# User talk:Awilley

 Adjwilley — User talk — Contributions — Email
 Picture of the day Daniel in the Lions' Den is a 1615 painting by the Flemish artist Peter Paul Rubens, now in the National Gallery of Art in Washington DC. Based on Daniel 6:1–28, it depicts the Biblical figure Daniel trapped in a den of lions by King Darius the Mede. Rubens modelled the lions on a Moroccan species, examples of which were then in the Spanish governor's menagerie in Brussels. Painting: Peter Paul Rubens Archive – More featured pictures...

## IMPORTANT: A last short needed look

Please see possible "closing arguments" here, [1]. Settling this there, n that way, would end the issues raised in inordinate length earlier. Consider a final persuasive comment, on any matter you wish? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk)

## Progress at Ayurveda

Many of the editors at ayurveda have been blocked as socks of each other (Delibzr (talk · contribs), Bladesmulti (talk · contribs), నిజానికి (talk · contribs), VandVictory (talk · contribs), AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs)) and you've placed a few of our other more troublesome cases on 0RR restrictions. Think you might be able to have a discussion with John and get the full-protection lifted and the somewhat strange set of sanctions modified to something more workable? It's quite apparent that he places no value on my opinion.—Kww(talk) 00:46, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Not me, it is a mistake. In my opinion others are also collateral damage. --AmritasyaPutraT 19:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking about that myself. I'd personally like to see an RfC or some sort of rough consensus regarding how to address the pseudoscience thing before opening the article up again. I have a feeling the uncertainty of the last RfC, tainted by the socks, will lead to an edit war if the article is unprotected right now. 01:07, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I've asked Robert McClenon to consider reclosing the RFC. "Tainted" is a pretty mild way to describe that last one.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I think a new RfC would be better...one that avoids the false dichotomy. I'd love for someone to take this and run with it...I know far too little about the subject to make a good RfC myself, and it wouldn't be proper anyway. 02:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like he's striking the old one out and plans to discuss starting a new one.—Kww(talk) 02:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've placed an edit-notice on my talk page directing editors that want to question any of my past actions to talk to you. Let me know if you object.—Kww(talk) 17:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been offline quite a bit lately...out of state teaching at a summer music camp and I accidentally threw my smartphone in the lake on Thursday. I don't object, but it might take me a day or so to get back to people. 19:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it appears it will be a permanent arrangement, so a few days won't matter much in the great scheme of things.—Kww(talk) 11:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Ugh, I'm sorry. Best of luck to you 12:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

## Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

## In re: article tags

Adj, long time. Hope all is well. Saw you discussing tagging on a Talk page, and wanted to cast five quick votes. First, in re: tagging's purpose as being to draw editors: Mostly, I agree, but note, I routinely start, on arriving at an article, with seeing if I can address tag issues, esp. if they are old, and esp if avail. time and research resources allow for their speedy resolution. (E.g., correcting a single citation in a subject that I have applicable research tools, YES, will try to do so; addressing a whole section issue such as the "History and development of the concept" section at Species, which remains an unsourced wall of text, NO, will pass on editing in response to tags.) Hence, I approach the tags in this way out of respect for careful other editors. (Note, my earlier "Expert needed" and "Cleanup" tags placed on that 90% unsourced section in 2014 or so were removed, because it "made the article look bad".)

Second, I place tags because I think our readers deserve it. We, as scholars, have developed via training and years of experience, quick skills of discernment that allow us to perceive if a statement, paragraph, article is spot-on or likely untrustworthy. Our readers lack this training and facility. I had a secondary school-aged nephew recently tell me he had "never found a WIkipedia article untrustworthy," and then, after being shown inaccuracies, see him appear confused; moreover, on seeing two articles, one with tags, the other without, hear him state, "Well, I guess I need to consider the truth of everything I read online." This latter state of interpretive sophistication is where we want our readers to be, and not accepting what they read on blind faith, and the path to such an awareness of flaws is (I argue) openness on the part of WP editors.

Third, adding tags is intellectually honest, calling the good as good, and the bad for what it is. It is the same reason we mark student papers thoroughly, and not just with a final grade at the top. Improvement only happens with specific address of flaws. This leads us to the fourth: as another editor recently said (with regard to not clearly sourcing Chembox data) "your system isn't the best one because you separate [information from its]... source and this is contradictory behaviour for a reference work using quite a lot of different sources" search for User Snipr, here, which I use as a springboard to say that to not tag unsourced information is contradictory to our principles (and bordering on deceptive, to the point we are aware of the naive perceptions of young readers, as I have just mentioned).

FIfth and finally, the same author there makes an observation that I have repeatedly seen to be true, that a "contributor will do… [just] what is done usually. People work by mimicry and if the trend is to…" omit citations, cite general lists that fall short of verifiability, etc., then on finding an article in such a poor state, incoming editors, especially the less experienced will take the status quo to be acceptable practice. The point of adding tags at this point is to say, "Oh no you don't, the standard is still WP:VERIFY, so if you are going to add things, you have to source. Don't take the status quo as a carte blanche invitation to add material without it being verifiable." Tags mediate (remediate) this change in incoming editor perception, and bad articles are slowed in getting worse, and good ones keep getting better.

Hence, from my perspective, however much tags make articles appear imperfect—and in need of scrutiny and correction—in making them look that way, we are adhering most closely to the truth of the subject, and presenting what will, in the long run be a more reputable product, to what will eventually become a more discerning reading public. And if push comes to shove, my concern is always more for the readership, than for our feelings or appearances. All from me on this, just wanted you to hear a well thought out alternative perspective (here, where it does not muddy a focused article conversation). Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the note. I think I agree with you on a lot of these points. The main problems I have with article tags have mostly to do with how they are used. I don't like it when a random editor leaves a tag at the top of an article and then moves on, never to edit the page again. For example, someone recently placed an {{overly detailed}} tag at the top of an article on my watchlist without bothering to explain which parts of the article they thought had too much detail. I removed it because it was not useful.

The other thing that bugs me is when tags are used as a weapon in disputes. Somebody might dislike something about an article, but upon failing to get consensus to change it, they slap a "disputed" or "POV" tag on the article, in effect holding the article hostage until they get their way. People will sometimes spend more time arguing about whether an article should be tagged than they do actually trying to solve the underlying problem. A recent (ongoing) example of this is at User talk:Les Vegas. (See also this edit for context.)

I'd be interested to know if anybody has done a study on how useful tags are in attracting new editors to problem articles. 02:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

## Is there a place?

Thanks for putting an end to the ABF, reading between the lines, etc on DrChrissy's page. But is there really any place on WP that its acceptable to do this? AlbinoFerret 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Honestly I'm not sure. It might be worth looking into WP:DR and WP:DRN. 01:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
The problem is, as is evident from this post [2], a topic I am prevented from discussing is bound to pop up. I also dont think that post which is the main problem is a good candidate for WP:DR and WP:DRN. Its a behaviour issue, do you really think those places would be appropriate? AlbinoFerret 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like its continuing. today Jytdog posted an accusation about me on AN/I [3] "generally pro-altmed/anti-WP:MED editors like AlbinoFerret". I would like to be cleared to address this. I am asking here because the topic of my self appointed break from a topic is bound to come up. I have asked him nicely to remove the comment, but he has declined.[4] AlbinoFerret 14:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that the topic has already been raised.[5]. Am I allowed to mention the topic now? AlbinoFerret 19:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Talking about the "ban" itself is "legitimate and necessary dispute resolution" at the noticeboard. I'm not sure how much needs to be said...you probably shouldn't start talking about e-cigarettes other than to clarify details about the banbreak itself. I haven't had time to follow the AN/I thread today other than a quick perusal. (I just spent the day putting new shocks and struts on my car, which mostly involved a frustrating fight against really stubborn bolts and realizing that despite all my preparation I still didn't have the right tools for the job.) 04:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
In the end it wasnt necessary to bring anything up, nor did I want to, even now I would rather avoid it. I thought it was going to go in that direction but it didnt. Had it gone down that road I would have stepped back and waited for your response.
I can relate to the car work, back when I could work on my cars I often had a similar problem. Lucky for me, my brother in law who lives about a mile away has every tool you could think of. But every time I would get into fixing the car, he would be gone just at the point I had it half apart and found I needed something I didnt have. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Luckily I live about a half mile from an O'Reily auto parts store and I have a good bicycle. I made that trip 3-4 times today 04:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
• I have now responded to AlbinoFerret's request for difs in the thread he created above, here. The pattern is obvious, as I have said all along. I am noting this here only because AlbinoFerret has raised it here, not asking for and against any kind of action. Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
This was a section to help me choose if it was really worth going forward with your obvious ABF. Not to ask for any kind of sanctions. At this time I dont think its worth it. But if the problem persists, that will change. I recommend again to strike those posts, continually deciding not to strike them when requested will probably bite you in the rear end in the future if you continue to make ABF posts. AlbinoFerret 16:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@AF, even before Jytdog made the accusations and posted the analysis of the diffs I had wondered a bit what was motivating your contributions to the AN/I sections about DrChrissy, Atsme, altmed, etc. I remember thinking at one point that you shouldn't have presented yourself as an "uninvolved" editor since you had been in content disputes with some of the participants back in your e-cigarette days. To be fair, the same analysis probably goes both ways. We could probably analyze Jytdog's contributions and see a similar pattern of coming to the support of editors who have common enemies. It's not that uncommon on Wikipedia, and seems to be very common in this topic area. But actually proving anything is probably as difficult as trying to prove a WP:CABAL, and I can think of many better ways to spend one's time. 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
@Adjwilley Motivation? Well alot of it is that once I watch a page, I seldom unwatch it. As to Atsme and DrChrissy, I still have their pages watched, and have since the WP:AVDUCK essay where we edited. The AN/I sections pertaining to the ducks issue I saw as a content dispute that got worse and worse. I truly believe there were no clean hands in the dispute, and I had a first hand view to it as it was going on. To punish one side of a content dispute is wrong imho. This has nothing to do with MEDRS, its a policy, it is what it is. As for Doors22, the one that I think jtydog is most upset about. I !voted for a topic ban. But I thought 6 months was better than indef. In that section it was shown that Doors22 had a real low edit count and had become fixated on a topic with little activity outside of the topic. I thought 6 months would give them time to see other areas on WP and gain a better understanding of WP. If not that rope would be their undoing. As for sections I have commented on, I read the evidence and comment, regardless of who the person is, what the topic is about, what PAG it is on, or who I have edited with, its an opinion based on facts and PAG taking in both sides.
As for involvement, ya thats something I learned over time. I have only been real active on the board as a community member for about 5.5 months. At first I thought involvement had to do with the topic/page. I learned I was wrong and went on.
What I see is just ABF, looking for a problem with a conclusion already in place and trying to cherry pick instances to fit that pre conception. Look at the so called "disruptions" they are just comments in a discussion. He's looking for motivation by reading between the lines and then stating that as fact. He is to involved with the topics and is starting to see a shadow around every corner. I think your very right when discussing if this were reversed, it could look very bad, but thats ABF, and its not something I would advise anyone doing. Its near impossible to attribute motivation in a text medium where the other person is not in front of you, and you have no context on how those words are said. AlbinoFerret 18:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

## Giant edit

Hi Adjwilley! Sorry to bother you with this, but I assumed you'd probably want to know. This edit looks to be a real problem. Johnunique made, in one fell swoop, a huge edit, the kind QG used to make, reinserting so many problematic issues QuackGuru has lobbied for and supported for a very long time, which nobody ever agreed with him on, such as characterizing Ernst's opinions as "conclusions" and having Quackwatch statements in large block quotes. Just shortly thereafter, QuackGuru changed references on this giant edit which made it to where it couldn't be "undone", forcing editors who oppose this to manually remove each piece. It looks like they might be working in tandem since these were all edits QuackGuru has supported but knew he couldn't do. What do you think about this? LesVegas (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Acupuncture#Possible restructure in sandbox and User talk:Johnuniq#Sandbox. Please raise any specific "problematic issues" on article talk. If admin consideration of an article under discretionary sanctions is wanted, WP:AE is the proper place. However, it would be better to seek admin assistance after identifying a problem on talk. Johnuniq (talk) 05:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Adjwilley, sorry I didn't realize you were already on top of this. I will remove that giant edit but it'll take some time. It's funny that you and I both came to the same conclusions about it. LesVegas (talk) 12:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I've done about all I intend to do on this. Johnuniq is right that you shouldn't be running to me with problems like this. 15:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry to have bothered you about it. I assumed you would want to know QG was GAMEing even ref maintenance tags now, but now I know you're much more all-seeing than I previously thought. I'll just revert it piecemeal, once I have time, and report future incidents to AE. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
If you do intend to revert I recommend only reverting the parts that are problematic or went against consensus. Reverting for the sake of reverting isn't worth it, and a lot of people seem to think the edit was useful overall. 19:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

## Topic ban?

The project would not have been improved had you topic banned him, in fact, looking at that page, the net results have probably been away from our goals. The needlers and true believers have had a field day since the current sanction. Oh, I know, but I'll leave you to guess. All the best. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about QuackGuru? Since the edit restriction the major changes to the article have been the expansion of the History section by CorporateM, and as far as I know he's not a "needler". I don't think many of the changes by LesVegas have been lasting, though I think he'd also object to being called a needler. Am I missing something? 15:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, QG, and I know Les isn't actually a needler. I doubt you miss much btw. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

## QG

I did notice that User:CFCF was a colleague of User:QuackGuru over at the E-cigarette articles (currently at Arbcom) and that they had not edited the acupuncture article prior to the revert war on 4 October. I had not noticed the canvassing at the Fringe noticeboard. I feel somewhat like a school teacher, who after having told the schoolyard bully that he could only play on the playground if he stops throwing snowballs, returns to find him making snowballs and asking other kids to throw them. I'll review this more in detail when I have time. 02:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I still think that WP:AE is the proper place to raise concerns about possible discretionary sanction violations because other admins could then participate, and archived results could be more easily found in the future. That was mentioned at #Giant edit above where I also noted (19 September 2015) that no "problematic issues" have been identified. That is still true—there are only generic claims at Talk:Acupuncture#Mediocre unrelated to changes in the last month. LesVegas appears to believe that content discussion can be avoided by appealing here. Before that continues, please consider these responses by LesVegas:
The change in status quo includes "Edit warring (even making 1 revert in the context of a larger edit war) and battleground behavior is very likely to result in either WP:0RR restrictions, or a complete topic ban." Even the OP shows battleground behavior:
"undiscussed changes without consensus" [that is not correct: see here]
"drama QuackGuru would inevitably muster up"
"wronged the right"
Johnuniq (talk) 09:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Some background of Les going directly to Admins, instead of using procedure - here, here and most tellingly here. Those three are links to talk page discussions this year, now archived. I have no idea how many other threads like those he has started. I am aware ADJ, that you commented on some of those threads, but this is typical behaviour. It is also interesting to note other WP:SPAs doing exactly the same thing on that talk page. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 12:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Adj, just figured you'd want to know. And guys, put away the pitchforks. Adjwilley wrote me on my talk page and I'm responding on his. LesVegas (talk) 13:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I see that. I never understood why people respond to stuff in that way, seems odd to go somewhere else to reply? Will you be taking ADJs suggestion to heart? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 13:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I am well aware of Les's pattern, and I didn't need to follow the links to guess they were links to User:John's talk page. I'm fairly certain that it bugs me more than it bugs you, and I've tried to communicate that a few times without saying it straight out. 15:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Adjwilley, I had only mentioned this stuff to you in the past because you seemed interested in behavior problems amongst editors on the article. Plus I actually thought that was protocol, but in the future I will do something different. I'm very sorry if I was ever a bother to you or anyone else and feel rather embarrassed that I didn't know what I was supposed to be doing all along. But thank you for listening to me and for your continued concern, despite me going about things the wrong way. LesVegas (talk) 22:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
@LesVegas: You and I need to have a talk. Would you like to do that on your talk page, or here? I take it you've fixed your archiving so my comments won't immediately disappear again? 02:15, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah we can do it on my talk. It looks like it's fixed now for sure. LesVegas (talk) 13:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

## Worth noting...

LesVegas is on my list of POV-pushers to watch, and I think may well be abusing process to gain an advantage in a content dispute. That said QuackGuru has been drinking in the last chance saloon for a very long time and I'm astounded he has lasted as long as he has. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Patience, he's on my list too and I'm not finished yet. 17:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
I notice you mentioned, on QuackGuru's talk page, his habit of leaving weird talk page warnings for anyone who disagrees with him. I made a couple of edits to the electronic cigarette page last night and he immediately did the same thing to me.--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't plan on getting involved in the electronic cigarette brouhaha. ~Awilley (talk) 15:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from. Sadly ArbCom don't seem to want to touch it either...--AttackOfTheSnailDemons (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps it is the smell of socks that is making them keep their distance. What do you think? ~Awilley (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess I won't get an answer ~Awilley (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

## Precious again

beatitudes
Thank you, willing gnome with a scientific background and the absolute pitch for controversy, for improving Beatitudes and nourishing Dies irae in your sandbox, for a smile-provoking user page, for "most of the edits are related to these controversial issues" and "asking people questions until he can understand their point of view", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 1003rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda, for always being so thoughtful. ~Awilley (talk) 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

## Name change

I do hope the change wasn't prompted by people calling you "ADJ", ADJ? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no, the bit about wanting to be a noun instead of an adjective was just humor. The real reason was so that if somebody decided to take out wikipedia admins in alphabetical order I'd be further down the list. :-) ~Awilley (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Should have gone straight to being a Willey then  ;-)DrChrissy (talk) 16:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Isn't that what I did? (A willey). Actually, I kept the A in front so people would still recognize me, while removing some of the unpronounceable consonants. (How do you say djw?) ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) I quite often say "djw"...usually after several tankards of our local "Tanglefoot" Scrumpy! The worst part of this is that my drinking buddies understand exactly what I am saying!DrChrissy (talk)
Speaking from experience, I know that name changes can kind of tie up the servers once in a while. Did you encounter any problems with that? John Carter (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
I had heard that username changes kill server bunnies, but I can't remember where or find a source for that. My understanding was that it's accounts with tons of edits that bog down the servers. I'm not at 10,000 edits yet, so I doubt there was much more than a minor bump for me. I didn't notice any problems. ~Awilley (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

## My topic ban - Pain in humans

Hi. I have been editing Pain in fish and a discussion has opened about the definition of this article. It is almost impossible for me to enter meaningful discussions about this without mentioning pain in humans. I do not want to discuss humans in any detail whatsoever, only to use it in the opening sentence defining the article. However, this is currently being discussed on the Talk Page and I wanted to know if this will be in breach of my topic ban?DrChrissy (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your input but it is not needed here. I am sure Awilley can speak for himself.DrChrissy (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I suspect the edit that precipitated DrChrissy's query was this one. Because pain has a subjective component, many issues to do with animal pain are discussed in terms of their behavioural and neural accompaniments and their analogy with humans who can be said to be experiencing pain. The focus is on pain in non-human animals, such as fish and cockroaches. Humans are mentioned only by way of analogy. There is no sense such edits or discussions could be said to amount to editing human medical issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking first. What is it you wish to say? If you want to say something specifically about humans it's probably best not to. If it's fish/animals you wish to talk about, it seems like you should be able to participate in the talk page discussion about pain in fish without replying to stuff about humans. It's awkward, time consuming, and annoying, I agree, but the best way to get the ban removed is to respect it. When people can clearly see that you're not contributing to "drama" anymore you'll be able to get the ban reversed. ~Awilley (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Awilley, the entire thrust of my motivation for contacting you first is to avoid dramah. I am trying so hard to respect my ban. Is asking you questions about this contributing to dramah?DrChrissy (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, no, I wasn't trying to suggest that. I'm glad you asked. ~Awilley (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not see it, just edited around the edit conflict, and won't revert you if you move it inside. But I'm not going to do it myself.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

## Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see the notice at the top Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors, "Sectioned discussion will be strictly enforced on all talk cases in this arbitration case (other than comments by clerks or arbitrators), by direction of a drafter". Please move your recent comment into your own section. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've moved it to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested_contributors#Awilley.27s_section (clerk action). Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@L235: I edit conflicted hatting my own comment since it had already been responded to already, making a mess. Please feel free to just remove everything. ~Awilley (talk) 04:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I'll just reverse your two latest edits, leaving your comment in a lower section and unhatted section with anchor above. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
@L235: Not your fault. If it's the same to you I would prefer to simply have all my comments removed. I'm not ready to have a section of my own, I just wanted to give User:Wehwalt a link to the WP space essay. Perhaps you could remove my section and leave the following: "Reply to [6] Fair point...." ~Awilley (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Awilley, you're free to remove your section and the little pointer anchor in Wehwalt's section. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Either way is fine with me. I can massage it now that I'm aware of the essay.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

## Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 12:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

## Arbitration Evidence

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is 1178 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

If there's a way to split your block table so that my section (which incorporates yours by reference) can take up some of the load, feel free. We may reach diametrically opposite conclusions as to where the problem lies, but we are looking at exactly the same logs.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kww: Thanks. I actually plan on asking for an exemption for the collapsed block table when I find the time. (It's like 700 "words" by itself.) I think any human wanting to read and make sense of Eric's block logs will find the table very useful. Anybody who doesn't want to look at it or who already knows the block logs doesn't have to even open the "Collapse" bar. I'm hoping they'll give me an extra 1000 words in exchange for my picture :-) @Amortias: For the moment I just need to get everything down before I start trimming. Hopefully with the evidence phase extended that won't be a problem. ~Awilley (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've had to include some duplicate evidence or my section won't meet the criteria to stay on the page anyway, apparently.—Kww(talk) 15:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand the need for rules, but sometimes navigating the Arbcom process feels like trying to negotiate with a robot. ~Awilley (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Forgive my cynicism, but my belief is that the decision is generally made without looking at the evidence page anyway.—Kww(talk) 03:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

## A soothing cup of tea

 As befits my cultural background, I'd like to offer you a cup of tea. I appreciate your willingness to assume good faith, something we should all do more of. I know you've taken a chance on me, but I shan't allow you to regret it. RGloucester — ☎ 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! ~Awilley (talk) 17:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Barnstar of Diligence I think the work you did at the Arbitration enforcement 2 case goes a very long way into cutting through the hyperbole on both sides and gives a better picture than all the other participants combined. While you can't help but to draw some conclusion, I think most people would agree they are rational and at the very least, plausible. Whatever the outcome, I can't help but to think the Arbs will pay close attention to your contribution and it will help them formulate an outcome that is equitable and truly better for everyone involved. You continue to impress with your fairness. [7]. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Dennis, that means a lot to me coming from you. ~Awilley (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

## Good close

[8] Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I only closed it because it looked like one of those things that was going to go on and on without achieving anything. ~Awilley (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

## ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

## HTD

Nice work. Keep it up. Cla68 (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't like it either, but asking nicely didn't seem to be working. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Awiley, would you mind just thwacking him for a day or two? He's been asked to stay off my page many times because he's inevitably trolling, but just felt the need to pop his head up again. FWIW: the reason I have counsel is both related to some actual serious rather than just e-troll Wikipedia-related stuff in the past, combined with multiple suits I'm currently involved in regarding contract disputes and a rather large Title IX against UC Berkeley, as well as preparation for the equivalent under final federal rules etc of a Title 2 against TSA. In any case, his continued trolling (although no where near as serious as subtly changing candidate's answers) has really just hit the point where enough is enough. (Before someone accuses me of canvassing admins, I barely know Awilley, and an only here because they were the last admin I could think of who had threatened to block Giano fore more of this shit.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll watch him if you'll ignore him. ~Awilley (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC) Oh, I see you said thwacking, not watching. I misread. ~Awilley (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I've gotten to the point of rving him from my talk page in most circumstances around things like elections and other drama, unless someone has replied in the interim. It's just a bit irksome that someone who is so wikihoundish and harrassy (to the point of editwarring with me in my own talk space multiple times) doesn't have action taken against him for it as a general rule. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Have you tried simply ignoring him? If Giano is, as you say, a troll, then you are giving him an early Thanksgiving dinner. If I had the power to make an interaction ban it would be two-way. I'll keep him off your questions page, you focus on not adding fuel to his fire. ~Awilley (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, my advice to anyone who has any issue with Giano is: have a chat with Bishonen, privately if possible. I find this adds valuable perspective. Plus, time spent talking to Bish is never wasted. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

## Thanks

This was exactly what i was hoping for. I could not do it myself for the same reason Jess should not have closed the RfC. Onward and upward... Guy (Help!) 09:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

## Thanks for the (implied) trout on AN

I am well aware, because I find it very annoying when I come across it myself, that responding to every (or almost every) comment in a discussion is annoying and generally counter-productive, but sometimes it's hard to stop, and this was one of those cases for me. Thanks for pointing it out, and I'll try harder to control my impulses. Best, BMK (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. No worries, it's easy to do, and I've done it myself as well. ~Awilley (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I have lost count of the number of times I've 'commented,' then chickened out. I'm rather pleased with my restraint. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

## The non-level quality of nature

I woke up this morning to find my talk page image rotated by 4 degrees, which changes the appearance of the image. While I'm always open to new things, and I admit the image works better due to the poor structure of the talk page archive and search boxes, the result is that it changes the entire aesthetic quality of the original image, to the point where I would never have used it on my talk page in the first place. I was curious about why this was done, so I searched for an answer until I found this. And while it would be easy to replace it with an unmodified duplicate of the original, I'm more interested in trying to understand your thought processes. I'm funny that way. :-)

First of all, what makes you think that the camera was supposed to be level? Are you aware that the attraction of the image is solely in its non-level qualities, featuring a non-vertical, non-horizontal plane, resulting in the presentation and display of a diagonal line formed by the line of grass rather than a flat horizontal, indicating the wild aspect of nature that refuses to be hedged in by human imposed standards of order? Lots of art critics and philosophers talk about this very idea, so I'm surprised to see you request a rotation to "fix" what appears to me to be a quite deliberate and intentional framing by the photographer.

I hope you can see how humorous I find your requested change. It would be like requesting the modification of a Picasso to fix the skewed dimensions, or of a Monet to fix the colors. One of the best discussions of this quality of nature is found in Alan Watts' Conversation with Myself. It's a brief, 28 minute film that explains what I'm trying to communicate to you. I would appreciate it if you would watch it and then get back to me with any feedback. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Right, that will never do. I had found myself tilting my head while looking at the image, the same way I do when googling the word "askew". At first I thought the landscape was sloped, but the reflection of the clouds was off too, meaning the water wasn't level. I had never requested a rotation before and had no idea they would just rotate the picture and leave it like that. I thought it would look like this when it was done. I will watch the video and get back to you. ~Awilley (talk) 05:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
(Ah... at long last... a worthy conversation between a content builder and an admin!) --Epipelagic (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
forget the wonky smile - what about my wonky horizons!
If we are into fixing pictures, I saw this rather obscure, somewhat vulgar, amateur piece has got two different horizons!DrChrissy (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, it's been a busy week leading up to the holidays. I've had either a concert or rehearsal (or both) every single evening since Thursday. Anyway, I've watched the video (twice) and I think it's very relevant, perhaps more so today than in 1971. I think the most relevant quote to the picture rotation was "You're only making a mess, by trying to put things straight. You're trying to straighten out a wiggly world, and no wonder you're in trouble." Touche. That said, I still prefer [9] to [10]. I'm not an artist and I don't really "get" Picasso. Most of the "art" I like involves stuff like landscapes, fractals, and the occasional fruit bowl. I don't know what the photographer was thinking — if she deliberately positioned the camera at a non-level angle for artistic and symbolic impact or if it was a it was careless holding of the cell phone. For me it's not about whether the horizon is horizontal or diagonal, but seeing things as they are. But I'm fine with leaving the picture the way it is. ~Awilley (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
But, the camera is "level"! Or to put it another way, there's a man in Beijing who is wondering why you are standing upside down. Viriditas (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
If I had to define a "level" relative to some reference point then I would choose the water in the lake. ~Awilley (talk) 06:58, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Photographers very often use different rules by dispensing with what is "level" in favor of other aesthetic values, such as in this case, highlighting the uneven, diagonal of the top of the leafy field line. This is a common framing and compositional technique.[11]. Again, I don't understand your compulsion to define a level area when we are spinning around in space on the surface of an unlevel sphere. However, I want to thank you for watching the video and trying to understand my position. There is no need to impose human order on the natural word. That would defeat the purpose of a photo of nature. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

## Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

## I've been meaning to ask you...

...do we have an article about LDS and homelessness? From what I understand, they have a successful approach that others are trying to duplicate. What do you think? Viriditas (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know of an LDS church program specifically dealing with homelessness, but the "Church Welfare Program" (WSJ article) comes to mind. It doesn't have a Wikipedia article that I can find, but oddly has two sub-topic articles: LDS Humanitarian Services (not in great shape) and Welfare Square. ~Awilley (talk) 20:16, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry for the confusion. I just found the article. It's called Housing First. And while it's not an LDS idea, it looks like they support it. Viriditas (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

## Kww's block of 31.6.0.0/18

Issues involving Kww are suggested by him as now best addressed here.

Kww blocked the range 31.6.0.0/18. I don't know when or what the circumstances were. But this is a range that I know is used by several good faith editors in the Middle East and elsewhere who for reasons to do with their personal safety are not able to request unblock rights.

I don't think blanket blocks are a good idea. I should prefer it if administrators blocked the account and not the system.

I am editing from an IP address (Warrington UK) that the Wikimedia Foundation knows is good faith and active in protecting the privacy and safety of Wikipedia editors.

Thank you. 86.151.170.14 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a Powerhouse range used to disguise the identity of the contributor and assist them in evading blocks. Powerhouse is an ISP devoted to the support of piracy. I always routinely blocked such ranges when I discovered them.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

## Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

## Self-requested block

Please block this account in accordance with the conditions of my unblocking. Thank you, RGloucester 22:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

## Happy New Year, Awilley!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
LesVegas (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


## Happy New Year, Awilley!

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

## ANI consensus languishing

This comment seems to sum things up nicely. As a peon, all I could do was express an opinion.—Kww(talk) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~Awilley (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

 Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

## User:Funkatastic

I just want to keep you informed that the above editor was banned from editing discography articles for a period of one month per this AN/I discussion. However, Funkatastic has already violated it by making an edit at J. Cole discography.--Harout72 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

When the inevitable occurs you should keep this diff in mind.—Kww(talk) 14:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Based on this, it's clear that Funkatastic will continue to behave in a similar manner as always.--Harout72 (talk) 14:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably. I'll wait and see if they choose to violate the topic ban. In any case, they're definitely on my radar. ~Awilley (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

## credit

I did give you credit in an email for this quote:

• "I don't doubt many of them would use Scalila's death as a political tool."

IMO that falls under the "sad but true" category. — 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note :-) ~Awilley (talk) 01:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Looks like we're not the only ones thinking that... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/17/us/politics/supreme-court-path-is-littered-with-pitfalls-for-president-and-gop.html first paragraph. ~Awilley (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

## Clean start.

I wish to make a clean start and was directed by another user to contact you about what I need to do to do so. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 20:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that I can tell you much about clean starts that isn't in the policy you linked. You don't need anybody's permission, so long as you aren't under any active sanctions which, judging by your contribution history, seems unlikely. As far as I know it's as simple as throwing up a Retired banner, logging out, and starting fresh. If there's something specific you'd like advice on feel free to shoot me an email. ~Awilley (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Awesome. There was nothing specific. I just wanted to make sure I was doing it by the book. Thanks for that. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck! ~Awilley (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

## Topic ban violation

Somewhat inevitable: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boosie_Badazz_discography&diff=prev&oldid=706838919Kww(talk) 21:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't terribly hopeful myself either. ~Awilley (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

## And now for the mandatory sockpuppeting

Of course, Funkatastic's edits were restored by an editor that protests that he "doesn't know that user", even though the only other edits he has made were to the filmography section of Norm Macdonald. Care to guess who the last editor to edit the filmography section of Norm Macdonald was? I'm sure that it won't surprise you that it was Funkatastic.

Certainly was easier when I could take care of this stuff myself. I hope those that defended the right of former bureaucrats to willfully violate BLP and BURDEN find the tradeoff worth it.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

 The Anti-Flame Barnstar I knew that an indefinite block was in Funkatastic's future long before most. His terrible attitude during our conflict last year caught me by surprise, and I (foolishly) allowed him to coerce me into a 3RR violation. Editors who "live" for conflict with other editors, personal attacks, and unwillingness to accept failure or follow rules are all doomed to that same fate. I ardently thank you for your great judgment against a problematic figure whose behaviors threatened Wikipedia as a whole. I award this barnstar to you for doing what I failed to do. Perhaps if I had kept a cool head, many conflicts would not have taken place... Happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Wow, "threatened Wikipedia as a whole" might be a bit of an overstatement. Really though, Kww is the one you should thank. He did all the grunt work. ~Awilley (talk) 18:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll make sure to do that. Thanks for letting me know. Also, in retrospect, I don't think I overstated anything at all. One charismatic figure with bad intentions can cause havoc on unimaginable levels. Happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

## Using a different name

Hi Awilley,

This is me (A1candidate) using a different name. If you recall, we last spoke to each other around a year ago and you told me to take a break from this place and I have done exactly that. Upon much reflection, I've decided to voluntarily stay away from the controversial topic areas related to alternate medicine. I feel that this is a necessary step to avoid the inevitable drama that comes along. I've also switched to a different account in order to avoid another encounter with some of the people making blatant fabrications about my private life and untrue COI accusations.

What I would like to know from you, is whether I need to disclose the name of my former account (A1candidate) on my main userpage? I am hesitant to do this (due to privacy reasons) but I understand the importance of transparency and am willing to put this information on a subpage if it is absolutely necessary. Must I do that? If so, where should I make the disclosure?

Thanks for taking a look into this!

RoseL2P (talk) 02:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This is their 2nd attempt to admin shop this. this was the first. I have filed an SPI on this matter here. Jytdog (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
@Jytdog: this is hardly admin shopping. I was the admin who placed the discretionary sanctions on A1candidate, and this is clearly a request for advice. Please try to disengage from this.
@RoseL2P: The accounts are pretty clearly linked by a multitude of diffs, and I don't know of a firm rule that requires you to indefinitely declare they're linked on your user page. That said, I think it would be wise of you to use the {{User_previous_account}} user box on your user page, and if you haven't already done so, permanently retire the A1candidate account. ~Awilley (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Awilley please look at RoseL2P's contribs sometime when you get time. There is nothing like a good faith CLEANSTART in the behavior of this account. It has been more of a ninja attack account, going after A1's enemies (me, Guy, MastCell, and MEDRS). Its first posts at the Arbcom against me were incomprehensibly sophisticated and sharp for an account with so few diffs, which is what led to the connection with A1 being dug up... which was then never addressed. I have said the rest at SPI. Jytdog (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Where did RoseL2P profess to be a CLEANSTART account? One of the things I found in my digging was their assertion that "I am not a clean start of A1candidate; I switched my account...". Anyway I made a comment on the SPI page, and I'm happy to let admins more familiar with the nuances of WP:SOCK decide whether RoseL2P is an illegitimate alternative account. ~Awilley (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks I think your comment was helpful. Yes what Rose/A1 has been saying makes no sense. The only valid basis I know of for starting a new account is WP:CLEANSTART which requires that you walk away from your former conflicts; you cannot start a new account and then drive right back into your old conflicts under a new name. A1/Rose disclaimed a clean start and has just been violating the crap out of clean start, yet that was the only valid basis for the 2nd account existing. They have been among the most policy savvy alt med advocates I have dealt with and at the same time, one who is unafraid to make bold assertions that he knows twist policy beyond recognition, to get done what he wanted done. Always worked by that kind of bravado. This behavior is entirely in line with that. Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
FYI, there are many valid reasons for creating alternate accounts. There is a list of at least 10 reasons at WP:SOCK#LEGIT in case you're interested. ~Awilley (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes and their justification fits exactly none of those. In any case while BBB has found their behavior yuck, the close cuts slack. That is not a bad thing. Let's see what A1 does with their WP:ROPE. Jytdog (talk) 09:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Awilley: Just want to let you know that the SPI case has been closed with what I think is a fair and balanced decision. If Jytdog has any outstanding issues related to me, I would encourage him to communicate with me on my talk page. Best, RoseL2P (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

## Kww's Protection on Sacagawea article

Greetings. Seems @Kww: sends editors to you based on this Editnotice. So, may I suggest that if you could, you please look into reviewing Kww's protection of this article ("as edited by Kww (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 28 March 2011 (Changed protection level of Sacagawea: meant semi-protection, not full ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite))).")? It is now over 5 years since it was added. One can see some vandalism took place back then, but considering the open-editing nature of our project here, I would suggest it now be re-opened for all to edit. Future abuse will be dealt with as it is with other articles, and if it becomes a major issue, you (or others) could always re-protect it. Thank you in advance & regards (from a lowly editor) — 71.236.191.197 (talk) 02:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at the history of the article before I protected it: Sacagawea never makes it far into the school year without being semi-protected for the rest of the year.—Kww(talk) 02:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
True enough @Kww:, but again, it's been over 5 years since it was added. That's ages in Wiki-years. It is probably worth it to open it up and see what happens. Plus, school's about out-for-summer in the US so maybe there'll be 3 months of not seeing silliness from the standard sets of educational-IP-addresses. Our policies have also evolved somewhat since 2011, and if one reads the current Wikipedia Protection policy, it would seem keeping it this way (and yet again, for 5 years) would not be in keeping with the current stated language. Would you not concur? So, how about pulling the protection, we'll keep an eye out for those-darn-kids, and if they return, then I'd suggest that under policy there'd be no issue on putting protection back on. Regards — 71.236.191.197 (talk) 22:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm willing to unprotect it on a trial basis. If the vandalism starts back on we can slap an indefinite semi-protection back on it. I've added the page to my watchlist, although I'll admit I've been rather inactive lately. 20:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I have no issue with slapping an indefinite semi-protection back on if the vandals return. I certainly agree it's too much of a hassle & time-waste on oft-abused pages keep having to undo. If it is needed, may I suggest using Pending changes protection instead? It will at least allow good-faith new/IP editors to do an edit, yet have it approved before display. (ps. Thanks Awilley for letting us talk in your space!) Regards — 71.236.191.197 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Eight hours, fifty-six minutes. Even I wouldn't have been that pessimistic.—Kww(talk) 22:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

## thanks

Thanks for removing the trolling. I appreciate your warning to be carefu; with accusations. Heard. Now as to AGF, that's a tough one when I get a weird message like that, an ARBCom filing and an ANI all in one day. Any reasonable person would say hey, this person does not have good faith towards me. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I highly recommend you take a break from Wiki for the weekend. Don't let it ruin your day. A trusted admin is looking into the situation, and will hopefully resolve things tomorrow. You won't help anything with a flurry of activity here. ~Awilley (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
P.S., It's probably best to keep Wiki things on-Wiki. ~Awilley (talk) 04:18, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Roger that. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 04:19, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

## Self-requested block

I'd like to request an indefinite block on the basis of my previous unblocking. Thanks. RGloucester 14:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Best wishes. ~Awilley (talk) 18:13, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

## Comment

I'm not quite sure what to say. The other user removed language (about Wharton) that had been specifically debated at the talk page only a few days before. Anyway, I will feel a lot more free to edit the article now. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're talking about this edit and this talk page discussion, correct? I think I understand what you're talking about. If DrFleishman had participated in the talkpage discussion that concluded on 1 August or had been aware of prior reverts regarding the Wharton School, then I could see a case for their edit being an intentional revert. As far as I can tell they weren't aware of the discussion, and didn't start seriously editing the article or talk page until 2 August. Additionally, from what I can tell their edit didn't change the meaning of the sentence. (A "B.S. degree in physics" is the same as a "B.S. in physics" to me.) From what I can tell it was in good faith, and not a revert. ~Awilley (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No, I'm referring to the diff that I numbered "3", regarding Wharton: edit at 18:35, 8 August 2016. The edit summary was "rm Wharton - reliable sources dispute that Trump graduated from Wharton, as distinguished from Penn". That matter had recently been hashed out at the article talk page, e.g.: "Unless there's something which contradicts this source, the claim that 'he graduated from Wharton' should be removed from the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)". You really think that wasn't a revert at 18:35 on 8 August 2016?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Right. If I were patrolling the 3RR noticeboard I still wouldn't count it as a revert, as it looks like a legitimate attempt to correct a perceived error, and because I don't see any indication that DrFrankin was aware of the prior discussion. Based on my conversation below, I think DrFrankin is going to be more careful in editing the article. I don't think there's anything left to do here. ~Awilley (talk) 20:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm going to try to avoid 1RR articles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for looking it over.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

## 3RR: "whether involving the same or different material"

Hi Awilley, thanks for your advice on my user talk regarding Anythingyouwant's edit warring complaint. As a separate but related matter, do you know the reason(s) for the language "whether involving the same or different material" from WP:3RR and the fate of any efforts to have it changed or removed?

I've always been puzzled by that language, and in some cases it inhibits normal non-edit warring work. For instance, I'd like to revert portions of this edit at Donald Trump, which are clearly erroneous. (Trump didn't graduate from Fordham, and his bachelors was a B.S., not a B.A.) I highly doubt there would be any serious dispute over my reverts, but because the article is 1RR and I did a "revert" less than 24 hours ago on totally unrelated content (implementing talk page consensus, again, not edit warring), I can't make these changes without first discussing them. Is the intent of WP:EP really to force me to propose these reverts on the talk page and have someone else implement them, or wait until the 24 hour period is over? I'd prefer to be able to follow the normal BRD cycle, which prioritizes improvement of the encyclopedia. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think an attempt to change the "same or different material" language will fail. If it were not there, an editor could theoretically disruptively revert any and all edits he disagreed with, so long as they didn't involve the same material. Also, just to clarify, even if a revert has the support of talk page consensus, or is not objectionable to anyone, it still counts as a revert. Under normal 3RR conditions this isn't a problem, and most users don't even need to think about it. On the politics articles, misbehaving silly-season editors have forced the community to impose the 1RR restrictions, which are an inconvenience to normal editors, but which help administrators to minimize the disruption caused by the SPA POV pushing editors.

The diff you linked above is just a link to 3RR, but from what you've told me, I don't think changing B.A. to B.S. would be a revert, unless someone else just changed B.S. to B.A. If that's the case, and if you can't revert because of 1RR, instead of starting a new talk page section asking others to revert, you might consider using a maintenance tag like [not in citation given] or [dubious ] on the offending word. If someone else doesn't fix it you can do it yourself later. ~Awilley (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry for the bad link. I fixed it. I understand that reverting various edits all over an article willy-nilly may be disruptive, but is that edit warring or is it a different, rarer flavor of WP:DE that could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis? I could be wrong, but as I understand it, when articles are put under 1RR it's not because people are engaging in that sort of mass reversion across different content; it's because of multiple instances of "true" edit warring (i.e. back-and-forth reverting). As for implementation of talk page consensus, I understand that can technically "count" as a revert for the purpose of 3RR, but that doesn't make it edit warring behavior. I'm not trying to change that particular aspect of 3RR, just pointing out that the cumulative effect of 3RR's language substantially inhibits productive editing on 1RR articles. I could be wrong but it strikes me that removal of the "same or different material" language would greatly reduce the problem without creating substantial new ones. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps...I don't know...that might be a question better asked on the talk page of the edit warring policy. I personally suspect softening the rule would open the door to abuse to would-be article gatekeepers, but it's not an area where I have a lot of recent hands-on experience. ~Awilley (talk) 20:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I'd rather not get involved in every RfC you have on that talk page, and my previous comment was meant only to be a nudge for people to consider using attribution. While you're here, though, I've been wanting to have a word with you for a while now, since I saw you somewhere speculating that people were gathering evidence on you and that you'd eventually be topic-banned from presidential election articles (if my memory serves me correctly). I was actually thinking of leaving a note on your talk page yesterday, but I didn't have the time. Anyway, from my perspective it seems that you are on that path, given your intense involvement in the related pages and your propensity to WP:BLUDGEON. Anyway, I have some free advice for you, but only if you're interested. ~Awilley (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I'll go ahead and email you, so you can give me the free advice.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I emailed you. If you would prefer to do it here at your talk page, then that's okay too, I suppose.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── P.S. I am working on a huge research project regarding this:

${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {E} ={\frac {\rho }{\varepsilon _{0}}}}$
${\displaystyle \nabla \cdot \mathbf {B} =0}$
${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {E} =-{\frac {\partial \mathbf {B} }{\partial t}}}$
${\displaystyle \nabla \times \mathbf {B} =\mu _{0}\mathbf {J} +\mu _{0}\varepsilon _{0}{\frac {\partial \mathbf {E} }{\partial t}}\ }$

If your advice is really gentle, and we become best pals, then maybe I will tell you more.🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I got your email, but I'd prefer to keep wiki stuff on-wiki. First off, let me tell you how I see things at the contested articles. I have this image in my mind of editors fighting to bring articles to a neutral point of view. Imagine the article as a long rope, NPOV as a small circle on the ground, and editors on either sides of the circle having a fierce tug of war with the rope. Each side is trying to bring "balance" to the article by fighting the opposing point of view. Occasionally an editor will do something so far out of line that an admin steps in and removes them from the game, but for the most part they're left to fight it out on their own. As a result the article suffers. It ends up being this disjointed patchwork of opposing POV statements, stacked with supporting citations of course, that spends a lot of time on the "controversial" stuff. It also results in frustrating gridlock on the talk page.

Obviously it would be more efficient if an editor were to simply coil the rope and place it in the NPOV circle, but that kind of thing is impossible when everybody is trying to pull the rope in their preferred direction. Nevertheless, when I'm adminning around contested articles I try to identify the people who have the encyclopedia's best interests in mind...who don't have their own agendas for the article, but who oppose POV pushing from all sides. I've seen a couple of editors like this at the Clinton article, which is in a fairly mature state already, but not many at the Trump article. In fact I can only think of one frequent contributor and talk page participant who doesn't consistently take the same side and who is consistently trying to find what is best for the encyclopedia regardless of which "side" it seems to favor. As an admin I see my job as trying to make life easier for that kind of editor.

Doing all this, and having a solid knowledge of Wikipedia policy, will make you unstoppable. You'll win most disputes because you'll always have the best sources on your side (though what you'll actually be doing is taking the side of the best sources). And your edits to the article will stand up over time. Ten years from now you'll be able to look at the article and still see things that you wrote, which will not be the case for most of the people trying to add POV stuff to the article. Finally, you will be generally respected by your peers and admins like me will be happy to have you around.

Anyway, that's my advice, do with it what you will. Right now I see you as one of the people pulling hardest on the rope, not to say you have the most extreme POV in the room (not by a long shot) but that you are working harder than anybody else to push it. (WP:BLUDGEON). If you don't believe that, go to WP:RS/N and do a Ctrl+F of your username. And if you continue on that path, as hard as you try to stay within the rules you will eventually annoy enough people that they'll gang up and get you topic banned.

The reason I'm taking the time to write all this is because I can see that you've invested a lot of time and energy in Wikipedia and you aren't one of those drive-by silly-season or single purpose accounts that we all despise. ~Awilley (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, okay, that's very gentle and good advice, thanks. If we can have a brief discussion now, that would be even better. I put together the info at List_of_books_by_or_about_Donald_Trump and was intending to go study most of those books at a library, to improve the BLP, but two things conspired against me: laziness (which is all my fault), plus the recurring need to try and put out perceived fires at the BLP (which is only my fault if I have a bad nose for fire). I'm not sure what good the control-F would do; are you saying that the number of comments I made proves something in itself? I learned quite a bit from that discussion (e.g. from MjolnirPants), and that conversation also led me to study carefully the work of Profesor Lucas Graves regarding the fact-checking type of journalism (which I then put into the Donald Trump article). I feel like I've helped to keep that BLP neutral; obviously, the most sensitive issue recently has been about falseness, and I feel satisfied that I've made the material about falseness in the article body neutral and insightful; do you disagree that it is now neutral and insightful? I haven't tried to make Trump seem like Honest Abe by a long shot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Let's take the recent dispute about falseness as an example. I'm looking at the paragraph in this diff for reference. We have 3 sentences:
• Many of the statements Trump has made during his presidential campaign have been controversial or false.
• Fact checking organizations such as PolitiFact and FactCheck.org have singled him out as having made record numbers of false statements during his campaign compared to other candidates, based on the statements they have analyzed.
• Trump's penchant for exaggerating to voters is rooted in the world of New York real estate where he made his fortune, and where hyperbole is a way of life.
The first probably goes too far in Wikipedia's voice without proper attribution. That's what you've been fighting against, and I understand why. The second is a neutral, properly attributed statement of fact that nobody can disagree with. The third is overly apologetic, seeking to excuse the problem, 'cause he's from New York, and that's how you make a fortune in real estate. (mild sarcasm) Now we have 2 concurrent RfCs over "false" and "hyperbolic", while in the long run the 2nd sentence is all that was needed. (I'm just going off that one diff, realizing that that paragraph has now become more bloated to cast doubt on the fact checkers' methodology...way too much detail for a top-level biography!) This is an example of the problem I described above as a "disjointed patchwork of opposing POV statements...that spends a lot of time on the controversial stuff".
My point with the Ctrl+F was the number of comments. It's certainly not a filibuster, but did you read the bludgeon essay I linked? There's a similar trend in the two RfCs where you, User:MrX and User:DrFleischman have responded to a disproportionate number of comments. You have also created two level-3 subsections in the first RfC. I'm not saying that discussion is a bad thing, but when a few people dominate the discussion making the same points repeatedly it gets annoying. ~Awilley (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I entirely agree there were big problems with the old version of that paragraph. I think the new version is better, and more defensible, and has not been disputed (yet):

References

1. ^ Lippman, Daniel; Samuelsohn, Darren; Arnsdorf, Isaac (March 13, 2016). "Trump's Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods". Politico.
2. ^ "The 'King of Whoppers': Donald Trump". FactCheck.org. December 21, 2015.
3. ^ Holan, Angie Drobnic; Qiu, Linda (December 21, 2015). "2015 Lie of the Year: the campaign misstatements of Donald Trump". PolitiFact.
4. ^ Farhi, Paul. "Think Trump’s wrong? Fact checkers can tell you how often. (Hint: A lot.)", Washington Post (February 26, 2016).
5. ^ Flitter, Emily and Oliphant, James. "Best president ever! How Trump's love of hyperbole could backfire", Reuters (August 28, 2015): "Trump's penchant for exaggeration could backfire - he risks promising voters more than he can deliver....Optimistic exaggeration...is a hallmark of the cutthroat New York real estate world where many developers, accustomed to ramming their way into deals, puff up their portfolios. 'A little hyperbole never hurts,' he wrote....For Trump, exaggerating has always been a frequent impulse, especially when the value of his Trump brand is disputed."
6. ^ "Trump tics: Making hyperbole great again", Agence France-Presse via 'Yahoo News (August 16, 2016).
7. ^ Graves, Lucas. "'Deciding What’s True’ with Lucas Graves", WORT (August 10, 2016). This is an audio interview of Graves, author of Deciding What's True: The Rise of Political Fact-Checking in American Journalism (Columbia University Press 2016). Note particularly the portion of audio beginning at 50:30.

This is not how I would have written the paragraph from scratch, so it does contain some tug of war, but it's something that can suffice for the time being, I think. It points out that "simply false" is only one of several species of Trump's inaccuracies. It has inline attribution. It biographically suggests why Trump is the way he is as to exaggeration, and also makes the reader aware of another Trump technique: vagueness. It put the reader on notice that the vagueness is challenging for fact-checkers to deal with. I mean, it is somewhat of a hodgepodge, but it also tells the reader a hell of a lot. You may say too much, but the idea that Trump is a serial liar is very sensitive and needs context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

As to bludgeoning, "Typically, the person replies to almost every '!vote' or comment....." At RS/N, there are about 18 !votes in the survey, and I wrote comments in response to only one of them other than my own (i.e. User:CFredkin's). So maybe I'm an atypical bludgeoner? Anyway, I will try to be more careful about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough :-) If I were writing the paragraph from scratch (which I don't intend to) I'd probably approach it from the side of him saying outrageous stuff, earning him lots of free media attention, but also providing fodder for fact checkers. Debates over whether to label someone a liar are distasteful to me in any context. (Although to be fair I don't think anybody has proposed actually calling him a liar in the article.) I won't push this further, and I've probably said too much anyway. ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I will be re-reading your comments, because they are thoughtful and appreciated. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

## Avoiding conflict

Hello. I came across your "user name'" on User:SPECIFICO's talk page within the last day. It seems you are a level headed administrator. In any case, I want to share with you a recent concern that I have, and which I have posted on User:Mastcell's talk page - here are the two diffs [12], [13]. This is mostly to promote awareness. However, feel free to comment if you are so inclined. You and Mastcell are the only Admins that I have specifically contacted pertaining to this matter. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I will have a close look at this in the next few days. At the moment I am headed out the door for a weekend camping trip. ~Awilley (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Enjoy your camping trip (away from the cyber world!). :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I've read up on your posts to MastCell's page, the RfC close, the new proposal, and Snow's lengthy explanation (collapsed on the talk page). I'm not quite understanding what the concern is. Did Snow's explanation resolve it for you, and if not, could you be more specific as to what the problem is? ~Awilley (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
I feel that this is almost resolved for the present, and I guess I can elaborate a little more. First, I am satisfied with the RFC decision, after all. I think the closing Admin did an excellent close, especially given the intensity of the RFC. At an ANI general discussion I said it is in the top tier for being circumspect [14]. So, after my initial reaction it dawned on me this is probably the best close. Regarding "Snow", the post I referred to on MastCell's talk page concerned me - this that post, it is on Seth Rich talk this person posted [15]. I think I characterized it correctly on MastCell's talk page and in response to an editor's question on the Seth Rich talk page. I will try to find those two or three diffs, unless my characterization makes sense to you, which is as follows: In essence, his post was advocating taking a giant step backward relative to the progress that has been made before, during, and after the RFC, by all the editors involved, on both sides of the issue.
Then, as you noticed he strongly reacted to posting my concern to two admins' pages, to how I characterized his behavior on MastCell's page, and the characterization I responded with to an editor's question on the Seth Rich talk page. I decided to let their strong reaction pass for two reasons. First, after his or her initial reaction on my talk page, he or she then wrote this: [16], which I saw as understanding the issues I was concerned about. Second, although it appears this person is still unwittingly and potentially putting themselves in a bad position by brushing up against Arbcom American Politics 2 DS, no other editors are going along with this person. Hence, no disruptions are occurring on the Seth Rich talk page or the article proper. How is this person unwittingly brushing up against WP:ARBAPDS? To me this person is still advocating editing the article proper in agreement with conspiracy theories. Here are some diffs: [17], [18], [19]. Here is Anythingyouwant's view of discussing conspiracy theories in that thread - in response to someone else - which is please don't [20]. Back to "Snow" [21], [22], [23]. Well hopefully this gives you the idea.
When I began my reply to you I said "almost resolved". To feel that it is completely resolved, I request that maybe you can enlighten this person about the potential limits that can be placed on their editing when contravening WP:ARBAPDS. I don't think this person knows, because they showed up at the very end of the RFC. The rest of us there, are fully aware of the implications. I did post a DS template on their talk page, so that has been accomplished. Well, sorry for the long post. And, please let me know if you think I am not correct in what I have posted here. My intent at this stage is to help this person, and this is pretty much it. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, just to be clear, in these posts, it seems Snow's position is, they wish to post commentary reflecting that the sources say these conspiracy theories are outlandish or "nuts". But, in order to do this the particular conspiracy theories must be somewhat described so the reader understands. However, any of this is beyond the scope of the RFC decision by a wide margin, among other things. This person does not seem to understand that. This is where you, Awilley come into play.
In any case, I am going to provide two more view points rather than go it alone. I am pinging Jytdog who is not involved in the "Suggestion for lead" thread and SPECIFICO who is involved in this thread. @Jytdog: and - please read the above, and please give the Admin and I your assessments on the above. Also, please look at some or all of the diffs above, after I wrote "I feel that this is almost resolved for the present..." Any questions, feel free to ask. (oh, I love spending my time doing this. Not! What better way to spend my time? Oh let me see, what can I think of...) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

## Extended confirmed protection

 Hello, Awilley. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)