# User talk:Awilley

 Adjwilley — User talk — Contributions — Email
A female Eurasian bullfinch (Pyrrhula pyrrhula) photographed in Lancashire. This small passerine bird in the finch family was listed in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae. It is breeds across Europe and temperate Asia, where it is mainly resident, though some birds may migrate. Birds of this species feed mainly on seeds and the buds of fruit trees.Photograph: Francis Franklin

## 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)
Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1003 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Three years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Who'd have thought we'd both still be around. Thanks Gerda ~Awilley (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2017 (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)

~Awilley (talk) 23:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I expect they're just fine with it. Sorry to see you haven't got over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 8 March 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 6 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 6 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 6 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)

## Arbitration Enforcement

I mentioned you here but the Ping didn't work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was not aware my close would affect anything at AE. I think this thing with the Lead paragraph (!) needs a swift and decisive resolution due to the high profile nature of the article, and the RFC was impeding that process more than helping it. I understand the intention was good but it had become more of a time sink than an exercise in consensus building. ~Awilley (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
No worries.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As a side note, I appreciated your "mostly uninvolved administrator" descriptor as I am getting more "involved" editorially than many admins get. I just find it difficult to sit back and only take admin actions when I see things I can do that I think will help resolve disputes or improve the encyclopedia. I just wanted to assure you I'm aware of the involved/uninvolved line and I'm trying to be careful with the few admin actions I do take. Not that that's a lot, as I've been mostly inactive of late. ~Awilley (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Awilley, I won't take you to AE just yet.  :-) Good work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

## Concerns

Since you are looking into Volunteer Marek's recent activity, I thought you might want to check this out: [24]. VM tells another user to get consensus on the TP when VM himself barely participated in the consensus building process that is currently ongoing at the talk page. No other user has gone to the extent that he has. While other users at the TP are discussing wording, VM went about deleting the entire section consisting of nearly 4,000 characters of reliably sourced information. Is that not grounds for a ban? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Might I also add, at his TP, VM claims that he loses track of when he makes reverts because of he’s "pretty busy". Yet immediately before claiming that, he goes to another user’s TP to notify them that they broke the 1RR at Jill Stein [25] and that they should self-revert. In this instance, VM seems perfectly aware of the timing between reverts. His claim that he only edits in "chunks" and that he goes "a couple days without looking at these articles at all" doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. He is active on these articles every single at multiple times throughout the day. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
The edit [26] cited by EtienneDolet looks to me like yet another example of the abuse of WP:ARBAPDS - in this case BLP is used as a reason to delete the content without discussion, then ARBAPDS is used to prevent its reinstatement by claiming there is no consensus to include it. If this content was removed for genuine BLP reasons no amount of consensus could enable its return since consensus cannot usurp BLP policies. VM has not explained what BLP violation the deleted content was enabling, and I don't see any BLP violation in it. His only valid point expressed in talk, that regarding sources, could easily have been rectified by him by doing a basic search for alternative sources rather than deleting the content - other editors did this later. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
VM has now agreed to abide by a self-imposed WP:1RR restriction. I think VM was correct that it is a BLP violation to have contentious material sourced directly to WikiLeaks (not a reliable source), and I imagine that WP:WEIGHT may also been a factor. It is the responsibility of the editor adding contentious material to provide supporting reliable sources. It also looks like there is now consensus on the talk page for inclusion of the leaked questions. ~Awilley (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
A mature editor, which VM is, will know that the preferred editing route is not to just delete material which has an unsuitable source but to first try to find alternative sources and only then delete if none are found. Alterative sources were easily found by other editors to support that same material. Where is the decision that WikiLeaks is not a reliable source? Yes, it is a primary source - so to have sources that comment on the material it has distributed is best. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I might as well get in on the snitching on each other since this is apparently a pre-school playground. But hey I didn't create it, just find myself in it. Anyway, since ED (and his buddy) sees it fit to complain about fairly minor edits of mine because, quote, "when VM himself barely participated in the consensus building process that is currently ongoing at the talk page", I feel it fair to point out this edit of his [27], where ED comes to the Donald Trump page, which AFAIK, he's hardly edited, to 1) just revert me and 2) without "participating in the consensus building process that is currently ongoing at the talk page" (where I got to say, I found User:Anythingyouwant much more collaborative, as you yourself noted). This is pretty much an attempt to provoke an edit war, possibly get me to violate that voluntary 1RR thing, so he can come running to this talk page again to sanction-shop. Did I mention he did the exact same thing he was accusing me just above? I'd like to see ED himself voluntary agree to a 1RR restriction. How about it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Warned. ~Awilley (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anythingyouwant, fresh off her TBAN today, has 3RR on Donald Trump in less than an hour. What's next. I hope we don't need to go through the whole AE process again. It would be much simpler just to make the TBAN indefinite so she can channel her resources elsewhere. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing the reverts. Could you help me out with some diffs and an explanation of what specific material was reverted? What I am seeing that troubles me is a continuation of the POV pushing and tendentious editing that was part of what led to the original topic ban. For instance, I spot checked this edit advancing an alternative interpretation that Trump was bragging about hypothetically "being able" to grope women. The first source it cites is this CNN article that says, "While Trump refuted the lewd terms in which he discussed women in the 2005 tape, the Republican nominee did not apologize for or address the behavior he said in that conversation that he engaged in toward women, including that he could 'grab them...'" That's cherry picking and misrepresentation of the source. And while the WaPo source does use the words "being able to" it is not arguing for the original interpretation Anythingyouwant seems to be pushing.

If you want to continue editing the Trump article you had better slow down and stop with the TE. ~Awilley (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. It all happened in 3 sets of edits this afternoon, along with a strange denial that they were not reverts, just text removal and replacement. Anyway, things are quiet now. If it recurs I'll come back with some diffs. Thanks. Maybe it was just the thrill of liberation. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Tendentious editing? The issue here is whether Trump's statement about groping was an admission of criminal behavior, or not. Our lead article implied it was, whereas a huge number of reliable sources imply that he was merely discussing what he was "able" to do because of his fame. AWilley, you really want to say that the latter is cherrypicking and that mentioning it is tendentious? Seriously? I have not studied each of these sources in detail, and the quote that you present from CNN is interesting. But please note: I edited the lead article so that it includes both the criminal confession interptetation and the "being able to" interpretation, so that our lead article includes both, not merely one or the other. That's the opposite of cherry-picking.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]
I'm a male, SPECIFICO, and not transgendered, so you can use a different pronoun, thanks. Please note, AWilley, that last night I started a talk page discussion about this matter here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The Art of the Pivot -- 3RR in a 1RR zone, and instead of "oops, sorry officer, it will never happen again if you don't block me" we get "how dare anyone suggest TE? 3RR? How else could I get my POV into the article" SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

OMFG LOL Did anybody suggest you were transgendered? Deflection perfection. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Also, AWilley, please note that your "spot check" was somewhat incomplete because very shortly after that edit I tweaked that edit, for example by replacing the word "alternatively" with "also".[28] Were you already aware of that, AWilley? I should also mention two more things, in case you're interested. SPECIFICO has taken this opportunity to remove longstanding material in the article, such as the actual TRump quote from the Access Hollywood tape, without consensus. Additionally, you may be interested in these further CNN sources:

@Anythingyouwant, I'm actually not interested in arguing about this on my talk page but let's get this straight. And just to be sure we're on the same page, here's the direct quote:

"I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything."

Everybody knows you can brag about doing something without actually doing it. That's apparently what happens in locker rooms these days. The prevalent interpretation of Trump's comments is that he bragged about kissing and groping women without permission or consequences, saying he could do it because of his star power. That is entirely compatible with the sources you provided above, which you apparently selected on the criteria of including the words "being able to". If I were to summarize the cherry picked sentences from your sources, I'd say, "Trump bragged about being able to kiss and grope women without permission or consequences because of his star power." The "able to" is talking about doing it without consent or consequences.

Your interpretation, if I understand it, is that Trump bragged that his star power would have made him able to kiss and grope women if he had wanted to. It's a rather creative reading, but you haven't provided any sources explicitly supporting it, and I doubt you'll find any high quality sources supporting it because it's a silly argument. He was able to kiss and grope women without consent by virtue of being born with a face and hands. ~Awilley (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Additionally, it looks like your argument was rejected at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 31#Capacity for groping and forcibly kissing women which indeed makes it WP:TENDENTIOUS for you to continue to push it into the article. ~Awilley (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You are clearly mistaken. That discussion was about whether to include only that he said he was able (i.e. had capacity) to grope women without consent, because of his fame. That proposal failed to gain consensus. I am now proposing to include both views.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion here. I was pinged here. If you'd like me to leave, just say so. Trump said: "And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything....Grab them by the p---y. You can do anything." AWilley, I understand you to be saying that we can therefore say in Wikipedia's voice that Trump was confessing to actually grabbing in that way. Earlier in the presidential campaign, Trump said that he could "shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters". Would you construe that as an admission that he had shot anyone? In any event, I will explore the sources I have cited (and others) more carefully, before re-inserting the contested edit, and will comment further at the talk page. I do not believe, as of now, that these many sources used the language "being able to" merely to indicate that Trump has hands and feet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I said nothing about having anything in Wikipedia's voice about confessing or admitting. Only bragging. ~Awilley (talk) 17:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
To brag is to say or state something in a particular way. To brag that I have committed murder would be to say that I am a murderer. You're correct that sometimes bragging includes exaggeration, but it does not usually or always include exaggeration, and certainly our Wikipedia article did not say whether he was (or might be) exaggerating. Millions of readers (in addition to myself) would certainly interpret it as a confession if Wikipedia were to say that he bragged about having groped women's genitals; I would have no problem with such a statement in Wikipedia's voice, except for the fact that a huge bunch of reliable sources report that Trump was bragging about "being able" to do these things, as distinguished from bragging about having done these things.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You are completely missing the point. You have not yet provided any sources explicitly supporting your position. In the sources you linked above the words "being able to" were referring to doing it without permission or consequences. I believe I have been more sympathetic to you than most admins, but you are gradually convincing me that User:MastCell was right. If you want to make an argument you need to coherently and succinctly state your position and provide reliable sources that explicitly support it. ~Awilley (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
My position is that, on the tape, Trump was heard bragging about forcibly kissing and groping women with the show's then-cohost Billy Bush, and the media also characterized these bragging remarks about groping as referring to "being able" to do those things. I presented above many sources that use the "being able" language, and you have so far referred to only one of them. As I said above, I will study the sources further and will present a more thorough argument at the article talk page. I am done talking with you here, because I do not feel that you are being fair or neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Here are the three reverts that Anythingyouwant denies having made. [29] [30] [31] This is blockworthy on its face, so all this discussion of the content issues is off-topic. What's more distressing is that this is the same content issue for which Anythingyouwant was banned. Do we really have to go back to Arbcom? Maybe a site ban is on the horizon? That would be a shame and a waste of time, unless voluntary cooperation is impossible. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have not denied that they are reverts because I agreed with what AWilley already said above about that. But I do now deny that they are blockable reverts. The third diff is not a revert at all, since it inserted entirely new material. All three edits involve different aspects of the BLP, and the second merely involved removal of two redundant footnotes. I had a long discussion a couple months ago with User:NeilN about the difference between a revert and a blockable revert, and have followed his guidance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO, in the context of Anythingyouwant's past attempts to insert the weird "capacity" interpretation into the article ([32]) I can see how diffs 1 & 3 might be kind of viewed as reverts, but I think Tendentious is a better descriptor of what's going on there. The second one could be technically be seen as a revert in the sense it is removing citations that someone else added to the article, but counting that kind of edit as a revert is something that is kind of left to admin discretion. I am the type of admin that generally does not block over the "content removal" type of revert, although I know admins who do. In my opinion this is borderline behavior, and more worthy of a warning (which I have given) than a block or ban. If things get worse I may consider dropping another topic ban rather than letting things re-escalate to another week-long Arbitration Enforcement request involving some 20 editors and 10 AE admins, but I'm definitely not at that point yet. I'm sure that after his recent experience Anythingyouwant will be much more careful in the future. ~Awilley (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Diamond, Jeremy. "Trump issues defiant apology for lewd remarks -- then goes on the attack", CNN (October 8, 2016): "Trump said he tried to 'fuck' a married woman and bragged about being able to grope women because of his 'star' status."
2. ^ DelReal, Jose and Johnson, Jenna. "Trump, threatening nearly a dozen sexual assault accusers, vows to sue", Washington Post (October 22, 2016): "comments Trump made in a 2005 'Access Hollywood,' where he bragged about being able to force himself on women against their will because of his celebrity."
3. ^ Tartar, Andre and Tioruririne, Adam. "Trump, Clinton Double Down on Their Strategies: Final Debate By the Numbers", Bloomberg News (October 20, 2016): The leak of a 2005 hot-mic video two days before the second debate in which Trump bragged about being able to grope women led to Clinton’s biggest single-day gain of the past four weeks."
4. ^ "Retired Military Officials Condemn Donald Trump Over Issue of Sexual Assault", Fortune (October 18, 2016): remarks Trump made in a leaked 2005 conversation, in which he bragged about being able to grope women because of his fame."
5. ^ Langley, Monica. "Donald Trump Prepares New Attack on Media, Clinton", Wall Street Journal (October 13, 2016): "last week’s release of a 2005 video in which he bragged about being able to exploit women sexually."
6. ^ Lesniewski, Niels. "Heck Hopes to Mimic Reid in Nevada But for GOP", Roll Call (October 15, 2016): "Trump bragged about being able to grope and otherwise touch women without consent or consequences."
7. ^ Jaffa, Alexandra and Gutters, Hasani. "Rudy Giuliani on Donald Trump's Crass Comments: 'Both Sides Have Sinned'", NBC News (October 9, 2016): "he bragged about being able to 'do anything' to women 'when you're a star,' including 'grab them' by the genitals".
8. ^ Savransky, Rebecca. "Trump: 'Nothing ever happened' with accusers", The Hill (newspaper) (October 15, 2016): The accusations come after the release of a 2005 tape earlier this month in which Trump bragged about being able to grope or kiss women due to because he was a celebrity."

Hello,

## A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Awilley.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

## ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

 Hello, Awilley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

## Sanctions log

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/Log refers to diff-your sanctioning. Yet there's no matching entry at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active_sanctions. I'm looking at the User:S Marshall comment you directed the user to here. Great stuff. Sad. "What I can produce evidence of is that [users] have shown poor editorial judgment about content and sources." Yes, wish that's what admins and arbcom could make judgements on.--Elvey(tc) 03:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Active sanctions is for sanctions which Arbcom imposes. Discretionary sanctions are different. This appears to be related to the active ANI discussion here. See diff of Elvey reacting against issues raised by QG. Johnuniq (talk) 03:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Johnuniq, I've been off Wikipedia for several days (partially due to the long holiday weekend) and appreciate you jumping in to answer for me. ~Awilley (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

## Sacagawea

Hey Awilley, given a history of vandalism on the above mentioned page, I've gone ahead and restored indefinite semi protection. Here's the RFPP request for reference. I understand that it's customary to seek the opinion of the administrator who most recently changed the page's permissions before further modifying permissions, but I thought that this situation was clear-cut enough for me to move forward. Regardless, I wanted to let you know of the page's status change. Best, Airplaneman 00:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, you don't need my permission. I only unprotected it because an IP user wanted to edit the page and asked me to give it a shot. It obviously failed. ~Awilley (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

## Hi, I’m just a little annoyer sending You an annoying message to annoy You with a pointless notification

Hi, I’m just a little annoyer sending You an annoying message to annoy You with a pointless notification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.28.155.211 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

## It's a beautiful time of the year!

 Christmas tree worms live under the sea...they hide in their shells when they see me, So with camera in hand I captured a few, and decorated them to share with you. Atsme📞📧 15:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar For meticulous research and contributions to process on en.Wikipedia. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear AWilley. Your recent comment seems to suggest that article text can meet the "longstanding" test if editors repeatedly edit-war it back into the article after it's been challenged. I don't think this is actually what you meant to be saying, but I wonder whether you could clarify at AE. I believe that the "longstanding" guidance was meant to apply to content that had stood undisturbed for an extended period during which many editors saw it and did not challenge it by reversion, 4-6 weeks or more one Admin suggested. If it gets reverted after only 9 days and then multiple editors raise concerns about it, that kind of content would seem to be unsettled and need to be sorted out on talk under the "no reinsertion" sanction in place at the time. SPECIFICO talk 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, thanks for the notes. There is no set definition of "longstanding" and 4-6 weeks is just the opinion of one admin on one article. It will always be left to admin discretion, and admins will always disagree over how long it is. One metric I personally use for "longstanding" is the point where editors forget who added what to the article and when. If somebody adds a sentence, and that sentence is subsequently modified, tweaked, moved to a different paragraph, and merged with another sentence, it would be "longstanding" enough in my view that I would consider the sentence's removal a regular content edit, not a revert. There has to be a line at some point, otherwise people could easily game the system, deleting whatever they want and saying that it couldn't be restored without consensus.
You might be interested to know that the original intent of the "can't reinstate without talkpage consensus" clause was to prevent drive-by editors from gaming 1RR against "content editors". See Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Clarification request: American politics 2 (July 2016) in which Coffee states the wording was meant "to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process." Granted it does seem Coffee is interpreting it differently now. Or perhaps he softened his personal interpretation to what I quoted because he was getting his hand slapped by Arbcom for an ill-advised block. In any case, while I agree with the intent of the restriction on high-profile hotly contested articles, I think its wording is very problematic because it is confusing and susceptible to vastly different interpretations. ~Awilley (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. An interesting point that's come up recently in various contexts is that there is still disagreement even over the definition of "revert" site-wide. Regards SPECIFICO talk 01:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed there is. Does removing content count as a "revert"? Depends on who you ask. ~Awilley (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

## In some benign wp:CANVASSING

Community input is politely requested for Jimbo's tkpg with regard ur expertise in gen. notability per wp:GNG & applicabilities of eg wp:PROF, wp:AUTH, etc. w/in AfD's
... here: User talk:Jimbo Wales#Suggested fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just getting to this after being out of town for the weekend. I'm not sure I'd be of much help in that discussion. ~Awilley (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

TheDJ
XnualaCJOldelpasoBerean HunterJimbo WalesAndrew cKaranacsModemacScott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

## A barnstar for you!

 The Brilliant Idea Barnstar Trump RfC. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate the thought, SPECIFICO, and I'm definitely not trying to throw this back in your face, but barnstars make me a bit uncomfortable when they come in response to an admin decision of mine that seems to help one "side" in a political dispute. Besides, I think (or rather hope) that there's a higher bar for "brilliant idea" than reading and understanding the meaning of words.

That said, I do very much appreciate the thanks notifications people sometimes send. ~Awilley (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did not intend to make you itch. But since Admin actions are by their nature impartial, I intended only to thank you for trying to keep things on-process in an area which is sorely lacking Admin oversight. SPECIFICO talk
Thank you! ~Awilley (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

## Objection

I object to your assertion that "the RfC is not worded neutrally".[33] On the other hand, I am not seeking reversal of your RFC closure, because you agreed with me that "Yes, it is obviously 'okay' to say he was a businessman before entering politics."

The RFC question that I posed was: "Is the present language okay, saying that he was a businessman before entering politics?". User:Scjessey yesterday edited the article to change it from past tense to present tense.[34] The question I posed is obviously neutral.

In the pertinent talk page discussion, Scjessey said "I am vehemently opposed to any sentence that fails to describe Trump continues to be a businessman" and "He continues to own businesses and profit from them; therefore, he is a businessman. This is indisputable." and he also (incorrectly) claimed that consensus was on his side to yet again change this aspect of the lead from past tense to present tense.[35]

Your statement that the RFC question was not neutral was obviously mistaken, and I strongly object to the accuracy of your assessment, as well as to whatever effects that assessment may have in the future. Congratulations on your barnstar from SPECIFICO though.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Anything...longtime no see. I have another one ready to launch if you decide to tone down your POV stuff and let the article unfold according to consensus! You're still my favorite Trumpie, cause you are an Honest Native American, as they say in the States. SPECIFICO talk 17:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You've found my weak spot.🎖Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant, your question, "Is the present language okay, saying that [Trump] was a businessman before entering politics?" is phrased in such a way that any rational person, forced to answer the question, must say yes. However judging by the quotes you linked here, it looks like the dispute was whether the Lead should imply that [Trump] is still a businessman. Your question doesn't get to the root of that. RfC questions framed to get a particular answer by asking the wrong question are not neutrally worded in my book. ~Awilley (talk) 05:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
The first link in this talk page section shows that the RFC header was this: "RFC:Should the lead paragraph say in present tense or past tense that he is a businessman?" Does that get to the root of the matter, in your opinion? I think anyone who read that header would have understood the dispute very clearly. I try hard to be a neutral editor, and I don't think it was neutral of you to disregard the header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
If an RfC asks one question in the header and a different question in the body, it is "malformed". If, in this malformed RfC, the question in the header is the one you want answered, and the question in the body is worded to draw a specific answer, then the RfC is not neutral. I appreciate you trying hard to be neutral, but good intentions don't make the RfC any less malformed or any more neutral. ~Awilley (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
As you know, the RFC header need not ask any question at all. When it does so, the implication is obvious that that question is synonymous with the RFC question, and is meant to explain the RFC question. For example, if the header says "RFC: Was the previous RFC non-neutrally framed?" and then under the header it asks "Was it okay for Awilley to close the previous RFC as malformed?" then I think anyone would understand that Awilley argued the previous RFC was malformed because it was non-neutrally framed. I am not going to argue with you anymore about this, but rather will keep in mind that there is a high threshold of obvious neutrality that some editors must meet.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

### Mea culpa

I just noticed the following statement way down the page at WP:RFC: "The statement should be self-contained, and should not assume that the section title is available (because the statement, but not the section title, will be copied to the RfC list pages)." I did not know this, and of course it's quite different from the bogus rationale that you gave above. People at the "list pages" might have misunderstood the question I posed, but any neutral editor who came to the actual article talk page would have seen the section title and understood perfectly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

KaranacsBerean HunterGoldenRingDlohcierekim
GdrTyreniusJYolkowskiLonghairMaster Thief GarrettAaron BrennemanLaser brainJzGDragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

## reverting

Hi Awilley, please don't revert another editor's talk page comment as you did here. You can ask an editor to move a comment, but comments in survey sections are allowed, even if you don't think they are "on-topic." Reverting another editor's comment is dismissive and not within your remit as an admin. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't do that as an admin, I did that as an editor, trying to keep the bullets in the Survey section unthreaded and on topic. That's the whole point of splitting it into Survey and Discussion sections. Like I said, I appreciated the note, but it didn't really add anything to the larger discussion. I was trying to communicate that with my revert, but apparently failed. ~Awilley (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
The point is, you should not be reverting someone else's talk page comment unless it's vandalism. Btw, we're way past Version B, if you're still interested. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:31, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
I happen to disagree with you on that, as keeping threaded discussion out of a dedicated survey section is a legitimate reason for talkpage refactoring. In this particular instance, it looked like the intent of your edit was to communicate something directly to me. If that was the case, then its mission was accomplished. I got the message. If the message was meant for other people to read, or if you meant for it to add something directly related to the larger discussion, then I apologize for misunderstanding its intent and welcome you to re-add it. ~Awilley (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Per the talk page guidelines here. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't think my comment was golden at all, and did not bother to restore it. But it was relevant to Awiley's responses to another editor's comments; and that's all I have to say. Thanks for your input. SW3 5DL (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

## Do not unblock...violation of consensus

You make that call and I'll block you.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Woah, let's de-escalate this a little bit. What parts of my close do you disagree with? I saw consensus that Roxy's name-calling was wrong, and consensus that the block without warning was heavy-handed. What do you see? ~Awilley (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I disagreed with the close as well - but mostly because it was too soon (I did voice an opinion opposite to the close to be fair). It'd only been open for a day, and comments on both sides are/were still coming in. I don't think that blocking each other over it - or wheel warring is appropriate either. SQLQuery me! 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@SQL: I think the "too soon" argument is fair from a procedural standpoint. And that section has been open less than a day. But from a drama standpoint, those types of discussions can go on for a long time without consensus, and sometimes do, until the block expires. But if you look at it in terms of what policy actually says, a "good" civility block won't have the problem of no consensus because nearly everyone will be able to see that a block was justified. I would direct your attention to Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility, especially points #3 and #4, which I will quote here:

3. Civility blocks should be for obvious and uncontentious reasons, because an editor has stepped over the line in a manner nearly all editors can see. In cases where you have reason to suspect this would not be the case – cases where there is reason to believe that taking admin action against someone who was uncivil would not be an uncontentious (or nearly so) prospect – it is expected that discussion will be opened on the matter, via WP:ANI, before any admin action is taken. Benefits derived from long or controversial civility blocks should be weighed against the potential for disruption caused by block reviews, and unblock requests.

4. Users should be clearly warned, in most circumstances, before being blocked for incivility, and should be allowed sufficient time to retract, refactor or explain uncivil comments. Even experienced contributors should not be blocked without warning. Exceptions to this may include users who make egregious violations or threats, or who have received multiple warnings. (Note there was no warning before blocking.)

~Awilley (talk) 02:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I agree that what's in policy today does support your close. Policy does change, and consensus - at least in this case was still 50/50. I applaud your effort to reduce drama with this close, and honestly I wouldn't have even commented if it weren't for everything else going on around this case / block / etc. SQLQuery me! 02:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The policy allows for immediate blocks in some circumstances: "This is not to say that blocking for incivility should not or cannot happen, but immediate blocking is generally reserved for cases of major incivility, where incivility rises to the level of clear disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing." (emphasis mine) Whether this situation fits that description is a judgment call, though. kcowolf (talk) 02:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Indeed it is a judgement call, and the impossibility of creating a clear rule has been the source of thousands of wasted hours in fights between admins who believe their judgement is the correct one. ~Awilley (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I remember admins gaming the fact that if one pulls a fast unblock that they wouldn't think that another would run the chance of wheel. The last time that I saw that, I decided that I'd prevent that from happening again. There is no rush to unblock here. If consensus falls towards unblocking after 24 hours then I'm fine with unblocking but I don't want the process subverted.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 02:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, and understand the desire for due process. But what, in your opinion, should be the result if after lengthy discussion there is no consensus on whether a block was good or bad? ~Awilley (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Then we let the short block (24 hours) expire with no consensus to override. A block of that length for NPA isn't that bad...it's short. I'm hoping that Roxy and Drmies reach a resolve which may end it quicker. Having the community state their opinion on the matter has value...I can't see where it would be harmful.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 04:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

## Thumbs up

That was an honorable attempt to rationally solve a problem, and an honorable refusal to escalate. No need for this to end up at ArbCom, I suppose. Sometimes WP is a little too dysfunctional for rational solutions to be the most drama-free solutions... Anyway, a small deposit has been made in your karmic bank account. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Floquenbeam, I really appreciate it. ~Awilley (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree strongly with Floq. You did the right thing, and the other admin overreacted. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

## Options

On DT, you ivoted here. Would you like to specify an options(s) for a B, or are you fine with any of the B's? SW3 5DL (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Unlike yourself and User:Anythingyouwant I am quite satisfied with my original vote and don't care enough about the minor differences in wording to modify my vote every time the wind changes. ~Awilley (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, there are always changes, more options posted, MelanieN likes them all. I ask about yours because Anything has a note for the closer here asking them to not count your ivote towards B4, and goes on to say B4 should not count at all. Don't think that will get much attention. It sounds like you are fine with any version of B. P.S. I didn't know that was for a closer when I hatted it as part of the threaded discussion. He's got so many posts, I don't read them all anymore. SW3 5DL (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Doug BellDennis BrownClpo13ONUnicorn

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

## This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you commented on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Happyme22Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

## RfA

 Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. ) Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Wishing Awilley a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! 13:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

AnarchyteGeneralizationsAreBadCullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

NakonScott
SverdrupThespianElockidJames086FfirehorseCelestianpowerBoing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

## Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

## Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Awilley! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 22:47, Sunday, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

## Thanks!

Hi Awilley, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 22:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

## Nomination of Less-active Mormon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Less-active Mormon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Less-active Mormon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. 02:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

LonghairMegalibrarygirlTonyBallioniVanamonde93
Allen3Eluchil404Arthur RubinBencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

## WP:ANRFC and Talk:Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries#Split section on Iran

Hi - your note on WP:ANRFC that says you're working on closing this RfC has been up for over a month now. Are you still working on it? Do you consider it done? Because otherwise I'm tempted to close it out. --GRuban (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I had completely forgotten about the discussion. Let me take a second look at it tomorrow. It wasn't so much an RfC as a disagreement between a couple of editors, and I was trying to mediate the discussion when I got distracted with other things. ~Awilley (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Done ~Awilley (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Yeah, that's pretty much what I was going to do ... with perhaps a hair more "Per WP:SIZERULE, this page is over twice the Almost certainly should be divided line, so any reasonable breaking into subarticles is to be strongly encouraged." --GRuban (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

## Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of \$200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

## ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

## Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or 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/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe Roe
JzG
EricorbitPercevalThinggTristanbVioletriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

## ArbCom 2017 election voter message

 Hello, Awilley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)