Paine Ellsworth is a crazy person

[ChaosMeRee]

Meet Paine Ellsworth.

They are, in a word, batshit crazy.

No, seriously.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk ... Philosophy

This guy definitely got fucked up on Agent Orange in 'nam (yup, they really are that old).

The scary part is, nobody in this process.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llsworth_2

......is jumping up and down and yelling OH HELL NO, HE CRAZY.

People are barely even mentioning his personal beliefs, and those who are, are largely focused only on whether or not hosting this material in his user space is allowed. It is worth noting the guy does have his own website, but it has little content, and links back to here for the bigger picture. And he calls this page his "WP philosophy".

It's genuinely scary that Wikipedians in any significant number at all would think this guy would make a good Administrator. Someone who can be trusted to close discussions and divine consensus. They have no excuse, his "philosophy" is linked prominently from their user page.

Thankfully, there are plenty of opposers who think this guy is a poor closer. He super votes. He also has poor communication skills. He is often opaque, unclear, patronising, evasive, and seemingly unable to admit fault. He also doesn't seem to understand what he is applying for or why. If he does, he just sucks at explaining it. Others just say there is something off about him.

You know who checks all those boxes?

A crazy person.

Specifically, the kind of crazy person who talks about the empty space in atoms, and as yet undiscovered forces, and reality.

Seriously, this guy got fucked up by Uncle Sam and he's never been the same since.

I think a big reason the Wikipedians are going easy on them, is because the guy is typical of people afflicted with this kind of crazy. They come across as harmless. Peace loving philosophisers. That what they're saying might simply be misplaced humour or some kind of self help manual.

But you know what he also is?

Crazy.

People can an all kinds of crazy. And just because some can function in society and on collaborative websites, after a fashion, doesn't mean they pose no danger to society.

We've seen it before. Some dude coming off a mushroom trip thought he saw a burning bush, and hey presto, two thousand years of bloodshed.

Obviously this guy is a pacifist, but he never used to be. But if his days of being gun-curious are behind him, there is the ever present danger that he might make good on this threat....

I may be taking part in helping to shape young minds, the minds of the future.

Oh hell to the no!

Stay away from my kids, ya freak.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not intolerant. All I'm saying is, people like this should be medically castrated and deported to Australia. Having turned that country back to its original purpose, a giant isolation zone, and removed all means of external communications, they can happily live out their days, and we can sleep soundly in our beds, knowing that our kids aren't staring at their bedroom wall and wondering if it is really there.

Or just not getting out of bed at all (c.f. The episode of Young Sheldon where he takes a college Philosophy class). In the wrong hands, this is dangerous shit. And here's Wikipedia giving this guy free advertising for over a decade.

In all seriousness, there is a mental illness at work here. This isn't merely the exercise in thought as a means of discovery. This is not philosophy. It's garbage. A lack of intelligence masquerading as next level genius.

I was briefly concerned to see this was a rare time that I was on the same page as Wikipediocracy. But then I realised, their only interest in this guy, is to make fun of them, or individual participants. At best, the most serious angle they take, is the guy should not be an Admin.

Their view is characteristically unconcerned with the big picture, living as they do with their noses pressed up against the glass concerned only with operational minutia.

The real question is, why is this guy even an editor? And what the fuck has he been editing?

Lest we forget, Wikipedia is by design, intolerant. You're not allowed to even be there If you hold certain unpalatable views. Wikipedia is famously, thanks to Jimmy's tirade against "lunatic charlatans", biased towards science. A nonsense statement if ever there was one, but you can see what they were going for. They mean to be intolerant of junk-science. Pseudo-intellectual garbage.

So why are its believers and promoters tolerated on Wikipedia?

If you did a blind survey tomorrow, completely confidential, and asked Wikipedians if they believed in any of the mad shit this guy does, or were even just on the fence, what would be the results?

Could we be looking at proof it might be scarily high?

Still think that thing is an encyclopedia? If so, you too might just need your head read.

[ChaosMeRee]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... llsworth_2

ScottishFinishRadish learning real fast why Wikipedia should be blocking crazy people, not encouraging them.....

Please

There's no need for any more pile-on. I would humbly request that those who are thinking about adding another oppose hold off unless there's a chance this is going to swing back into the discretionary zone. There's really no need to continue. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I would have thought that it would be far more appropriate to request that Paine Ellsworth voluntarily withdraw. As long as the AfD is open, people are entitled to participate, and such participation should not be contingent on which way they intend to vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

That would also be good too, and I believe they've already been asked. However I don't think we need to keep hitting someone because they haven't cried mercy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, editors ScottishFinnishRadish and AndyTheGrump. And I respectfully plead for no mercy. If people stop "hitting" me, then valuable information might be lost. It might surprise you to know that, while I do not enjoy all the opposition to my RfA, I do enjoy all the opportunities to learn and make myself better. Promised myself that no matter what, I would not back out of this RfA like I did last time. Lost my leg a few years back due to my year in Vietnam (defoliants like Agent Orange), so just like "falling is not an option", nor is giving up. Thank you both for all your wonderful thoughts and advice! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 21:33, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: classy response. I never understand why so many editors attempt to steer and micromanage an RFA. I have seen folks get hair-trigger blocks for daring to go against consensus in an RFA. I like your attitude Paine. I think many folks were hoping you would not be so put upon that you quit WP like MB or have a health issue like another editor who had an unsuccessful RFA. Lightburst (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Lightburst! As an older person, I have probably too many health issues to list, but I see no good in using that when I apparently have too many other issues to correct. In any case I do appreciate the old maxim, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer." I think of all participants to be the former, my supporters for backing me in spite of the raised issues, and my opposers for raising the issues on which I have to work. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 23:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence is wildly inappropriate. I suggest you strike that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think at this point if you're not convinced the guy is crazy, you must realise that are deluded or see Wikipedia as some kind of therapy. Rather than strike their comment above, which is technically disobedience in the face of an Admin, they simply started a new section....

Gratitude

Want to thank all the questioners, and all the supporters for obvious reasons and opposers for the many nice things you said about me in your rationales, thank you. There is still some time left, you certainly got your ideas across, there is still time to think it over and hopefully approve of me. The project needs admins, and I sincerely believe I can be a helpful one. And now, I certainly could use all the help I can get. So thank you very much for any further consideration you can give me. Yours very truly, Paine , ed. put'er there 04:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

This guy will never be an Administrator. And it's genuinely worrying that they think they will be.

The crazy lovers have totally outed themselves in this process.....

Support after a decade and a half, and a quarter million edits one is bound to have some friction with others. It would worry me if they did not have any difficult interactions. I see a valuable Wikipedian who needs the tools. It worries me that many editors promote candidates who Milquetoasted their way to adminship. I looked over the candidate's many contributions and read through the previous RFA before making my decision. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Support Obvious net positive. No red or yellow flags. The opposes are not persuasive. As noted by Lightburst above, if you've got a quarter million edits, you are going to have had a few moments where you were either cranky or rubbed someone the wrong way. We are deciding on whether or not to trust a highly experienced editor with a few extra tools for the good of the community. We are not voting to canonize anyone. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The opposes seem pretty weaksauce to me, really. I'm not about to go badger the two fine fellows down in the oppose section, because they're mostly a symptom of the larger problem. An oppose vote should put together a solid argument – evidence that demonstrates a pattern of behavior or serious incident – that casts significant doubt on the candidate's fitness for the tools. If it's just a diff or two that comes off wrong or where the candidate is on the "wrong side" of the discussion, then... meh. That's not really proof – I don't begrudge voters their grudges, but as an argument on the merits of the candidate, it's not convincing and just turns up the temperature. I wish we'd see less of those kinds of votes and more thoughtful discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Easy support for me; I've known and collaborated with Paine too often and long to feign concern for his motives, competence, or clue. Anyone vetting this candidacy that does not clearly conclude a net positive result needs to seriously check their own motives and/or vetting skills. Paine makes a good case for tool useage in stating his interest in histmerges; an in-need-task he is well suited to perform. And, by the way, Paine has earned my trust too.--John Cline (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I supported the candidate previously (although with, admittedly, much more vigor), and I am happy to support him again. Although I do understand opponents' complaints about communication styles, I do think these seem to be misunderstandings rather than a major faux pas on the candidate's fault. As Ad Orientem said above, with the volume of requested moves in which Paine has participated, it inevitably would be very hard to appease everyone. I also acknowledge the NOTWEBHOST concerns, but these are quite irrelevant to me, since (1) we give wide latitude to experienced users for userspace pages; (2) these pages merely express his viewpoints and not his competence. All in all, Paine looks like an okay candidate to me; he is not perfect, but no one is. Epicgenius (talk) 15:33, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Whether PE would be a good admin or not is a moot point now, but I want to do my part to emphasize that PE is a devoted and appreciated editor, and I'd like them to stick around. I hate when RFAs that don't pass end up being demoralizing (either meaner than necessary, or unfortunate but necessary, I don't know, but RFA sure seems relentlessly mean), and end up discouraging good editors from sticking around. p.s. Your user page is fine. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Proof Wikipedia is FUCKED.....

Support - yeah, shit at communicating, but we can fix that with some mentoring. Is having no administrator better than having Paine as an admin - probably not. Nick (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In this process we have learned Paine is super addicted to Wikipedia, getting involved in matters that seriously affect the content (page moves, closing discussions) on an almost industrial scale, yet significant numbers of people consider him to be wierd, or can barely understand him, or find him condescending or arrogant.

We have learned that they already thought they had the trust of the community, to the point they thought they would pass RfA and just wanted the confirmation he was right, and now It has become ASTOUNDINGLY clear they do not and would not, unsurprisingly the guy is still not really showing they understand what the objections are, but has merely used this as an opportunity for yet more waffling about self improvement and love of your fellow man, convinced as he is that he can one day bring everyone around to his point of view (that he is Admin material).

It is genuinely amazing how far you can go on Wikipedia if you simply don't swear and don't directly insult people. You can even collect a very larger collection of supporters.

There is nothing about Paine the suggests they are a fully functioning human. There is nothing about the people who are aware of this, that suggests anyone is prepared to mitigate this effect on Wikipedia, neither the content or the children who are encouraged to edit it. He certainly isn't ever going to be banned.

Let's see Stephen Harrison of Slate write this up, the latest miracle of Wikipedia in action.

No?

I didn't fucking think so.

[ChaosMeRee]

Quite unbelievably, there are still 52 people who think this guy would make a good admin.

The RfA is tanking hard in spite of that, as more and more people come to the only logical conclusion.

This man says what he says, does what he does, and thinks what he thinks.....

.....BECAUSE HE'S CRAZY.

They're just not saying it. They persist in calling it "communication issues" or "poor judgement".

It's unbelievable how the Wikipedians are dancing around this core issue.

I get that Wikipedia has rules against calling people crazy.

But you know what it doesn't have rules against?

Pointing out that something an editor says or does, defies logical explanation.

That a sequence of comments, when seen against a sequence of events, defies logical explanation.

That no amount of good faith, communication problems or cultural difference can account for things this man keeps saying and keeps doing.

Crazy simply being shorthand for serious mental illness. A learning/perception/socialization disorder.

I mean, come on.

Some of the million reasons to oppose this guy if "he crazy" isn't doing it for you, are the fact he has made multiple rookie RfAs mistakes already, and he's not even halfway through it. He hasn't listened to feedback, he hasn't tapped in the open goal question, he has begged, he has (kinda, in a crazy way) badgered, and he is sticking at it to the bitter end.

All this rookie nonsense, but not from a rookie, rather someone who is majorly experienced and has even been around the RfA block once already.

Every now and again, there is an RfA that proves that it doesn't matter how long you have been on Wikipedia, how many edits you have made or how many friends you have, you still in the end might be no less stupid than a newcomer.

I think we are beyond even stupid here. This almost feels like attempted wikisuicide. Like he's trolling.

But he isn't, because that would itself be crazy.

It comes across that way, because he's crazy.

Sheeesh.

It's driving me crazy.

The cruelty of Wikipedia is perhaps that all too many editors assume everyone there is rational. Not crazy. And thus when they see a man literally begging people at least ten times in assorted places to just please pretty please reconsider, making personal appeals and saying out loud shit like this.....

And we should note, too, that everytime a person converts an oppose vote to support, it's as if two new editors came to the RfA and voted to support. So if you do convert, there would be twice as much impact on the outcome.

....they're of course going to assume nefarious motives. That they are desperate for power.

But a crazy perception challenged person does this too.

[ChaosMeRee]

Aaaand withdrawn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... #Withdrawn

But of course, he couldn't even do that without sounding weird!

Hate to break promises to myself, but admittedly this is not unprecedented, I hereby withdraw from this, my second RfA. So a gift to all for the holidays! Everyone will hopefully take from this something positive as I will do. You have all done the right thing whatever that was. I shall continue to cherish my time on WP as I hope all who have fun editing will do! Thank you for an eye-opening experience! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 11:25, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

In one last act of stupidity, he reveals he really was acting on a major delusion all along.....

Thank you both very much. Yeah, even before the RfA started, I figured it would be like yours at first, with several opposes and then an upturn. When there was no upturn it was kind of jarring, but in a good way. Thanks again! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

What a ridiculous farce.

And have the Wikipedians even noticed the crazy bastard made no mention of not running for a third time?

It might sound like he did with this...

Post RfA statement
Arghh!!! Can't eat, can't sleep (just kidding:>). Really do want to stress that there was no underlying nor hidden agenda on my part. For many years editors have asked me to rerun and I turned them down. Even turned Martin down at first when he asked me back in June. But I gave it a lot of thought, because Martin was one of the first admins to help me with edits when I first registered, and I've revered him ever since. So I finally thought I'd give it another go. All I had in mind was that I wanted to be like him and help people so much more as an admin than as a non-admin. That truly was my only agenda. The community's loud, resounding "no" with various eye-opening arguments will not go unheeded. I will be studying the opposers' rationales for a long time to come. Thank all those who found the time to participate, especially the questioners and supporters. We still have a lot for which to be thankful, and lots of time coming up to be with our loved ones this holiday season. Many thanks! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:24, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

...but you're probably still operating under the assumption they're normal.

They're not normal. What the fuck even is this...

Kind of bizarre how so many editors seemed to think that I went there to fail and that my own words proved it.

....for example?

Bizarre is definitely the word.

Stupid fucks.