
   Initially I assumed it was just ignorance of Native issues. Then with the "red men" incident[21] it became clear he was either trying to be inflammatory, or is so out of touch with Indian country that he should be topic-banned from any page having to do with Indigenous people. See the state of his talk page[22] before he deleted it all:[23].
   It's problematic enough when regular users behave this way. Wikipedia has a systemic bias issue, and many non-white editors do not stay after dealing with treatment like this. We have been trying to increase racial diversity on WP, and I've seen editors leave after witnessing this stuff. For Ellsworth to have the extra buttons... I believe he would wheel war, bulldoze inexperienced users, and harm the community, as well as the reputation of the community. I do not trust Ellsworth's assessment of, or representation of, policy. I've found his demeanor of insults, followed by aggressively cheerful declarations, to be condescending and insulting, especially around racial issues. Wikipedia is not only for white people. I don't like having to do this but after what I've seen of his behaviour I am horrified at the idea of him being an admin. - CorbieV^☊☼ 20:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   CorbieV, I am very sorry that you continue to carry the burden of these feelings. And so much so that you would bring them to this process in such a powerful manner. I tend to see what happened in a very different light: You moved the page to an unsuitable title, then I reverted the move. Another editor again moved the article to an unsuitable title, then I again reverted the move. You did the right thing at that time and opened a move request. Your suggested move was again to the unsuitable title. As a result of my challenge and the help of other editors, the page was ultimately moved to a suitable title, and I am fairly sure that all editors in the RM discussion were satisfied with the final outcome, to include myself. Yes, there were some accusations and evident bad faith expressed; however, I do not remember any experience of incivility on your part in the discussion on the article's talk page. Since our viewpoints about that discussion are so out of phase, we will both have to leave it to others who read it to make up their own minds. Again, I am sad that you feel the way you do, and if there is anything I can do to make you feel better, then please let me know. Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  20:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Paine, you are doing yourself no favors by describing people's objections as based in feelings rather that accepting that they have reasons. It gives the appearance that they are acting on their emotions when that is not the case. There will be opposes, you may not agree with them but they are valid, nonetheless. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree with you, Liz, I do have some tendency to relate what a person does to their "feelings" about the matter. However, that is a strong word, I should only use it sparingly if at all. Thank you for helping me to realize this weakness. I have many of those that I continue to try to strengthen. Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  22:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. OPPOSE - I hate vague answers on Q3. Give me substance, give specifics--who did you have disputes with? how were they resolved? what did you learn from it? how specifically did you change your behaviors or tactics that led to the dispute? If you want to give a meaningless answer to the question, like yours above, you essentially ignore the meaning of the question. Apparently, CorbieVreccan has specific issues with your conduct, and alleges you haven't changed. JackTheVicar (talk) 20:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   JackTheVicar, it appears that CorvieV's unfortunate bad feelings are beginning to result in the "snow oppose" I've read about. I did not want my Q3 response to become tl;dr, and I realized that I would ultimately have to answer for my past conflicts here in this section. In that particular conflict I learned that there are still other editors, to include some admins, who will put aside the sensible policies and guidelines of this project, which often leads to incivilty. I'm sure you've probably already discovered the extended discussion that was brought to my user talk page for all my friends to see. Do you not find it interesting that such behavior did not lead to any editors taking any other editors to task before the community? I did not take them to task because to me, there is little that is more important than to forgive people for calling me names and falsely accusing me of hideous behavior. I still wonder why, if the other editors involved felt and feel so strongly about how "bad" they thought I was, then why didn't I have to face a community discussion at ANI or some other venue. Why wait until now, this moment to reopen a healing wound? Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  21:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Paine Ellsworth You gave a bland philosophical answer to Q3. You still don't offer much to it even in your comments above. I asked four specific questions concerning Q3 that you should really reflect on and answer. It's not a matter of TL;DR, as we see with Corvie's comments (which I use only as an example that there was an incident, maybe one of a few, that you could have explored and reflected on...if you don't get specific your enemies will, and then they control the message). We all get into arguments, the key is whether there are substantive lessons learned. I like seeing the learning curve in a candidate and thus is precisely what Q3 seeks to examine because an admin needs to exhibit a circumspect reflection on the ramifications of their actions and the dynamics of conflict--a big picture view that informs the resolution. For instance, attributing someone's issues to "feelings" can be dismissive, a glib way to avoid dealing with the real issues in the thick of it. You change the dynamics of a conflict by casting such judgments. You are a very skilled and talented contributor. I admire your record of contributions. I'd reconsider my vote if you gave a non-philosophical specific analysis of lessons learned and what your path forward has been post-conflicts. JackTheVicar (talk) 11:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right, and I'm wrong – about everything. Sometimes you know what the right thing is, and you don't do it anyway. It's like your mind is out there in la-la land somewhere. I will answer your questions, all of them. At present, I'm exhausted and I hope you don't mind if I get a little rest. And thank you for your kind words! I will come back to your questions. Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  12:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Again, Paine, you avoid looking at your policy violations to repeatedly focus on "feelings." Either your hurt feelings, or the feelings you mistakenly assume others have. As I have stressed to you before, repeatedly, I don't think you are perceiving these interactions accurately, or representing them accurately. Especially when you try to derail policy issues to again accuse others of feeling or thinking things that are incorrect and irrelevant. This is a serious problem in any Wikipedian who deals with other users, but absolutely unacceptable in an admin. - CorbieV^☊☼ 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose Per CorbieVreccan. We should have little tolerance for racial insensitivity, especially when it comes to admins. RO^(talk) 20:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. STRONG OPPOSE Per CorbieVreccan. Paine also reverted me [24] on the same article as CorbieVreccan and I see that as part of a pattern of how Paine dealt with this particular content dispute. Later, Paine said "I took no action against the other editors" as if that were a noteworthy ethical decision[25]. I don't have any faith that he would handle the additional buttons responsibly. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   So sorry you feel that way, Pigman. I reverted your move in that title dispute because you had moved the page to the same unsuitable title to which CorvieV had moved it. That was proved by the ensuing move request. And you moved the page (boldly, as you said) while there was an ongoing title dispute discussion on the article's talk page. I still wonder why you did that. Why would you move a page, any page, while contention still existed? Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  21:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Paine, you are, again, misrepresenting policy and WP consensus. When 3 out of 4 people agree on the page move, that is consensus. My "feelings" aren't a factor in the discussion. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 21:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

5. Oppose per CorbieVreccan and my own experience with this user. Much as I hate to !vote "oppose" on anyone after my own RfA experience, this editor's behavior here and attitude here constitute a battlefield mentality and insensitivity to others that is troubling. I will note for the record that I had one set of reasonably positive interactions with this user here though I think the tone of his comment to Drmies is worth looking at, very similar to his tone above, and I for one, view it as rich with veiled sarcasm. (FWIW, I should also point out in Paine's favor that User:SeeSpot Run unfairly dragged Pain to the dramaboard and was later blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of ItsLassieTime, though I am not sure that Paine realized this, though he does deserve a nod for calling that editor on some of their behavior) Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose I cannot support this candidate after reading the diffs provided by CorbieV. I want to note that I have never previously interacted with this editor to my recollection. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Strong oppose. First, the only reason I am commenting is because of the incredible racial insensitivity that he shows towards American Indians and those of Indian descent. I do not intend to return from retirement, and just about blew off making a comment here because I really don't care about what would happen to the Wikipedia community if he were to get the bit. The only thing that made me go ahead and comment is the fact that the entire world reads Wikipedia, and American Indian children do not need to be subjected to the racist positions that he takes, whether he does so in good faith or bad faith. I completely align myself with CorbieVreccan's position, above, in addition to my standard criteria on content creation. I will not reply further, this nomination needs to be quashed, hard. WP does not need admins bad enough that it should allow such a person to get the bit. GregJackP Boomer! 00:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. Well yes, per CorbieVreccan. But, moreover, the response of the candidate to CorbieVreccan seems even more concerning per User:Liz's comment. In conjunction with that, the answer to Question #3 gives me the feeling that the candidate is fancied by over-sophistication with seemingly deeply rooted racial insensitivity and dangerous sarcasm. Also, I am not satisfied with the candidate's unspecific answer to Question #4, considering they have pointed out their inexperience with CSDs and PRODs. I would be concerned to see this candidate as admin right now, I'm sorry to say. --JustBerry (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose - True, if a user requesting adminiship has a history of incivility, I cannot trust them to become an administrator especially if they are racist to other users --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose The diffs provided by CorbieV indicate to me that this person lacks the judgement and temperament to be an admin. Sorry. HighInBC 04:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    HIBC, "vindictive" is exactly the right word for several of the opposes above. "Hyperbolic" is another (Swarm's), and "exaggerated" (Kudpung's) is yet another. In most circumstances, I have the utmost respect for your opinion, HIBC, and that is why I urge you to carefully re-read the entire thread cited, in the the light most favorable to this candidate, as the reason for opposing this candidate. There was a lot of race-baiting going on, and damn little of it was by the candidate. It is a deplorable tactic to play the race card and accuse someone of "racism" in order to win what is essentially a good-faith content dispute, even more so when the argument is whether to title an article "calumet," "peace pipe" or "ceremonial pipe." It is even sadder to see when such transparent tactics are used to scupper the RfA for a well-qualified candidate and a long-time productive contributor of many years. I urge you to re-read, re-think and reconsider, my friend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have read the section cited, I did so before casting my opinion. You may read it and see something different but there are other reasonable interpretations and they do not require and assumption of bad faith. Considering how much of a fuss was kicked up over "sonny boy" recently, I would think that it is obvious that admins should not be calling natives "red man". That term was not appropriate since cowboy movies in the 50s. This user's failure to recognize the problem when it was pointed out gives me further pause, if they had said "oops sorry, I will avoid that" then it would be another story. While you are welcome to disagree with this interpretation I find it unhelpful for you to ascribe negative motives to those who think otherwise. HighInBC 14:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

11. Oppose The candidate gives George Claghorn as an example of his best work but this doesn't seem adequate, being more about the Constitution, than the subject. The lack of information about the subject is puzzling because the article links to sources such as this, which contain more details about this person. The candidate seems much happier creating redirects, which he does in large number. I'm not convinced of the utility of these. For example, I don't like relief (emotion). This seems disruptive in that it pushes the view that this is a dictionary topic and sends the reader off to the rival project of Wiktionary. It is actually quite easy to find sources such as the Encyclopedia of Emotion which demonstrate the notability of the topic, and so the redirect is something of a red herring. I accept the good faith nature of such work but would like to see it done more productively before endorsing them as an admin. Andrew D. (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose I find the answers provided by the candidate to be too vague and rather evasive, especially considering the opposing evidence that's been highlighted here. This is an especial cause for concern when combined with clear instances (shown above) where policy has been ignored and the candidate has shown himself to be rather argumentative and prone to racist remarks. None of this suggests to me that this person has the right kind of temperament to perform the duties of an admin effectively. These instances of incivility and ignoring policy are especially concerning seeing as the examples highlighted are so recent and I agree with Liz's comment that he's not doing himself any favours with many of his subsequent responses to other users here, either. Ririgidi (talk) 10:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Query for @Ririgidi: Could you please cite the instances of the candidate's "ignoring policy" with diffs and a brief explanation of the pertinent policies you believe were ignored? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm referring to the examples provided above where it seems Wikipedia:Consensus was ignored (or perhaps I should say overlooked?), as highlighted in the links given by Pigman and CorbieVreccan above. It seems clear from the links provided that there was consensus regarding the issue but Ellsworth Paine was so deeply entrenched in their own point of view that the policy on consensus came to be ignored. I do understand and appreciate that it's easy to become attached to a particular approach or the kind of content an individual would like to see on a certain page, and that it's only natural that anyone would try to defend their corner, but there are constructive ways of doing that, and then there are not so constructive. Ultimately, editors need to work together and work out any problems as arise, not argue about what the others are "feeling" in a dismissive and glib manner (as noted by another user above). I have to wonder if Wikipedia:Civility has been upheld when racist language and rather combative behaviour towards multiple users gets thrown into the mix, as well ["red men"??),] though of course that's something that's open to interpretation. But I just can't help but feel that none of this suggests a temperament suited to the kind of job an admin needs to fulfill. Perhaps if this incident weren't so recent and the candidate had shown that they'd learned from their mistakes then I would feel more supportive, but we're talking about events that happened only a few months ago. Not only that, but these are events that the candidate was clearly aware might well be an issue if they went ahead with this RfA, and they chose not to address them upfront in an attempt to own their past behaviour and show they've moved beyond it and grown. Ririgidi (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

13. Oppose - While I am less shocked by the substance of many of the diffs presented by Corbie V. than others are, it's pretty clear that the two of them are argumentative around one another. This is not necessarily a disqualifier, but it does put one ill at ease. For me it comes down to the question of why tools are being sought. "There are backlogs so I seek tools and will take it slowly and learn as I go." That's not the sort of rationale that many favor here, and with good reason. Far better: "I have been doing this and that and the other quasi-administrative task and I need tools to do the job better." The kicker for me is that Cullen/Jim is in the oppose column. He and Dennis Brown are my bell cows. I'll snoop around a bit more and may move out of here to neutral if I set myself at ease, but for now this is where I'm at on gut instinct. Apologies to the nominee, this process sucks emotionally and your efforts on behalf of WP are appreciated. Carrite (talk) 10:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. I have not interacted with this editor, but I do not think he fits the criteria for being an Administrator and having the associated access to tools that it brings. Everyone has their prejudices, but the nominee's approach to disputes is exceedingly condescending, paternalistic, and insensitive. It is even evident in the answer to Q3 dealing with disputes:

    I dealt with it by presenting my views, by listening to the views of other editors and by practicing forgiveness.

    The appropriate trait to practicing in disputes is empathy. Forgiveness is exceedingly paternalistic, especially within the context of disputes in the Indigenous / First Nations topic areas which are sensitive and prone to bias given the demographics of editors on this site. It is topics like these that we need Administrators who can put aside their personal biases, mediate disputes, be neutral, and find consensus - the actions of the nominee as well as his responses in the RFA suggest he does not possess those traits. I don't intend to be harsh, and I think the nominee is a net positive to Wikipedia and has done great work, but not every editor should be an Administrator with good reason. --  R45  ^talk! 14:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose I don't oppose lightly at RfA, and my criteria for adminship are fairly loose. I've read the links, and have discounted CorbieVreccan's over-the-top oppose accordingly. However, in the recent discussion I've read about the title of Ceremonial pipe I see evidence of a temperament unsuitable for adminship: condescension, I-know-best (over a page move to an "unsuitable title"; an inability to recognize consensus not in one's favor does not bode well for closing discussions) and, noted by Liz and others, a tendency to argue rather than discuss. Montanabw's continued good advice to the candidate was dismissed out of hand. And although we have a lot of leeway in userpage design, the candidate's user and talk pages look like a personal website to me and raise a concern about overall maturity. Backlog work is a laudable aim, but many of the backlogs require interpersonal and communication skills I don't see in the candidate. Adminship is not intended to be a "reward" for other contributions (which are valued); prolific contributors aren't necessarily good administrators. Sorry to land here. Miniapolis 16:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose, with regret I have stayed out of this discussion until now because I was quite shocked at reading CorbieVreccan's oppose yesterday; there is absolutely no reason to call another editor a racist on Wikipedia - ever. Now, that out of the way, I see two problems. The first is that I'm sure you say everything with the best intentions and for the good of the project, but I can see how your tone can come across as patronising and beleaguering. It pains me to say that, because I'm sure I could sit down with you face to face and have a good productive conversation, but communication style is vitally important for an administrator. The more substantial problem, though, is I can't see an obvious requirement for you to have the tools. In particular, you haven't participated in many AfD debates and I can't see evidence of CSD tagging, so I'm afraid I'm not really confident enough for you to work in those areas, which are frequently backlogged. Stay as being a normal editor, you'll feel better for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. I was looking for more concise and specific answers to the first three questions. It's not the place for vague generalities and statements about editing philosophy are tolerated in moderation. Please identify specific areas where you need the tools and specific conflicts that you've had and, hopefully, resolved. I know you have thought a lot about this RfA but you shouldn't overthink your answers which should be straight and to-the-point. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I must say that your comments in Talk:Ceremonial pipe#Requested move 19 August 2015 are not encouraging at all. Admins often have to make decisions based on consensus, not their own idiosyncratic view. Clearly the consensus of the participating editors was opposed to your position but you continued to dig your heels in because you didn't want the article title to change. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't want the page moved to an unsuitable title. While consensus is very important and one of the really crucial tools here, I took the stand that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that when the rationales were examined, it would yield that there was still contention and no consensus. True consensus did come about as the result of the RM, which was, I believe, satisfactory to all parties involved. Paine  ^{(talk – contribs)}  22:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral. I don't really know Paine Ellsworth, but from what I have seen so far, I didn't find enough reason to support. However, as I don't really know the candidate, I will not oppose, either, unless I see something really negative. Epic Genius (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Relocated to support. Epic Genius (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Neutral – The revisions linked by CorbieVreccan bring about some alarm, but I need to read through everything more thoroughly in context before deciding. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Moving to support. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2. STRONG NEUTRAL to lodge my disapproval of the childish all-caps headlines in the above section. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutral. I tend to not be moved by opposes stemming from content disputes, but I find myself deeply dissatisfied with Paine's responses to those opposes. They strike me as condescending and evading the issues, and so I cannot support. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Neutral for now: I don't want to immediately pile-on, but I need to research the diffs cited. Some of them do seem magnified. Esquivalience ^t 02:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutral for now. I am concerned by the diffs provided by CorbieVreccan, as an admin you must adhere to policies 100% and if you do not adhere to them then that can damage the encyclopaedia, especially if you refuse to appreciate others points of view. However, I need more time to look into those diffs. Also question 3 is too vague an answer as there are no diffs provided.--5 albert square (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Neutral, at least for now. Although the opposes raise cause for concern or at least for further investigation and thought, I am impressed by the support !votes and reasoning of Swarm and Dirtlawyer1. They give reasons for more review and further thought before a final decision. Their reasoning, and consideration of the overall contributions and demeanor of the candidate over the years, may be enough for a move to support. Donner60 (talk) 03:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Neutral I will sit here until I can make a definite decision. Jianhui67 ^T★C 03:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neutral Awaiting answers to Mww113's questions. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:08, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Neutral now but I am leaning towards support. I suspect there are going to be a hundred questions asked this week, so I will wait to see the candidate's answers. On a completely unrelated matter, I noticed that the first oppose vote was saved 7 minutes after the RFA was transcluded. I wish I could locate diffs and type that fast. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Actually, Athomeinkobe, pardon me for gently correcting you, but the first "oppose" vote and rationale were posted 12 (not 7) minutes after this RfA was transcluded [26]. In any event, that editor is either a very gifted typist and diff researcher or, as seems more likely, was preparing their 5700-character, 19-diff "oppose" rationale well in advance of this RfA going public. And, yes, I do believe that bears on whether there is an unseemly level of animus ("vindictiveness") behind that !vote and rationale. It's certainly something for others to consider, as we examine the motives and conduct of the various parties to this tempest in a pipe bowl. I've spoken my piece for now, and shall gladly share the chanunpa with any who care to join me in the waiting room. The smoking lamp is lit. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   I was looking at the time it became visible on the main RFA page Dirtlawyer1. [27] But what's 5 minutes between friends? Anyway, regardless of whether it is 7 minutes or 12 minutes, the main thing is that it is 2 billable units! ;) So where's this waiting room you mention? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Come on over to my talk page, AHIK, I always appreciate an honest person with a sense of fairness and good humor. Billable units are on me. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   To editor Dirtlawyer1:To editor Athomeinkobe: Actually, it was transcluded at 19:56, October 6, 2015‎ but the page was actually created with questions already answered on 14:11, October 2, 2015‎. So.. take that for what you will. -- œ^™ 14:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, the page was here, with Paine's answers, for several days before it was transcluded. In more detail:[28]. Best, - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

10. Neutral – Those in the support column make valid points about claims from opposers possibly being exaggerated, but those in oppose do raise some legitimate concerns. (The ones that are not pile on). I'll have to wait for the candidate to answer my questions before I feel I can make a fully-informed decision. Though this does appear to only be one incident, it was recent and does raise some questions for me. Mww113 (talk) 06:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. Neutral, pending answer to Q5, although I suspect it's probably moot by now. I would however like to at least hear your side of the story before jumping on any bandwagons. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
12. Im a fence sitter for now. I agree the 1st oppose vote was obviously premeditated and I suspect he has your talkpage on his watchlist and wrote up the oppose vote when he saw the notification of the offer of an RFA. As such I dont give it much weight. Most of the other oppose votes are merely echoes of the first. Andrew Davidson opposes nearly every candidate, seemingly going out of his way to dig up reasons to oppose. Just to be safe I actually did investigate what he was saying, and while it's true, it's totally irrelevant to the position of administrator. So there's really just one argument here. I'm not easily swayed by "one opinion, fifty rubberstamps" type debates, but you do seem to have made a lot of enemies. I'd be cautious about promoting you to admin if you have a record of seeking power to win edit wars. It's odd for a candidate to run for administrator without getting rollback first, although I can accept that you don't need it because you don't generally do high speed vandalism cleanup. I will try to get back here soon to look more deeply. —Soap— 12:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the diffs by CorbieVreccan shows the candidate's lack of comprehension of very basic WP policies. That, to me, goes to the core of whether an editor has the qualities to be an admin. If, after six years on WP, the candidate doesn't grasp what consensus is in a WP context, I doubt the candidate will be able to carry out their admin tasks well. The events are not far in the candidate's past but only a month and a half ago. For example, I'm not sure I would trust Paine to close a contentious AfD with proper judiciousness if there is a lack of understanding of policy. I'm sure other examples can be easily offered. If there is any skill an admin needs above all else, it's a comprehensive understanding of policy and the ability to administer it impartially. I think that is the essence of my concern and my oppose position. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 14:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is so subjective! It was one isolated incident, in one isolated area of a vast Wikipedia! These kinds of disagreements and discussions happen ALL the time! Everywhere! It's just a common aspect of the Wikipedia consensus process: You make an action, someone disagrees with you, you both discuss on the talk page, someone may take some things to heart or feel offended, that's normal. But because they are an experienced editor, will remember WP:AGF and that both parties are just here to build an encyclopedia and it eventually ends well. Wikipedia works! You really can't judge this candidate as a whole by that one case. People act differently depending on the situation, we all know this. Paine would have learned from that once incident and became better from it. Failing his RfA because of it does NOT help Wikipedia. It further discourages him and others from running and we regress ever further into the spiraling toilet bowl of admin dropouts, and backlog domination. -- œ^™ 15:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  How is a pattern of behaviour, directed at multiple editors (five in the discussion, IIRC), over a three-week period, "one isolated incident"? - CorbieV^☊☼ 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Pigman & Corbie, it is axiomatic that Wikipedia consensus is not based on a simple vote of the discussion participants per WP:CONSENSUS, which you seem to believe, but on the relative strength of the arguments. I also note where Corbie cited that two of the three discussion participants who favored the article move were administrators, as if that had some special meaning and weight in determining consensus. Last time I checked, the vote of involved administrators as discussion participants carries no special weight or privilege in determining talk page consensus. At least two of the three discussion participants who favored the move had never edited the page before the RfM discussion began, and none of the three favoring the move seemed to have a grasp of the larger cultural significance of the word calumet in English, French and several Native American languages, nor that French served as the lingua franca among many North American Indian tribes as result of the influence of French trappers and traders throughout the upper Midwest, Canada, and the Mountain West, and that French words such as calumet were loan words in numerous Native American languages. Frankly, given the wider cultural significance of the term calumet, its specific meaning for a particular design of pipe, and its wide use in English as a place name for counties, towns and townships throughout Midwest and Western United States, there probably should be a separate article for that word, just as there is a separate article for chanunpa. Ironically, the obvious English word for the generic article per WP:COMMONNAME is "peace pipe," but that was somehow determined to be racially offensive without any real discussion or explanation (a non-Native American word for a Native American object is inherently offensive?). All in all, I would say the quality of the page move discussion was shallow from a historical and linguistic perspective, and none of the three pro-move editors seemed to grasp the various cross-language and cross-cultural significance of calumet. And while we are discussing adherence to policies and guidelines, I would urge both Pigman and Corbie to review WP:CANVASS: the use of words like "anachronistic and offensive" in a notice of the RfM discussion is an obvious breach of the guideline regarding neutrally worded notices of pending discussions. Perhaps we should hold the other discussion participants, including two administrators, to the same standards you advocate for RfA candidates -- wouldn't that be fair? Bottom line: Corbie tainted the RfM discussion with impermissible canvassing. Frankly, I'd also like to know how Pigman found the RfM discussion in the first place, given no recent history of editing Native American subjects. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  For those following at home, here is a link to the non-neutral canvassing per WP:CANVASS, in the Request for Move (RfM) discussion that is the basis for most of the "oppose" votes thus far: [29]. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  When specialized knowledge is needed, it is common practice to put a notice at a wikiproject asking for more eyes on a page or discussion. No one was told what to say or how to !vote. In small wikiprojects like Indigenous, many of us know one another from working on the same articles and issues on WP. Very few editors on WP work in this area. So if we are sometimes informal in our discussions... well, I say to the man who is posting lots of jokes, opinions and personal commentary all over WP. I'm not telling you to not have a sense of humour, but I find it inappropriate for you to act as if everyone on WP has to always act formal and never have an opinion. Expressing an opinion is permitted, or most of your comments here would have been deleted :) - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) ETA: Wikilawyer, I mean, Dirtlawyer, your edit summary for your above edit is inaccurate and purposely misleading, implying there was "oppose" canvassing for this RfA; while in your post above you actually accused people of canvassing for a long-resolved discussion from the summer. This is dishonest of you. *smh* - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, as someone who's been following this with increasing dismay, this isn't canvassing from Dirtlawyer?. "Moral support for the next 6 days," does that mean a litany of cross-examinations of opposers? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)No, Shawn, it means that the chief oppose vote engaged in impermissible canvassing in the same request for move discussion which he cites as his reason for opposing the candidate. If you aren't shocked by the hypocrisy, you should be. And just one oppose voter needs to be cross-examined. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Corbie, you as an involved administrator engaged in impermissible canvassing [[30]], in the same RfM discussion in which you have asserted the candidate displayed a failure to grasp policy and guidelines. Using words like "offensive and anachronistic" to describe the need for a page move are inherently non-neutral and violate WP:CANVASS. How many of the three pro-move votes in that RfM discussion resulted from your impermissible canvassing and the obvious violation of the WP:CANVASS guidelines? Sorry, but I see no humor here, only hypocrisy and a double standard. In fairness to the candidate, I think other RfA discussion participants should be aware of this, don't you? If you were an RfA candidate today, how would you feel if your obvious violation of the guidelines were used to railroad your candidacy? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, posting a notice of discussion on a wikiproject is not canvassing. "Appropriate notification: An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion." You do understand that the issue here is no longer about whether a page should have been moved, right? That was resolved to the satisfaction of all involved, including Paine. What is at issue is the candidate's behaviour during those three weeks, as well as their continued behaviour at their RfA. I realize you want to help your friend, and you see the best way of doing that as attacking people. I don't find it particularly appropriate or seemly, but it would be nice if you stopped misrepresenting policy. - CorbieV^☊☼ 16:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you attempt to obfuscate and deflect, Corbie. Please focus. No one said you cannot notify a WikiProject of a pending RfC, XfD, RfM or other ongoing discussion; that is completely permissible if done properly. Per WP:CANVASS, however, any such notice must be "neutrally worded with a neutral title . . ." Please explain how your saying "I expect the user who wants the anachronistic and offensive terms will contest" constitutes a "neutrally worded" notice per WP:CANVASS? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, the candidate is not a "friend" of mine; I've never met the guy, never worked with him on-wiki, and as best I can recall I've never interacted with the guy in a meaningful way. That said, I am deeply offended by what I see as the grotesque unfairness of your own conduct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Corbie, don't waste your time on this attempt at a non-An/I boomerang. This RfA isn't about you, so don't let them make it about something it's not. RO^(talk) 17:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• So, RO, you're not disturbed by this administrator's impermissible canvassing in the same talk page discussion for which he seeks to hold the candidate accountable in this RfA . . . a discussion where he and another administrator both cite a very slender 3–1 consensus, apparently obtained by canvassing. Not sure how that's going to boomerang on me . . . . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a behavioral issue with Corbie, the proper venues are DR or An/I. You are going to far here in trying to convict an oppose. RO^(talk) 17:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, ma'am, I am demonstrating that the chief oppose vote has engaged in improper conduct (and displayed ignorance of core guidelines regarding consensus and canvassing) in the same matter for which he seeks to derail this candidate's RfA. That's no small thing, and it has a direct bearing on this RfA discussion. It's time we stop backing our wiki-friends and our respective wiki-cliques, even when they engage in obviously wrongful conduct as exhibited here to the detriment of our processes like RfA. As a long time editor, and someone with a finely attuned sense of fairness displayed in other forums, I would hope you could see that, RO. And I think many other discussion participants are going to find that it's pertinent, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made your point. Now you're just badgering an oppose, and I think that badgering voters at an RfA has the potentially damaging effect of discouraging people from participating in the process. This isn't An/I where every case is really an examination of both the filling party and the person filed on. Even if Corbie did canvass, the candidate's racially insensitive attitude is at the core of the oppose, and you aren't doing anything to dispel the feeling that the candidate has issues with that specific negative behavior. RO^(talk) 17:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, RO, both Corbie and Pigman have said the candidate fails to understand policies and guidelines, even as they have asserted the candidate failed to accept a 3–1 "consensus" (based on raw votes: we all know consensus is NOT a vote) -- a "consensus" apparently obtained in violation of WP:CANVASS. Please look at the number of posts above by Corbie and Pigman -- is it permissible for them to campaign against the candidate? Are they somehow immune from criticism for their own conduct (and misapplication of policy and guidelines) in the same discussion?

• There are no "enemies" here. That said, both sides are entitled to their opinions. We should probably move this to the nomination's actual discussion page. Epic Genius (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Gladly -- my point has already been made for anyone willing to read what I have posted above and follow the links. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Does anyone object if I collapse this thread or move it to the talk page? A link will be posted from here to the discussion thread. Epic Genius (talk) 17:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's not collapse the thread just yet, EG. I think other discussion participants need to be aware of the impermissible canvassing behind the 3–1 so-called "consensus" that is the primary basis behind the two loudest oppose voters in this discussion. Fair is fair. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good enough. I'll keep it. Epic Genius (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]