User talk:Adjwilley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Adjwilley — User talk — Contributions — Email  
Picture of the day
Hobo–Dyer projection

The Hobo–Dyer projection is a cylindrical equal-area projection commissioned in 2002 by Bob Abramms and Howard Bronstein. This projection was drafted by cartographer Mick Dyer, who based it on the 1910 Behrmann projection.

Map: Strebe, using Geocart
ArchiveMore featured pictures...

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look[edit]

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)

Your post[edit]

I would be willing to stay away from editing the e-cigarette articles for three months, back dated to my last edit there on the 11th. AlbinoFerret 04:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I appreciate your willingness to step away from the dispute. I had a year in mind, since that would be more in line with what many are saying on the AN/I thread, and with Wikipedia practice. That said, I think 6 months would be long enough, so if you agree to that I will close the thread accordingly. Understand that I expect you to leave the topic area completely, and not try to continue the dispute elsewhere. I think a clean break and some distance is needed. Also, although this would be voluntary, a return to the topic area before the 6 months are over would likely be seen as a basis for making it an official topic ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Does that mean I would be unable to post on the problem presently at arbcom or raise issues at arbcom over the harassment that was closed at AN/I?AlbinoFerret 05:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
You would still be able to post at Arbcom as that is considered "legitimate dispute resolution" (see WP:BANEX) but I don't think it will be necessary. I doubt the case is going to be accepted. Also, even though BANEX says you can revert vandalism, I've seen people blocked for doing just that because of disagreements on what constitutes "vandalism". By far the best thing to do is to just remove all e-cig pages from your watchlist and set a 6 month reminder on your calendar. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
6 months it is, then. This is not an admission that I have done anything wrong. I am just kind of sick of the constant fighting going on there anyway. But after my post, I hope arbcom takes the case. AlbinoFerret 05:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, talking is better than AN/I. AlbinoFerret 05:24, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've closed that portion of the thread. Keep your nose clean, and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. In this case it's better to ask permission than forgiveness :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The arbcom case will be it for me for 6 months on e-cigs, no editing them at all, or posting to the talk pages. I gave my word, and I dont make agreements and go back on them. AlbinoFerret 06:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, Adjwilley. I'm not sure about this, as the consensus does seem to be for a formal topic ban. But I hope the voluntary one will work just as well, especially since I think your close will be decisive in convincing ArbCom to reject the RFAR. Without that, they would surely have left it hanging longer, at least. Will you keep an eye on the user? AlbinoFerret, I don't mean that I think you'd violate your undertaking in bad faith, but it's not necessarily easy for users to understand the exact borders of these things. Please don't revert any vandalism on the E-cig pages! That exception has caused a lot of grief, and on a well-watched page, it's completely unnecessary. Bishonen | talk 10:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC).
@Bishonen:, thanks for the note. I agree with you about the consensus there, and I most likely would have closed with a topic ban had the user not agreed to step away voluntarily. Part of what led me to explore other options was that the thread had been open for a week and a half with a lot of contention, but nobody seemed willing to close it. I also believe that giving people some control over their future is a good thing. But yes, I will definitely be keeping an eye on them in the future.

My impression is that the Arbcom request was going to be declined anyway, not because of the topic ban thread, but because of the DS thread below it. Although I wouldn't mind being credited for averting a full-on case and the (probably) hundreds of hours that must go into something like that... ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a question on the DS. How long do you think it will be until that section closes? If the DS are approved, are they long term, and if so how long do you think they will remain. I am in favour of them, and hope they will be in place at least a year. As to Bishonen's concern, when I said no editing, that includes everything without exceptions. I was already staying away from the articles, and I think a wikibreak for a few weeks to get me in a better mindset is going to happen. But I do like Bitcoin, and I am sure some other article will attract my interest. I have a few ideas for new articles as well that never seemed to get done. AlbinoFerret 16:39, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

We made an agreement, that I would not edit e-cigarette articles. I have not edited them. I have not discussed them, or posted on them anyplace. I was not aware that someone else could rewrite the agreement to include congratulating a fellow editor on winning an election in the offline world on their user page. I was not aware that I would have to deal posts like this link. AlbinoFerret 12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


As you have expressed a desire to have a dialogue with QG on his talk page without "extra commentary", I assume that you're therefore willing to discuss your actions here, on your talk page. You stated to QG: "I appreciate your commitment to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in the spirit of cooperation. ... On the other hand, that alone doesn't fully address the issues of aggressive editing and ownership that are frequently mentioned. So, as I expect you've looked at QG's interactions, I'd like you review this section of Talk:Electronic cigarette. It seems to me that he's remained very calm in the face of multiple personal attacks and inflammatory invective in the first few lines of that interchange: "It's almost like you're not competent to edit this page", "your ridiculous addition", "a ridiculously long caption", "it was pointy, tendentious or ownership", "you do not own this article", "You arrogantly inserted".

Now if you're going to make demands on QG, I strongly recommend you take cognisance of the provocation that he endures and make sure that you deal even-handedly with "the issues of aggressive editing and ownership" that you're concerned about. Those issues quite clearly don't exist on only one side of the debate and if you don't propose to address that, I don't see how you expect to be a help in resolving the problems you have identified. --RexxS (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't mind the extra commentary as long as it doesn't sidetrack the discussion, which it hasn't so far. I am certainly aware that there are a lot of problems with other users as well, and I do hope to address them. If you're asking why I'm only talking to one user at a time, it's largely because of the limited amount of time I have available. If you're asking why I'm talking to QG right now, it's largely because they seemed to be squeaking loudest. (User:SPACKlick is probably next on my list of people to talk to, as I think the discussion you mentioned was leading up to this.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd be more than happy to talk when you have time. SPACKlick (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


My apologies for the conundrum at this article. For the record, I have nothing against the religion in any way. Some of my family's closest friends are Mormon and they don't seem to hold it against us that we are Episcopalians... :) Again, no harm intended. Once the 3RR issue is resolved, I'm just going back to reviewing the Special:PendingChanges list. Best regards, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod: Thanks for the note. I hope you'll find the interest to stick around and give the article a second look. It's always nice having new eyes on it. Best, ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, happy to lend a hand...! --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Please stop attacking editors as you have done here. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia, or at least spanked with a rubber chicken. For further information see here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to avoid pricks when landing on a cactus[edit]

Trupial on a cactus.png Excellence in maneuverability award
Just wanted to commend you on your approach to controversial behavioral issues and hope you can find a little humor in this token acknowledgment so that it will bring a smile. Atsme☎️📧 19:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru 2[edit]

is making inflammatory comments about another editor on the article's talk page [2]. I also do not appreciate his long list of accusations against me on his talk page. Per WP:POLEMIC, it should be removed as soon as possible. Will you please do something? -A1candidate 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the article talk page comment as being particularly seems to have just been a (correct) observation that the user had been topic banned. It looks like QG has archived the list of accusations against you from their talk page. [3]. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
And what about these racist comments? [4][5][6]. I share DrChrissy's concern that they might be offensive to some people. -A1candidate 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A1candidate, absent clear and unambiguous evidence, accusations of racism are one of the most egregious forms of personal attack. In this case you've been following the debate long enough to know that QuackGuru is referring to the uniformly positive assessment of acupuncture in Chinese studies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
No, he was referring to the authors' names and ethnicity. -A1candidate 02:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Rejecting sources based only on authors' names and ethnicity might be a logical fallacy but I don't think it rises to the level of "racism" in this case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
But are you aware that these type of edits [7][8], even if not strictly "racist", have the potential to cause great offense? Imagine I went to Madrasa and made an edit that says "Muslim scholars have a tendency to cite unreliable Islamic sources..." and repeated the same edit at WP:RS. I believe that was what QG did. -A1candidate 22:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and please don't get me started on that "Chinese slant" edit. If you still don't think it rises to the level of racism, see List of ethnic slurs. Perhaps QG did not intend to offend, but his edits have clearly crossed a red line. -A1candidate 22:37, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Heh, I hadn't seen the systemic bias template. I had never considered the possibility that we might have a problem with Chinese systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. Seriously though, I don't think it was intended as a racial slur or racism at all. Bad logic, perhaps; clumsiness with words, sure; causing great offense, I doubt it. I'm not going to punish someone for stumbling over an racial slur that I didn't know was a slur until I followed your link to the list and did a Ctrl-F to find it. On the Chinese journal articles, if there is a good secondary source supporting what QG is saying than I don't really see a problem with it, though trying to write it into MEDRS is taking things a bit too far. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
No, the source does not support what QG claims. I just looked at the full text and I believe that he has been passing off a speculative claim as fact. Here's the actual context taken from PMID 22248792:
Text quoted from QG's source [9]: In total, six of the 21 Cochrane reviews evaluated here generated positive or tentatively positive results...It is tempting to speculate why this is so. One reason might be that currently more Chinese authors include more Chinese studies, which, as Vickers et al. and Tang et al. have shown, are invariably positive.
QuackGuru's edit [10]: Chinese authors use more Chinese studies, which have been demonstrated to be uniformly positive in respect to acupuncture research.
In other words, QG simply chopped off the first part of the paragraph that qualifies the author's claim. As a letter to the editor, this source is not even peer reviewed. And to make a whole range of discriminatory (if not racist) ethnic comments based on this source alone is beyond reprehension. Even if you think the source fully supports QG's claim (it does not), may I gently remind you that he was not just pointing at the authors' Asian names, but also claiming that these authors therefore have a COI [11], and that other Asian names might be a red flag? [12]. -A1candidate 13:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
A1candidate, you do realize that behavior like yours is precisely why QG has been tolerated so long? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Just a quick note to say thanks for the even-handed closure to the boomerang of the AN/I I raised. I am a little disappointed that the ban includes WP:MEDRS because I think there is a move over there to include animals, and I will be very frustrated not to enter this debate, however, I will respect your decision. I am also grateful for the swift closure - I can now move away from the banned topic areas and hopefully return to being a more productive Wikipedian. All the best.DrChrissy (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think regardless of the changes to MEDRS you are safe @DrChrissy:. The restriction is carefully written to say: Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. The language and intent of the topic ban is very clear. While you will not be able to take part in the possible discussion at MEDRS, that discussion won't have an effect on your ban. As a consolation prize however, if MEDRS is extended to animals you should be able edit those articles still and this would allow you to prove your competency with MEDRS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note DrChrissy. I can understand your frustration about MEDRS, but I think it's for the best, especially as you disengage from the editors you've been in conflict with. I'm happy you've decided to stick around and keep editing, and I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Off-Wiki canvassing[edit]

Per this discussion, it seems several editors have been canvassed into this dispute per email. What do you think should be done? -A1candidate 14:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the post. It's saying that several people on both "sides" of the dispute have emailed User:CorporateM asking them to edit with a more pro- or anti-acupuncture POV, or to make specific changes that would favor one side over the other. To me that implies that: a.) CorporateM is probably doing something right...breaking up a stalemate without taking sides, and people are noticing; and b.) CorporateM keeps high ethical standards while editing Wikipedia and doesn't want people trying to covertly influence their editing. Nothing needs to be done. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree that nothing else needs to be done at this time. A friendly reminder is the appropriate response. Sometimes when people care deeply about a topic, they merely want to do whatever it takes to the attain the outcome they feel is correct. Unfortunately, there's no way of knowing if and to what extent other editors may have engaged in similar off-wiki organization. We should however keep an eye out for groups of editors that appear to be colluding. At this time, I don't think that's happening. CorporateM (Talk) 17:37, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture: Immediate attention needed[edit]

Can you please protect the page before Kww starts another edit-war? -A1candidate 22:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Oh, that's nice, User:A1candidate. You revert and immediately, even breathlessly (see timestamps), ask an admin to protect on your version? Bishonen | talk 22:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC).
The solution I have in mind for that edit war isn't page protection. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"Edit war"? The only thing that could even remotely be misinterpreted as "edit warring" on my part was when the edit conflict hit, and anyone watching can see that I made three successive edits to reincorporate those parts of A1candidate's edits that were still applicable. [13][14][15].—Kww(talk) 23:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Skirmish? :-) I haven't had time to check diffs...I'm trying to sort some other stuff out at the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't even think it qualifies as a "border incident". Now, one could ask exactly how those clinical guidelines were inserted with all of the qualifying language removed in the first place ... —Kww(talk) 23:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your resolved indication on A1candidate[edit]

Based on Guy's comment, "Let's see how that restriction works out", and your RESOLVED notice at the AN/I initiated against A1candidate, I went ahead and closed the discussion which I believed was the appropriate thing to do in an effort to help with the clean-up. [16] My close was reverted. [17] Was the revert appropriate under the circumstances? I thought your RESOLVED was all that was necessary. Thank you in advance. Atsme📞📧 01:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't recall putting any RESOLVED notice anywhere. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Right under the section title it reads: Resolved: 0RR for acupuncture, 1RR for alt-med imposed by Adjwilley Atsme📞📧 01:42, 25 May 2015 (UTC) (also on A1's TP: [18]) 01:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
[19] Kww marked it as resolved based on the sanctions you placed. How ever I didn't feel your sanctions were placed to resolve that complaint and I also didn't feel that they resolved that complaint. I unarchived it and removed the resolved tag to allow for further discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:52, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks like Kww put the RESOLVED tag on AN/I. [20] The sanctions I placed on A1candidate and QuackGuru actually had very little to do with the open threads on AN/I, but longer term problems I was seeing mostly on the acupuncture article. I'll leave a comment on the AN/I thread if you like. I recommend you not trying to re-close the section...let someone else take care of it if they see fit. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Serialjoepsycho, it looks like your objection to the AN/I close was because you feel my sanction did not adequately deal with possible future "abuse of process" or WP:IDHT behavior. Is that correct? It's natural to expect some amount of indignation immediately after a sanction is placed. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Abuse of process to silence your opponents is a serious matter. It's not only that the sanctions don't adequately deal with the situation but also that it doesn't seem they were intended to. They seemed to be placed due to the above abuse of process which is a matter that ties in with other behavior at the acupuncture article and CAM related articles and they do not seem to be related to the ANI.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Granted, the sanctions were mostly unrelated to the AN/I thread, but if you look closely at the wording you will find the following sentence: "Engaging in Battleground behavior, focusing on contributors over content, or WP:IDHT behavior will also result in a complete topic ban, as will abuse of Wikipedia processes (including administrative noticeboards) to eliminate ideological opponents." Is this not what you are talking about? ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
His abuse of process has not solely been related to CAM. The language is related it seems solely to CAM and acupuncture and not any future abuse of process.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you are seeing something that I am not. Could you direct me to a non-CAM-related abuse of process? The "opponents" seem to all be alt-med related editors like QuackGuru, JzG, and Kww. When A1 occasionally comments on E-cig related threads it's still about those contributors. (See for instance the comments posted to the current QuackGuru and Electronic Cigarettes thread...A1 is giving diffs to acupuncture.) Their current Arbcom request is Alt-med related; the ANI section supporting DrChrissy was about DrChrissy's topic ban from alt-med; Most if not all of the evidence presented by JzG is alt-med related. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
[21] This ANI opened against me could arguable be tied to CAM or acupuncture in someway I suppose as his goal was to get my comments removed in an attempt at a separate abuse of process in the Quack Guru discussion. But regardless this behavior puts up a red flag. If nothing comes of this reopened ANI so be it. I think it archives in 3 days via bot. The community needs to have an opportunity to address this.I'm not being vindictive here. If I was chasing after "blood" I would have asked for a boomerang instead of a close in that ANI they opened. I just want to make sure there is no more hokey nonsense because he has stumbled upon an ideological opponent or what have you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:33, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok, now I see where you're coming from. My impression is that A1candidate was under a lot of stress...prolonged disputes tend to do that...and stress can do weird things to your judgement. On the "canvassing" thing, I actually tend to sympathize with A1. Their immediate response to DrChrissy's "Have you seen?" post was along the lines of "Yes, I'll comment if I think it's needed." I take this to mean, "Yes, I have seen it" (assuming good faith). A1 was probably aware of the discussion even before DrChrissy. I have no doubt in my mind that A1 has QuackGuru's talk page on their watchlist. So yes, DrChrissy clumsily tried to canvass A1, but A1 was already aware of the discussion. If that happened to me and then a bunch of people started accusing me of being canvassed I would have found it quite annoying... Anyway, this is all in the past. I won't comment on the ANI thread, but I have no objecting to leaving it open to see if it gains any traction or gets shut down by an admin. My impression is that everybody is burned out on this and that nothing more will happen. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't actually expect much to come of it either but it has a chance.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adjwilley, he didn't have any objection to QuackGuru's close which also did not address the e-cigarette issue. I closed it because the OP said "Although electronic cigarette is not covered under the restriction, it does constitute the warning shot across QG's bows that I wanted to achieve and from my perspective as the person who started this thread, I'm happy to consider the matter closed." I figured the same would apply to A1candidate's in light of what Guy said. Not sure why Serialjoepsycho took over A1candidate's dispute despite Guy's comment and Kww's action. Guy actually brought up the issue regarding A1 and based on his comment appeared to be ok with your actions, and so did Kww based on the Resolved template. I don't know why it is being drug out longer considering how the QG ended, or why SJP has taken an interest in this particular dispute. Now that you know what happened, I'll follow your advice and leave it in your hands. Atsme📞📧 02:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I was uninvolved in the dispute with Quack Guru's matter. If the OP feels that this adequately addresses their concerns I have no reason to disagree. I am an involved party in A1candidates dispute. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
For the record, I consider Adjwilley's restrictions an imperfect solution in an imperfect world. I would have done it a little differently, but not so much differently that I won't support his actions.—Kww(talk) 04:30, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
@Kww:Respectfully, I do support Adjwilley's restrictions. If I have made any statement that implies otherwise please do accept my apology, Adjwilley, as that was not my intention. The restrictions did not seem intended to address the ANI, nor did it seem that the restrictions were intended to halt any discussion at the ANI. The comments by Adjwilley above support this notion to me.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
As do I, in the main: my statement was one of support of the primary thrust of his restrictions.—Kww(talk) 19:26, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Adjwilley, I'm sorry I am just now getting back to you, but I have been extremely busy as of late. By the way, thank you for your kind words about my family situation. It's a prolonged issue, but it seems we may be over the worst of it and encouraging words are always very helpful. And thank you very much for doing your utmost to remedy problems with editors we have and in an even-handed way. You are a good administrator and I appreciate that you have taken measures to fix the situation as you see fit. You might not be aware that I have told editors many times before that I think reverting ought to be few and far between on battleground articles like acupuncture, and I have longed for editors to use the talk pages instead. That's why my ratio of talk page to article edits on the acupuncture article are extremely high, and I choose limit myself to not revert, when possible, anyway. My hope has always been that editors will seek to engage in civil discussion instead of edit warring, and I try my best to always follow my own advice. I haven't had a chance to look into the aftermath of your decision, so I'm not sure if you received a lot of grief over the actions you felt you had to take, but I want to tell you that I support everything you did fully. You seem to uphold high ethics and seem like you want to bring about the best in editors, and I admire that. I think you do excellent work and you probably don't get thanked enough, so thank you! LesVegas (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Progress at Ayurveda[edit]

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)

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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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 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. ~Adjwilley (talk) 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)

ANI Followup Notice[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. livelikemusic my talk page! 18:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Livelikemusic: Thanks for the notice. I took the liberty of moving your post from WP:AN to WP:AN/I where it belongs and commented. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, and oh my! I could've sworn I posted it to AN-I instead of simply AN. My mistake and thank you for moving! Thought you'd want to be notified of the behavior. livelikemusic my talk page! 15:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At General Hospital, they updated the episode count again at 2:57pm EST, and the episode had not yet ended airing for the final airdate of the week, per the consensus at the WikiProject Soap Operas Again, this is them attempt to over-ride someone else updating the episode count, despite your [final] warning. Dennis Brown told me that should their editing pattern continue following their final warning, I was to bring this to either your attention or his, and I'm bringing it to the both of yours as this is not the kind of behavior that should be acceptable at Wikipedia, and I only hope an appropriate action is taken, as it is clear they have not learned from their warnings. livelikemusic my talk page! 01:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions[edit]

Are you aware that under Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without" "(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN". I cannot see how there is a clear and substantial consensus at WP:AN so am not sure how you have shortened the block length? Davewild (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I was aware of the DS requirements. The participation at AN was substantial enough that it completely overrides the previous AE discussion and close, as well as GorillaWarefare's sanction. While there was not consensus to unblock, there was consensus that GW's block was out of process giving me the ability to modify it based on the discussion. Most agreed there was at least a minor topic ban violation, though there was disagreement on how it should be enforced, so I used some discretion in accordance with blocking policy to do what probably could have been done by an uninvolved admin in the first place with much less drama, at the same time making a compromise between the roughly equal numbers of people saying he should remain blocked vs. be unblocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a ballsy move. The discussion was all over the place, some focusing on procedure, others on the merits, so getting a perfectly clean reading is pretty hard to do, or at least it was beyond my capability. That said, I can see where this was a compromise type of move, just to end things and let it play out at Arb. No one else was willing to touch closing, it seems, and I think Adj is pretty uninvolved here, so I give credit for his willingness to tackle it. Whether it holds or not, we will see. Dennis Brown - 17:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think closing the thread is fine, but I'll warn you now that if you do drop Eric's block to 1 week, there's a good chance somebody will scream at you for wheel-warring. Best not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Don't quote me, but I don't think they could get him for wheel warring because the reduction was in reaction to a close at AN, which is within policy. They are free to say he misread consensus, did a piss poor close, etc., but not wheel warring because his actions would be within process, and the exact process defined for AE blocks. That said, "clear and substantial" is a pretty impossible hurdle to clear, regardless of the circumstances. I might want input before I pressed the buttons, but I'm not sure from who you can get input from. Arb itself? Dennis Brown - 18:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I would agree that it can't possibly be wheelwarring, even though I don't agree with the reading of the close. The worst I can imagine is a small trout and a reinstatement of block duration or something. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If this was an ordinary block I would say it was a fine close of the discussion given the lack of consensus at WP:AN over whether the block should be maintained or overturned. However under arbitration enforcement (which I have avoided like the plague personally) I can't see how your close would not be breaking the policy given the requirement for "clear and substantial consensus". I would suggest similarly to Dennis Brown that you run it by an arbitrator before implementing your closure, or it will be bound to be raised at the pending arbitration case request. Davewild (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Splendidly done. My hat off to you.—S Marshall T/C 19:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Although I admire your balls for being willing to close the thread at all, I don't agree that I see consensus to lower Eric's block to one week - and would suggest that since AE decisions are normally only appealable by the person being sanctioned - you don't drop the block length (especially since it was specified in the arbcom decision - Gorilla didn't just choose an arbitrary length.) Before implementing your decision, I would request that you amend your close with a paragraph or two of detailed reasoning that you used to arrive at your decision to drop the block. Still, admiration for being willing to close - Best wishes, Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kevin, My understanding was that the escalating block lengths in the arbcom decision were for civility violations, not the GGTF topic ban. I'm at work on my phone, so I'll connect further later, and am still holding off on implementing the reduction in any case. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Adj: it looks like you are correct that the committee only specified escalating block lengths for civility violations and not necessarily for the GGTF topic ban. That seems.. odd to me. Looking at Eric's recent blocklog for AE stuff, it looks like it may have just been based on the idea of general escalation. That said, I would be mindful of Courcells comments below this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
You may not, under any circumstances, modify any block that enforces an arbitration decision without a clear and substantial consensus. This applies to any sanction made under the authority, or to enforce an arbitration remedy. You acknowledge there was no consensus, so making this was a highly improper action. Courcelles (talk) 20:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Not speaking as the Committee here, for the record, but the language of your close and the language of the rules to do such a modification are clearly incompatible. Courcelles (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more I think Courcelles is correct, that there isn't enough of a clear consensus. Personally, I think Eric was throwing it around a bit but the offense was minor enough that a one week block makes infinitely more sense, but the whole issue at Arb is one of process and reducing the block here might look like it was in process but a bad read of the level of consensus required. That said, I wish Courcelles would accept the case so we can simply clear up some issues, such as when an admin does something that only an admin can do (close AE, threaten a block, edit abuse filters, etc.) that this should be considered an admin action and not an editor action, even if it doesn't use a bit of script to perform. Dennis Brown - 21:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis: I hope Adj doesn't mind hijacking his page a bit for this point, but it seems to me that if a AE close without action was considered to be an admin action, it would simple for people with lots of admin friends to evade serious arb sanctions, at least via AE. Black Kite closed the AE thread in considerably less time than is customary - and less time than would've happened for most other people. Many of us who have been around a long time have a lot of friends with bits - if closing an AE thread without action counted as an admin action then you couldn't reopen the thread without somehow achieving consensus somewhere first (at penalty of desysopping, no less.) Thus, a theoretically malicious user who was well-liked by tons of admins would be able to circumvent the will of the committee simply by asking admins to close AE discussions early. (I'm not suggesting BK's close was out of malice, but surely we have admins who would be happy to close AE threads in five minutes if it avoided penalties for their friends, especially given that even though common sense dictates AE closes should be made by uninvolved admins, I don't think we have a policy that actually states that.) I think it's pretty clear that, in the meaning of arb policy terms anyway, the close of an AE section without action is absolutely not an admin action - to construe it otherwise would seemingly have bad results. BTW, non-admins can and do threaten blocks all the time. Twinkle. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it means admin would be MORE accountable. If those admin started closing the AEs for invalid reasons, then Arb could bit strip them for misusing admin "tools". And I didn't say you couldn't revert an admin's close, just you couldn't block over it. Reverting the close is exactly what you want to see if it was done abusively, and would prevent most cases of abuse. The key is leveling the playing field a bit. As admin, if we err, we err on the side of not blocking. Giving first move advantage ONLY to blocking has created a system where you can chose to block, or you have no choice at all. That doesn't make sense. It is all about accountability. Dennis Brown - 22:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
This probably calls for some policy additions somewhere. As currently written, for AE closes without action to count as "enforcement actions" as to make Gorilla's subsequent block enforceably improper (which is really the relevant bit here, since wheelwarring would require BK-GW reverses-BK does something again,) then reopening an AE close without consensus would be undoing an 'enforcement action' without consensus, which would be a desysop. Probably should just add a line to AE stating that disputed results are to be reopened, a no action close is not an 'enforcement action' w/r/t reverting them, but that actioning over them without reverting and achieving consensus would then receive the same penalty as reversing an enforcement action. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
That is the point, a closing without blocking IS an admin action, the act of not blocking. You can reopen the discussion, but you can't just unilaterally decide "well fuck that, I'm blocking anyway." If that was allowable, well you get what we got, but then any single block happy admin could ignore AE and just go block at will without considering any input. You HAVE to consider "no block" the same as "block" at AE, as far as it being an admin action. You can revert the close and open for more discussion (in good faith), but not the decision and action/nonaction WITHIN the close. "No block" = admin action. If you want to hold sympathetic admin to account, you must do that. Dennis Brown - 22:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah - I see explicitly where we differ. I was considering the decision to close the thread the admin action, not the just the decision to take no action. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: To be totally fair, I think that if someone had proposed this result, rather than inventing it out of whole cloth, it would gain enough consensus to actually enact it properly. But I don't know that; just that that would have been the correct way to do it given how strong the language against modifying a sanction actually is. Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think that is a fair observation. That discussion was all over the place, people voting on different concepts of the problem, which is why it is hard to get a full read here. I notice that no one has reverted him and there is no wave coming here to protest, but I would still recommend he amend rather than go maverick. Dennis Brown - 21:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Courcelles, Davewild and Dennis Brown. That would have been a fine close if this was a regular AN issue, but there was not the consensus necessary to override an AE outcome. On which basis I would ask you not to amend the block length, as that is outside the range of options after an inconclusive AN discussion. Per the 2010 motion, if you think the block length is too long please post that at ARCA. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Courcelles and Euryalus You both say that an AE block can't be modified without a clear and substantial consensus but what if the block is out of process to begin with? Isn't that the whole issue here? What constitutes an AE action? If a close without action is an admin action then the block was overturning that action. Reading the current policy, while not as explicit as it could be, certainly makes it seem like the block was out of process and shouldn't stand anyway. Wouldn't a reset on this whole situation lead to the least drama and disruption? Along with a decisive clarification policy? Capeo (talk) 23:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
@Capeo: personal view - Black Kite's AE close was incorrect on the facts, but it was an AE enforcement decision by an admin. Therefore the unilateral overturning of this close is also incorrect - the correct review process was to go to ARCA or seek a clear and unarguable consensus at AN/ANI. Any further changes to this are also incorrect - again, ARCA or a clear unarguable AN/ANI are the only ways to deliver any outcome other than what Black Kite originally decided, and neither has been delivered so far. I would add a disclaimer that everyone (Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Adjwilley) has acted in good faith. What we need is a motion clarifying that "close with no action" counts as an AE enforcement decision. What we could also do with, if anyone wants to, is an ARCA on whether the block should stand. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Known for seemingly unrelated comments: imagine for a second that a user "offended" by a comment from Eric Corbett discussed the matter with Eric, instead of an AE notice. - Read a book. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Its been tried before, with the result being the user being told to get off his user-page or a response by another editor telling the person to get over it. I agree with you though that talking about things usually is always the best way to go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
My experience: treat Eric with respect, and respect is what you get. Search his talk and archives for my (female) name if you don't believe me. - The alternative AE: I was there. Person to person talk is better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe you, in your case it was a good experience but as for a case by case basis not so much. You also have to define what it means to be respectful, if someone were to bash Eric outright then yeah I could see that as being disrespectful, nobody would want that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that I am exceptional. You find pleasant talk - not always agreeing, but always interesting - over three years, - try it, you will like it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your insight =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks all for the input. I will modify or revert my close when I get home today. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • OK, so responding to some of the above, @Courcelles: by my reading there was consensus that the block was out of process, but not consensus to unblock. Rather than simply scold GW and do nothing about the block, I felt that some deescalation would be appropriate and helpful: a compromise of sorts between those calling for immediate unblocking and those wanting to leave the block in place. Perhaps the most procedurally correct thing to do would be to do a "procedural unblock", start another thread at WP:AE, let it run for a reasonable amount of time, and then have an uninvolved admin close it. But there wasn't consensus for that in the AN thread, and I'm sure you'll agree it would be a tremendous waste of time.

    Anyway, the whole idea was to try and find the path of least drama, hopefully reducing the administrative burden and allowing people to get back to editing. It's looking like it will not lead to less drama after all, so I have reverted the close. I realize that probably isn't the path of least drama either, but I don't have time to do more at the moment. I hope some other admin or Arbcom will be able to sort things out better.

    To the others who have commented here, thank you for your comments and concern. I appreciate the feedback. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I hate it Adj, but AE is a clustermess of rules that aren't very clear in spots, and while I think your close was the best thing for Wikipedia, you could have only done it under WP:IAR, and it would have only taken one person to drag you to Arb over doing what many people would argue is a reasonable compromise. This is one reason I don't work AE, and why other admin don't want to either. Hopefully the current Arb case will add clarity, but I'm not holding my breath and it isn't certain it will even be accepted, so the ambiguity will continue. Dennis Brown - 01:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

What happened to :

Enforcement of restrictions:

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year(1).

Funny how EC gets a special treatment at each single violation ChristopheT (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I hope that I'm never singled out for the kind of "special treatment" EC seems to receive ;-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
What happened to creating some content, ChristophT? You seem to have been jumping on a bandwagon of late and my antennae are twitching, sorry.
Adj, I think your intent is sound and your judgement would be fine if it were not for the silly wordings relating to AE actions. If only the discretion had been applied at the outset by GW ... - Sitush (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Please trim your statement at arbitration case requests[edit]

Hi, :Adjwilley. I'm an arbitration clerk, which means I help manage and administer the arbitration process (on behalf of the committee). Thank you for making a statement in an arbitration request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#AE closes, timelines, and independent admin actions. However, we ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Your statement significantly exceeds this limit. Please reduce the length of your statement when you are next online. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence; and concise, factual statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the Arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz Read! Talk! 21:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: Thanks for the note. I trimmed the statement to below 500 words. Hopefully we won't have to have an evidence phase. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

It's appreciated, Adjwilley. Right now, we have to notify over 150 people regarding this case, just including everyone who participated in the various discussions this weekend. I think this case will take some time. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement[edit]

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened[edit]

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
  1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)