Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth

Edit counter stats
Paine Ellsworth • en.wikipedia.org

Block log · Global user contributions · Global Account Manager · SUL Info · Pageviews in userspace · General statistics [hide] User ID:	9092818 User groups:	templateeditor, user, autoconfirmed First edit:	Feb 27, 2009, 7:17 PM Latest edit:	Oct 7, 2015, 2:27 AM Live edits:	87,248 Deleted edits:	1,516 Total edits: 	88,764 Edits in the past 24 hours:	31 Edits in the past 7 days:	271 Edits in the past 30 days:	1,618 Edits in the past 365 days:	31,522 Ø number of edits per day:	36.8

Live edits: Unique pages edited:	42,860 Pages created:	4,075 Pages moved:	274 Ø edits per page:	2 Ø change per page (bytes):	extended Files uploaded:	23 Files uploaded (Commons):	10 (Semi-)automated edits:	13,646 Reverted edits:	164 Edits with summary:	87,098 Number of minor edits (tagged):	27,004 Number of edits (<20 bytes):	extended Number of edits (>1000 bytes):	extended Actions: Thank:	175 x Approve:	0 x Patrol:	8 x Admin actions Block:	0 x Protect:	4 x Delete:	0 x Import:	0 x 过错: (Re)blocked:	0 x Longest block: – Current block: – SUL editcounter (approximate):	latest ► enwiki 	88,209 	+9 minutes commonswiki 	110 	> 30 days wikidatawiki 	69 	> 30 days enwiktionary 	57 	> 30 days enwikiquote 	28 	> 30 days eswiki 	26 	> 30 days dewiki 	10 	> 30 days mediawikiwiki 	5 	> 30 days metawiki 	4 	> 30 days enwikiversity 	3 	> 30 days urwiki 	2 	> 30 days 50 others	5	+24 days Total edits	88,528

bla bla Namespace Totals [hide] Articles 	37,685 	43.2% Talk 	6,138 	7% User 	4,192 	4.8% User talk 	12,764 	14.6% Wikipedia 	5,212 	6% Wikipedia talk 	1,105 	1.3% File 	46 	0.1% File talk 	31 	0% MediaWiki talk 	35 	0% Template 	14,628 	16.8% Template talk 	2,342 	2.7% Help 	191 	0.2% Help talk 	64 	0.1% Category 	1,612 	1.8% Category talk 	489 	0.6% Portal 	625 	0.7% Portal talk 	27 	0% Book 	5 	0% Book talk 	1 	0% Draft 	7 	0% Draft talk 	4 	0% Module 	31 	0% Module talk 	14 	0% Year counts [hide] 2009 	8,081	2010 	5,366	2011 	8,327	2012 	4,251	2013 	18,001	2014 	15,017	2015 	28,205

Time card [hide] Timecard Latest edit (global) - Edits in the past 30 days, max. 10 / Wiki [hide] Date ↓ 	Wiki  ↓ 	Links  ↓ 	Page title  ↓ 	Comment  ↓ 2015-10-07, 02:27 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Redirect 	/* Quantum potentiality */ done 2015-10-07, 02:25 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	Quantum potentiality 	create redirect with rcats 2015-10-07, 02:24 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Quantum potentiality 	retarget and add rcat 2015-10-06, 23:15 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Paine Ellsworth/Status 	s 2015-10-06, 22:38 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 	/* Questions for the candidate */ space 2015-10-06, 22:24 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 	/* Questions for the candidate */ respond 2015-10-06, 22:21 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Paine Ellsworth 	/* Again, thank you two beyond words! */ respond 2015-10-06, 22:10 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 	/* Neutral */ respond 2015-10-06, 22:04 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 	/* Oppose */ respond 2015-10-06, 21:13 	enwiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Requests for adminship/Paine Ellsworth 	/* Oppose */ respond 2015-09-12, 09:26 	tewiki 	( diff · log · top ) 	:Citation needed/doc 	update /doc

Month counts [hide] 2009-02 	9	2009-03 	722	2009-04 	497	2009-05 	986	2009-06 	906	2009-07 	580	2009-08 	740	2009-09 	1,246	2009-10 	1,289	2009-11 	930	2009-12 	176	2010-01 	89	2010-02 	1,022	2010-03 	936	2010-04 	871	2010-05 	1,074	2010-06 	488	2010-07 	310	2010-08 	107	2010-09 	34	2010-10 	7	2010-11 	21	2010-12 	407	2011-01 	805	2011-02 	1,072	2011-03 	662	2011-04 	980	2011-05 	970	2011-06 	1,499	2011-07 	561	2011-08 	760	2011-09 	239	2011-10 	316	2011-11 	245	2011-12 	218	2012-01 	967	2012-02 	1,292	2012-03 	299	2012-04 	373	2012-05 	116	2012-06 	23	2012-07 	40	2012-08 	66	2012-09 	184	2012-10 	291	2012-11 	342	2012-12 	258	2013-01 	604	2013-02 	1,020	2013-03 	1,890	2013-04 	1,251	2013-05 	1,122	2013-06 	1,433	2013-07 	1,837	2013-08 	1,592	2013-09 	1,114	2013-10 	2,190	2013-11 	1,730	2013-12 	2,218	2014-01 	1,129	2014-02 	707	2014-03 	1,436	2014-04 	1,568	2014-05 	1,555	2014-06 	1,591	2014-07 	760	2014-08 	983	2014-09 	1,551	2014-10 	1,473	2014-11 	980	2014-12 	1,284	2015-01 	7,215	2015-02 	4,719	2015-03 	1,064	2015-04 	793	2015-05 	2,163	2015-06 	5,052	2015-07 	4,075	2015-08 	1,293	2015-09 	1,616	2015-10 	215

Top edited pages [hide] Article 183 	Billy the Kid 	log · page history · topedits 113 	Brushy Bill Roberts 	log · page history · topedits 104 	Thomas Paine 	log · page history · topedits 99 	Benjamin Franklin 	log · page history · topedits 92 	The Authentic Life of Billy, the Kid 	log · page history · topedits 92 	Shirley Temple 	log · page history · topedits 66 	Double planet 	log · page history · topedits 64 	M. Magendran 	log · page history · topedits 58 	Diabetes (disambiguation) 	log · page history · topedits 56 	Napoleon Hill 	log · page history · topedits 56 	Deism 	log · page history · topedits 56 	Common Sense (pamphlet) 	log · page history · topedits 54 	George Claghorn 	log · page history · topedits 51 	Buddhism 	log · page history · topedits 49 	Women in science 	log · page history · topedits -More- Talk 107 	Talk:Wikipedia 	log · page history · topedits 83 	Talk:The Age of Reason 	log · page history · topedits 77 	Talk:Zeno's paradoxes 	log · page history · topedits 66 	Talk:Shirley Temple 	log · page history · topedits 58 	Talk:Ceremonial pipe 	log · page history · topedits 55 	Talk:Usenet celebrity 	log · page history · topedits 54 	Talk:Solar System 	log · page history · topedits 48 	Talk:Billy the Kid 	log · page history · topedits 37 	Talk:South Yemen 	log · page history · topedits 34 	Talk:Thomas Paine 	log · page history · topedits 31 	Talk:France 	log · page history · topedits 31 	Talk:Moon 	log · page history · topedits 30 	Talk:Shirley Temple Black 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Talk:New religious movement 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Talk:United States Declaration of Independence 	log · page history · topedits -More- User 819 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 647 	User:Paine Ellsworth 	log · page history · topedits 474 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Status 	log · page history · topedits 176 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox3 	log · page history · topedits 152 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Keepsakes 	log · page history · topedits 150 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox8 	log · page history · topedits 134 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox4 	log · page history · topedits 127 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox1a 	log · page history · topedits 101 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox6 	log · page history · topedits 87 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox2a 	log · page history · topedits 71 	User:Paine Ellsworth/common.css 	log · page history · topedits 70 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Charmed Companions 	log · page history · topedits 63 	User:Paine Ellsworth/vector.js 	log · page history · topedits 58 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Printworthy 	log · page history · topedits 58 	User:Paine Ellsworth/Wikipedia 	log · page history · topedits -More- User talk 4506 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Workpage 	log · page history · topedits 3632 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth 	log · page history · topedits 323 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Workpage/Archive 1 	log · page history · topedits 84 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Workpage/Portals 	log · page history · topedits 56 	User talk:Redrose64 	log · page history · topedits 55 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Poms 	log · page history · topedits 51 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Editnotice 	log · page history · topedits 49 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/P.I. 	log · page history · topedits 44 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 35 	User talk:MSGJ 	log · page history · topedits 29 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Signpost 	log · page history · topedits 21 	User talk:Corinne 	log · page history · topedits 18 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Archive 9 	log · page history · topedits 15 	User talk:Anomie 	log · page history · topedits 15 	User talk:Paine Ellsworth/Charmed Companions 	log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia 208 	Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages 	log · page history · topedits 106 	Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) 	log · page history · topedits 47 	Wikipedia:R-e-s-p-e-c-t 	log · page history · topedits 35 	Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) 	log · page history · topedits 35 	Wikipedia:Manual of Style 	log · page history · topedits 24 	Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects/Redr 	log · page history · topedits 24 	Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) 	log · page history · topedits 23 	Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 	log · page history · topedits 23 	Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 3 	log · page history · topedits 22 	Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 6 	log · page history · topedits 22 	Wikipedia:Help desk 	log · page history · topedits 20 	Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 18 	log · page history · topedits 20 	Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 20 	Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 26 	log · page history · topedits 20 	Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 11 	log · page history · topedits -More- Wikipedia talk 80 	Wikipedia talk:Verifiability 	log · page history · topedits 76 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation 	log · page history · topedits 29 	Wikipedia talk:Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 15 	Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace 	log · page history · topedits 14 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 	log · page history · topedits 13 	Wikipedia talk:Twinkle 	log · page history · topedits 13 	Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not 	log · page history · topedits 10 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect/Style guide 	log · page history · topedits 10 	Wikipedia talk:Tip of the day 	log · page history · topedits 9 	Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style 	log · page history · topedits 9 	Wikipedia talk:Printability 	log · page history · topedits 9 	Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation 	log · page history · topedits -More- File 5 	File:Brushy Bill Roberts.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 4 	File:AshUpsondigital.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 4 	File:Kilmarnockvolume.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Ejaculation Educational Demonstration.OGG 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Physicalinternetlogo.png 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Vidas Paralelas.ogg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Kappa Delta crest.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Jj - No 3 Front Cover 2.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File:Vanessa Williams - The Comfort Zone album cover.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Toserveman.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Cat Stevens Buddha and the Chocolate Box.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Glow magazine.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Peter Arvai speaking at DLD Conference.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Acrossathousand.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File:Nightmares on Wax - thought so.jpg 	log · page history · topedits -More- File talk 14 	File talk:Torre dei Becci, June 2013.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 8 	File talk:JDS-party-symbol.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:PtomelyAsiaDetail.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 2 	File talk:Zachariadis.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Ptolemy Asia detail.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Blaxland's route across the mountains in 1813.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:TCOP.jpg 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Ejaculation educational seq 4.png 	log · page history · topedits 1 	File talk:Mandelbrot sequence new.gif 	log · page history · topedits MediaWiki talk 34 	MediaWiki talk:Bad image list 	log · page history · topedits 1 	MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2013 	log · page history · topedits Template 367 	Template:Talk header/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 332 	Template:This is a redirect/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 249 	Template:Talk header italics 	log · page history · topedits 245 	Template:Incorrect redirect template/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 165 	Template:R template index 	log · page history · topedits 130 	Template:This is a redirect/doc 	log · page history · topedits 123 	Template:R from alternative language/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 106 	Template:Redirect template/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 87 	Template:Talk page of redirect/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 74 	Template:WikiProject Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 71 	Template:R from misspelling/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 66 	Template:English official language clickable map 	log · page history · topedits 63 	Template:R from other capitalisation/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 61 	Template:R to acronym/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 58 	Template:Talk header/testcases 	log · page history · topedits -More- Template talk 106 	Template talk:R template index 	log · page history · topedits 89 	Template talk:This is a redirect 	log · page history · topedits 85 	Template talk:Infobox country 	log · page history · topedits 64 	Template talk:Cleanup 	log · page history · topedits 52 	Template talk:Redirect template 	log · page history · topedits 37 	Template talk:R from alternative language 	log · page history · topedits 31 	Template talk:Infobox former country 	log · page history · topedits 28 	Template talk:Infobox Indian jurisdiction 	log · page history · topedits 28 	Template talk:Democratic Party (United States)/meta/color 	log · page history · topedits 27 	Template talk:Anchor 	log · page history · topedits 27 	Template talk:Citation needed 	log · page history · topedits 27 	Template talk:English official language clickable map 	log · page history · topedits 23 	Template talk:R from plural 	log · page history · topedits 22 	Template talk:R from move 	log · page history · topedits 21 	Template talk:Infobox planet 	log · page history · topedits -More- Help 10 	Help:Contents/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Help:Magic words 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Help:Reverting 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Help:Template 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Help:Wiki markup 	log · page history · topedits 5 	Help:Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 4 	Help:Interlanguage links 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Help:Contents/doc 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Help:Namespace 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Help:Menu 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Help:Transclusion 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help:R help 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help:Edit summary 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help:InterWikimedia links 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help:Interwikimedia links 	log · page history · topedits -More- Help talk 12 	Help talk:Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Help talk:Contents 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Help talk:Citation Style 1 	log · page history · topedits 6 	Help talk:Reverting 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Help talk:A Day in the Life 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help talk:About 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help talk:Interwikimedia links 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help talk:Cite errors 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Help talk:Accessibility 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:Namespace 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:Style 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:Diff 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:Advanced editing 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:Talk page 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Help talk:List of Manuals of Style 	log · page history · topedits -More- Category 19 	Category:Pages with templates in the wrong namespace 	log · page history · topedits 12 	Category:Redirects to an article without mention 	log · page history · topedits 11 	Category:Cross-namespace redirects 	log · page history · topedits 11 	Category:Miscellaneous redirects 	log · page history · topedits 11 	Category:Redirects from moves 	log · page history · topedits 10 	Category:Redirects from Unicode characters 	log · page history · topedits 9 	Category:Redirects to embedded anchors 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Category:Redirects from other capitalisations 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Category:Redirects with possibilities 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Category:Redirected fictional character articles 	log · page history · topedits 8 	Category:Redirects from titles without diacritics 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Category:Redirects to portal space 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Category:WikiProject Redirect pages 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Category:Middle-earth redirects to lists 	log · page history · topedits 7 	Category:Redirects to ASCII-only titles 	log · page history · topedits -More- Category talk 9 	Category talk:Redirects from other capitalisations 	log · page history · topedits 9 	Category talk:Redirects from moves 	log · page history · topedits 6 	Category talk:Redirects to template from non-template namespace 	log · page history · topedits 6 	Category talk:Individual animals 	log · page history · topedits 4 	Category talk:Redirects from unnecessary disambiguation 	log · page history · topedits 4 	Category talk:Prydain character redirects to lists 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Redirects to sections 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Redirects from plurals 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Redirects from ambiguous pages 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Redirects from misspellings 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Former municipalities of the canton of Aargau 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Category talk:Redirects from short names 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category talk:Articles needing additional references 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category talk:Requests to move a userspace draft 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Category talk:Pataphysicians 	log · page history · topedits -More- Portal 6 	Portal:Motorhead 	log · page history · topedits 4 	Portal:Featured content/Portals 	log · page history · topedits 4 	Portal:Caribbean/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Cartoon Network 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Sonic 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Transport/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Jupiter/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Mississippi/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Contents/Categorical index 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal:Pendeli/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal:Harry Potter Movies 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal:Bird 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal:Television in Canada 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal:Ancient Rome 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal:Tasmania/Intro 	log · page history · topedits -More- Portal talk 4 	Portal talk:Law of England and Wales 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Portal talk:Wikipedia 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Literature 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Roman Empire 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Mario 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Mario/Intro 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Transport 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Portal talk:Main page 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Agriculture and agronomy 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Mitochondria 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Contents/Lists of topics 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Contents/Categorical index 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Wikipedia essays 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Record production/members 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Portal talk:Palestinian territories 	log · page history · topedits -More- Book 5 	Book:A Novel 	log · page history · topedits Book talk 1 	Book talk:A Novel 	log · page history · topedits Draft 2 	Draft:R from time-sensitive topic 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Draft:Live Together (song) 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Drafts 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Brook Ziporyn 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft:Square of 1905 year (Yekaterinburg) 	log · page history · topedits Draft talk 3 	Draft talk:R from time-sensitive topic 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Draft talk:Template:Redirect documentation 	log · page history · topedits Module 9 	Module:Sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Module:R avoided double redirect/doc 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Module:Redirect template/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Module:Video game reviews 	log · page history · topedits 3 	Module:Sandbox/X. Perry Mentor/Rcat 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Module:Portal/images/h 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Module:Zh 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Italic title 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Italic title/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Portal/images/g 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Portal/images/g/doc 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Video game reviews/sandbox 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module:Arguments/doc 	log · page history · topedits Module talk 6 	Module talk:Message box 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Module talk:Zh 	log · page history · topedits 2 	Module talk:Anchor 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module talk:Redirect 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module talk:Italic title 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module talk:Video game reviews 	log · page history · topedits 1 	Module talk:Sandbox/Lfdder/testtpl 	log · page history · topedits

(Semi-)automated edits (approximate) [hide] 13,522 	AutoWikiBrowser 116 	Popups 8 	Twinkle 0 	NPWatcher 0 	Igloo 0 	FurMe 0 	HotCat 0 	Huggle 0 	STiki 0 	Articles For Creation tool 0 	WPCleaner

Discussion on Pigman's comment
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)
 * 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. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How is a pattern of behaviour, directed at multiple editors (five in the discussion, IIRC), over a three-week period, "one isolated incident"? - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 15:33, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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: . Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 :) - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 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* -  Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:38, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Corbie, you as an involved administrator engaged in impermissible canvassing [], 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)
 * 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. - Co rb ie V  ☊☼ 16:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Good enough. I'll keep it. Epic Genius (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree,, this discussion belongs on the talk page--at a minimum this long hate picnic between DirtLawyer and Corbie should be collapsed.JackTheVicar (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I moved it to the talk page. If anyone objects to it, move the discussion except for the long argument that belongs somewhere else, but I did link the move and this discussion from the main page. Esquivalience t 20:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Convenience break
If you're going to move the thread to the RfA talk page, please move Pigman's comment that started the thread, too. Leaving Pigman's comment there by itself gives it a "free pass" that the preceding discussion was intended to cure.

Pigman (and Corbie) have both asserted that the candidate failed to understand and accept "policy" (i.e., WP:CONSENSUS) when, in fact, the 3–1 "consensus" to which they both refer was obtained by non-neutrally worded and impermissible canvassing per WP:CONSENSUS on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America -- please see here where Corbie refers obliquely to the candidate as "I expect the user who wants the anachronistic and offensive terms will contest." This also appears to be a thinly veiled personal attack on the candidate in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Corbie goes on to say "An editor is editing against consensus to retain these outmoded terms, and reverting those of us who are trying to update the articles," in order to drum up support on the WikiProject talk page. In the same thread, Corbie also uses the non-neutral words "anachronistic," "offensive," "outmoded," "colonial" and "systemic bias" as part of his talk page announcement in violation of WP:CANVASS's requirement that any such announcement be "neutrally worded". The subsequent "consensus" to move the page title was thus tainted by impermissible canvassing (and personal attacks) by Corbie. Frankly, the conduct by two admins -- who have the gall to say the candidate does not understand the applicable policy and guidelines -- is appalling. Two of the three editors who formed this consensus never edited the page in controversy before this dust-up and it unclear how those editors found the discussion(s) in the first place. Perhaps they should explain their own "understanding" and acceptance of WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CANVASS.

For those of you seeking to understand the biased nature of the entire exercise, you should also read this little ditty from the chief opposer included in the thread: "Three established editors, two of us admins, agree it should go at the less colonial, more contemporary name." Can anyone explain why two involved admins have any more authority in a talk page discussion than any two other editors? Corbie, perhaps? Throughout their RfA comments, Corbie and Pigman also repeatedly assert their reliance on a slender 3-1 "consensus," but as any smart wiki-rookie learns that it is axiomatic that consensus is never based on a raw vote count, but on the strength of the arguments. What we have here is a bare majority vote derived from impermissible canvassing by the same editors who now seek to derail this candidate's RfA because of his supposed failings in the same discussion. It seems that it is these opposers' understanding of WP:CONSENSUS that is lacking, all the more embarrassing because they are administrators, but somehow in their view this is on the candidate. Frankly, if you're not indignant as you read this, you're not paying attention. These opposers apparently still do not understand, nor will they acknowledge, how they manipulated the process in order to achieve their own desired page title outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No offence,, but give it a rest already. I think I've read your argument too many times so far. You've made your point clear and known. There's no need to reiterate it yet again. JackTheVicar (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I second that. Drop the stick already. RO (talk)  22:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, Jack, but when two administrators engage in the conduct described above, and then try to glibly fob it off, they should not expect to get a free pass. Frankly, I have read and re-read the article talk page discussions, and I find absolutely nothing that equates to the hyperbolic and hyperventilating accusations of "racism" that Corbie made in his premeditated "hit" on the candidate.  Existing administrators are expected to thoroughly understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CANVASS, and act impartially in accord with them, and it is clear these two either do not fully grasp these policies and guidelines, or they have chosen to disregard them.  Cheers.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My only issue, is the vague answer on Q3. I probably would have opposed Corbie's RfA also. This is a reason RfA and admin accountability (through implementing some reelection scheme) needs to be massively overhauled. You should be working toward that, as should many of us. It's been broken for years. There's no need to keep beating this dead horse. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Jack, we apparently agree on far more than we disagree. And I am no one's idea of a member of the "anti-admin brigade" -- to quote one of my favorite movies, "You've come to the wrong shop for anarchy, brother."  I believe we need more good persons to fill the role of administrator for the efficient functioning of the project -- not perfect persons, but good persons who are willing to play by and be subject to the same policies and guidelines as non-admins.  Like you, I believe there there must be accountability when they do not.  Accountability is fundamental to any organization.  I'm happy to discuss this with you at length on my talk page or yours.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * RO, if you don't like hearing about it, then please don't defend the conduct complained of. If you comment here, I will respond.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay. As someone with Native American ancestry, I find this comment troubling:
 * The vast majority of Native Americans are ... only part Native American. If those young people could walk a mile in a long-dead, full-blooded NA's shoes, maybe they would see how much better it is today – maybe they would see that to make it even better, they should realize that they are Americans first and Natives second. RO (talk)  23:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And that would be a perfectly valid concern to discuss and explore regarding this candidate, RO. This is the discussion we should be having among reasonable people as we get to know this candidate.  But performing a premeditated hack job on this candidate is no more fair here than it was in Montanabw's recent RfA; accusing someone of racism on the flimsy evidence presented might get someone blocked for violating WP:NPA in different circumstances.  And administrators manipulating talk page consensus through impermissible canvassing and then accusing the candidate of not understanding/accepting CONSENSUS is an exercise in manipulative hypocrisy.
 * My bottom line question for you: are the candidate's quoted comments, including the one highlighted above by you, part of a pattern and or otherwise indicative of an attitude of racial animus/bias? I don't think so, because I don't see the alleged pattern here, but the comment above was certainly ambiguous enough to give support voters pause and oppose voters ammunition.  Your viewpoint may differ, and that is a reasonable, rational discussion to have, and that discussion should certainly include the candidate after he has had a good night's sleep and not feeling that he is under siege.  At the end of the day, no one can speak for the candidate but the candidate.  That said, my own sense of fair play will not allow hyperbolic accusations like Corbie's to go unchallenged.  Rgardless of this RfA's outcome, Corbie's on-wiki reputation will suffer for his conduct in this affair . . . and it should.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We'll see how they answer Q12. RO (talk)  00:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the RfA has been withdrawn already. Oh, well. I still believe Paine is a good candidate. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This discussion would not be of much use to RfA participants, at least without halting/hatting the mini-skirmish happening here and other non-germane discussion. Esquivalience t 01:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. Should we collapse it? Epic Genius (talk) 01:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Collapse it?  Why?  For the first time in this discussion, it appears editors on opposite sides of the debate are actually going to engage the real merits and dismerits of this candidacy in realistic, un-exaggerated terms . . ..
 * Well, that would sort of make this thread moot, I suppose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the moot goes on. Thank you all for talking this out and for giving me the opportunity to test my wings.  You especially, Dirtlawyer1 – there are no words to describe my appreciation for your support, and very much so for your tenacity as shown above.  I had no idea that the canvassing had gone on, and that at least one editor had come to the table as a result.  What isn't moot, at least for me, is the way this talk page discussion was headed.    When someone graciously makes that observation, that is when the discussion may go into a real nose dive when it is underpinned by the subtle presence of racist accusations.  I didn't want to see that happen to anyone here, especially not to those who supported me.  I backed away from the "racist" label because for those who did not really know me and who accepted that I might be a racist, that also puts friends and supporters in a bad light.  No way.  I can wait a few months and maybe learn some things in the meantime that will strengthen my next bid.  And maybe then when editors argue here about by goods and bads, at least they might not have to do so in a hopelessly negative atmosphere.  I cannot thank all of you enough for taking the time to discuss me and other candidates who want to be admins and for your support/opposition/neutrality of my bid.  Joys to you all! Painius  02:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)