Jump to content

User talk:Awilley/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Requesting review

Looking to file a request for clarification of the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling. There is some discussion of such on the Talk:Intelligent design Page, particularly the “Request for clarification" section. I was wondering if I might impose on you as an uninvolved knowledgable party to review it and maybe find a way to boilit down enough to file a request. Be warned it might take a while. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

John, I will respond to this soon. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

@John Carter: I think the clause that needs clarification would be: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Generally_considered_pseudoscience. In my opinion, some good questions to ask the committee would be:

When an article's subject is generally considered to be pseudoscience in reliable sources... Example 1 Example 2
Must the word pseudoscience be used in describing the article's subject, or are alternate wordings acceptable? "<Subject> is pseudoscience" "<Subject> is rejected by mainstream scientists"
If the label pseudoscience is used, how prominent should it be? Does it need to be in the first sentence of the Lead, or should the first sentence be a general definition of the subject? "<Subject> is a pseudoscientific idea that <definition of subject>." "<Subject> is <definition of subject>...<Subject> is regarded as pseudoscience by mainstream scholars."
Should the assertion that a subject is pseudoscience be attributed, or can it be stated in Wikipedia's voice? "<Subject> is pseudoscience." "<Subject> is considered pseudoscience by a majority of scholars."

A good question specific to the dispute would be,

The answer to that question would clarify whether ID can be "labeled and categorized as [pseudoscience] without more justification" or whether it "may properly contain that information [that it is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community] and may be categorized as pseudoscience".

In any case, I think a clarification of the wording at #Generally_considered_pseudoscience would be appropriate, since it is not entirely clear how the term should be used, and since the minority of "moderate" editors who are actually interested in NPOV and encyclopedic writing are so often drowned out, ignored, or "tuned out" as part of the "opposition" by the opposing camps of editors that perpetuate the TLDR talk page discussions at the articles in question. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The last part of this edit by John Carter raises some concerns IMO that I think you might wish to consider. - Nick Thorne talk 22:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Nick Thorne: Thanks, I had read the talk page yesterday, but it has apparently grown since then. Do you think it would be helpful for me to post the above on the article talk page under the thread you linked? My original plan was to wait here for John Carter's response...see if I've "boiled it down" to his satisfaction, and see how he intends to file the request for clarification, though now that I think about it I can definitely see some benefits of not moving the discussion here to my talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:17, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I would welcome seeing you post your information on the article talk page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I personally am not contemplating editing the article page itself at all. Dave has done a good job on the article for several years now and I expect he would continue to do so if the guidelines were a bit clearer. My primary interest is based on the fact that this particular ArbCom pseudoscience case has been such a contentious one in so many areas and would seem to me to be directly relevant to some other contentious topics that tend to get one-sided editing (like "Ethiopian science") that maybe some sort of more detailed guidelines for particularly main topical articles might be of some utility and I was hoping to maybe get ArbCom to ask that some broad guidelines get drafted to make article construction and development easier and less subject to article-by-article disputes. John Carter (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Can I just suggest that the table above looks prescriptive in excessive detail, inviting Arbcom to set rigid rules for article content rather than, as at present, setting principles to be read in conjunction with relevant policies. Since John Carter is expressly not interested in editing the article, his intervention appears POINTy and counterproductive, derailing discussion on article improvement. It may be possible to ask Arbcom to refine the wording in a more general way, but that is clearly a matter for wider community input, not something specific to the ID article. Something to think over: what is the best venue for this discussion? . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I guess I should specify I meant edit the article in the srict sense of the phrase and did not at least potentially rule out finding sources and/or suggesting changes and that I guess I thought in context that was obvious? Also, a lot of what I do here is based on sources I find, and "intention" doesn't enter into it. I guess I could call into question the conduct of some other editors who seem to be perhaps overfond of the word "pseudosience" a word already counterindicated by WP:WTW and that the failure to address that to date and attempts to defend it could also be derailing discussion of article improvement by stonewalling or otherwise defending a violation of existing guidelines too but haven't yet. And of course no one was even thinking of attempting to abridge your own right to comment there. I also note what might be perhaps both rushes to judgment about the depth and breadth of these as-yet-not-even-really-proposed guidelines yet. And in many cases the best place for discussion on a contentious topic like ID and pseudosciene in general is probably someplace other than a single article's talk page. Pseudoscience has been one of the more active old rulings lately and it probably would be useful to have some clearer indicators in place to reduce their number. John Carter (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Another quick matter

Could you read these three short descriptions, [1] (and following brief citations added Talk section), [2], and [3], and then keep an eye on the Secosteroid page? The thought/request is, if my reversion at Secosteroids is re-reverted, to somehow stop the war in its tracks, and force discussion before further warring. I would like the current opening lede definition maintained, and Boghog to wait with his edit until he has his proposed change in direction discussed. The other links are to where I have brought the matter to the Wikiproject Chemistry Talk page, and have gone to the Wikiproject Pharmacology Talk page and invited them to comment at the Chem Talk page. I am being very communicative, a priori.

Technically speaking, I am not sure what is best to ask of you -- that if he re-reverts, to revert him again, or what? To protect the page in some fashion as it stands (my reversion in place), until the consensus can develop? RSVP here, but please keep an sideward glance at Secosteroid (for my being reverted), if you can. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added it to my watch list, but am reluctant to protect anybody's version. Based on a brief look at the edit in question, I don't see why your version can't be modified to address Boghog's concern about the accessibility of the introductory sentence to the average reader. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you there. But look back sometime, and see my response to the intro sentence accessibility. If accessibility were the only question, and real impetus for change, I would not have come to you! Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: I think Boghog's response here is perfectly reasonable. Guessing about ulterior motives and voicing those suspicions isn't going to be particularly helpful, but reading his comments and taking steps to resolve his concerns is. Instead of waiting for the "community" to step in and be the judge between you and Boghog, why don't you just make a bold edit yourself and simplify the first sentence so that an average reader can understand it? That would have the two pronged effect of neutralizing one of his concerns and generating some goodwill between the two of you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Adjwilley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technophant (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I got the echo notification already. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Disruption needs to be stopped

After reading your advice, Technophant seems to have "understood" the meaning of page protection, and is now misusing it to own the Myofascial meridians article.

Also, in spite of your direct advice and warning, he has resumed attempts to force in an edit which has been rejected multiple times, as noted by this comment. The page protection needs to be reinstalled, or the editor blocked and topic banned (from Acupuncture and Myofascial meridians).

Please investigate the forum shopping and controversies created by Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's a HUGE time sink. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, though I'm not convinced that they're the whole problem here. I've been contemplating topic bans for a number of editors in this area, but I prefer to do a bit more research before using the Discretionary Sanctions banhammer. In this case, I expect they will be blocked shortly for edit warring on the Myofascial meridians page...if they return to the disruptive behavior after that block, I will issue a topic ban. (I'd rather let the people who usually run AN3 determine whether an edit warring block is in order.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Addition: Upon closer scrutiny of the AN3 report, it looks like at least one of the diffs wasn't actually a revert. (I expected better from User:Jmh649...also disappointed with their participation in the edit war.) Anyway, I'm still going to let someone else sort out that report. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Exactly which of the five is not a revert within 24 hours? I have described them in more detail here [4]
So one can now add a new bit of text supported by a book that introduces a new body system to the standard 11 (this ref [5] in this edit [6]) and then happy edit it into place.
You were expecting that I should allow a new organ systems to be added based on a German text written in the early 1900s and now translated to English? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649: I could be wrong, but to me this diff does not look like a revert. The content added, as far as I can tell, had not been added or removed from the article prior to that edit, and the re-addition of the NPOV tag, if anything, was a self-revert of this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

That was the first addition. Than we have three more additions of the same text all within 20 hours. Plus we have the re adding of the spam link to [7] (take a look at that link it is impressive). That would be four blocks of edits that contain revert. Also typically the initial addition of content is counted as an edit. Thus someone does not get to come along add something that is controversial once without consensus using poor sources. Than when reverted re-add it three more times and claim they won. The prior content used to stand and one used to need consensus to make a controversial change. I know I have had to reach 66% support a couple of times to make a single edit Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

A revert by definition means that it is reversing the action of others, so the initial "Bold" edit that is reverted to doesn't actually count as a revert itself. I realize that seems unfair, as it gives "Bold" editors who add new material an upper hand in edit wars, but that's how the reverts are counted. Of course, one should also consider stuff like WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO which give preference to the prior consensus revision. (And if you ask me, there's a strong case for nobody edit warring past 1RR, even if the added material is problematic, but I'm not going to bore you with that soap box right now.) Anyway, to be clear, I too see 4 reverts, and in my opinion, if you wish to make a convincing case for User:EdJohnston to reconsider, you should update the AN3 report to that effect. Mind you, I'm not saying that Technopath was right in any of this...he definitely wasn't...I only commented on it because I had initially taken your report at face value, only to be disappointed later on when I looked into the diffs (this was all before User:BoboMeowCat had commented). ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All one needs is 4 reverts to break the bright line. Those 4 reverts were there even by your counting methods. We do appear to disagree on exactly what counts as a "revert" at 3RR though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Correct. I think we have been in agreement nearly the whole time about the bright line being crossed, and the only point of disagreement is the academic question of whether an initial "bold" addition of material counts as a "revert" at the 3RR noticeboard. The way I see it, there are at least 3 ways we can resolve this easily.
  1. One or both of us could quote language from WP:3RR, Help:Reverting, or WP:Reverting that supports our position.
  2. We could refer the question to a higher authority, either someone like User:EdJohnston who is unquestionably well-versed in matters of counting reverts, or someone like User:Dennis Brown whose judgement I believe we both trust.
  3. We can simply agree to disagree, and move on.
I am open to any of the above paths toward resolution. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)In general, no, it's not against policy to remove or blank discussions, warnings, and templates from your own talk page. There are a couple specific exceptions to this listed at WP:BLANKING. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Forever the pragmatist, pardon me while I throw policy out the window and just apply some common sense. I notice he was just topic banned, so the edit warring is moot. To me, the topic ban is a definitive solution. Blocking him for those edits now wouldn't be preventative, it would be punitive. If our goal is to find a solution rather than justice, we already have it in the topic ban. So yes, he got away with a little warring, but he can't edit the article anymore, so accept the victory and move on. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Dennis, agreed. Just fyi, when I made the above comment I was unaware of the ongoing AN/I topic ban discussion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. It was really more of a general question than a highly specific one. I think the topic ban handles the issue and have no desire to be punitive (or drag this on). I did post to the EW NB that the filing can/should probably be closed. I appreciate greatly all the work admins and experienced editors put in handling contention with restraint, fairness, courtesy and patience. Best to all. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
        • I figured as much Adj, but there really wasn't any doubt as to the outcome of that topic ban, we all knew it was coming. I was about to ask for a closer myself, then the wife came home, so we hit the gym and the local spaghetti and salad bar, which is why the delay. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:48, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

According to this edit User:Technophant has a previous or another account. It was removed and now he is requesting speedy deletion of his user page. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I'm actually a bit confused by the history of that account. If it's a so-called "sleeper" account, it must be a very old one, since it was created nearly five years ago. It looks like he made a dozen edits in late 2009, 30 or so more in 2013, and then became more active this year around April. It seems he made productive edits until he got into the Acupuncture area and subsequently fell off the clue train. If his end goal was to sock in Acupuncture, he sure took his time getting around to it. That's one of the reasons that I feel a topic ban is the best solution...if it were an indef block, he would just create a new account, but with a topic ban he still has the ability to edit productively in areas where he isn't as emotionally involved. I'll be interested to see if he "retires" this account or if he chooses to continue editing elsewhere...I think that will say a great deal about how much of a SPA it is. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good observation. If he doesn't continue editing in other areas, then he's an SPA who is not here to build an encyclopedia. So far nothing's happening with that account, but I have a hard time believing he's actually not editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm wondering about the wording of the topic ban:

  • "User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year."

Don't topic bans normally cover the topic, which means any discussion related to the topic, even on user talk pages, is not allowed? Shouldn't that wording be amended? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm going to do either. I feel that the punishment did not fit the crime, being that I've never had a contested edit on any other alt-med articles. Also a community ban discusssion is supposed to be up at lesat 24 hours, mine lasted less than 7. It felt like a witch hunt, and probably the worst online experience of my life. There's more to the story, however this talk page isn't private and it seems now I have new enemies. - Technophant (talk) 05:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Also, all the user refrac's were completely unintentional. I'm having a really had a really hard time finding the right drivers for my mouse and trackpad and if had the issue of the cursor jumping around a lot. Having a neuropathy doesn't help either. - Technophant (talk) 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of other subjects where you can edit. You're smart, have lots of knowledge, and have plenty of time on your hands, so you can still be a great asset here. You can gain more experience, avoid any controversies or edit warring, and rebuild the community's trust in you. We're not asking for perfection, we'd just like to see a positive learning curve. In the end there is only one lasting currency here, and it's not number of edits. It's your reputation. People forget quickly and this painful experience will gradually fade into the background. Don't give up. Don't hesitate to ask for help anytime. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
OMG Quack, you need to stop. Like cease and desist, move on. If it wasn't for your obnoxious behaviour this incident wouldn't have happened. Why is this user even allowed to edit? - Technophant (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
QuackGuru, the place to complain about socking is WP:SPI, you know that. Doing so on the closing admin's page isn't helpful. If you have a case, go file it properly, please. As to the above, please note that TOPIC BANS cover more than the articles and the talk page, regardless of the wording of the close. They include talking about the subject anywhere on the wiki, period, unless the close explicitly allowed such things, which this doesn't. It would have been better to have the close say "anywhere on the website" or similar, but it is understood and will be enforced as such. And now you know, Technophant.
To address a couple more issues: As for duration of discussion, there is no rule for it to be 24 hours Tech, and it is silly to even imply that. It doesn't matter if you need a new mouse or have issues that interfere, as we don't differentiate when it comes to disruption via refactoring, the result was still disruption and you alone are responsible for your edits and actions.
Now can we please leave Adj's page and go write some articles? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Appeal

@User:Adjwilley, I would like to formally appeal your closing decision.I believe that the topic ban is over broad and excessive duration and wish to go to have this case re-considered. The topic ban, initiated by Jmh649, (Doc James) in this destructive redacted diff was retaliatory in nature. The case against me had some critical distortions and some important information was not discussed or included. Also, I believe the discussion was closed prematurely (7 hours, not the 24 hours recommended in WP:CBAN. Sincerely, Technophant (talk)

I tend to agree seven hours seems like a short time to leave conversation open. I was not involved in content dispute, but had been somewhat following case, after I noticed the initial reports on NPOV and 3RR simultaneously. I probably would have commented on the later reports, but it was over by time I was back posting on Wiki. Technophant, with respect to your appeal, from what I can see WP:BATTLEGROUND played a big role in topic ban. While I wouldn’t be particularly surprised if others in that content dispute also engaged in wp:battleground, I think it might help you to keep in mind that most people are only going to see what is brought to boards and won’t have time or energy to wade through lengthy back story of edit history and talk pages to see the entire context of dispute, so in this respect, it is really important to keep your cool on the noticeboards and such discussions....just something to keep in mind for appeal.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedian for a long time. In fact I was just coming back to being a regular editor after a long hiatus. The reason I left was because of things like this. I'm new to all this stuff, there's so many crazy acronyms for new policies and guidelines. MEDRS is new to me, and while I see how it can be very useful in articles such as Cauda equina syndrome I don't see how or why is should apply to organic food (only briefly looked at page, never edited). Information that in no way can be construed as medical advice shouldn't be censored.
Also, back in 2010/11 there was something that happened to me that caused me to stop editing. I was legally threatened and the individual (who I just now found out is "no longer associated with Wikipedia") threatened me legally and personally and was attempting to out me. It caused me much distress and I still have PTSD some issues from it. My attempt to come back with a new username under the WP:Clean Start policy worked well until I tried to come back to an old issue with new information. Unf. the climate at accu has changed considerably, for the worse. I'm seriously thinking about taking this as a sign from God and putting this stuff behind me for good. It's not worth the aggravation. - Technophant (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry all, I was at work for 12 hours yesterday and didn't have time to respond to any of the messages left here.
  • @Dennis Brown, thanks for stalking here.
  • @Quackguru, if by "quacking" you are suggesting a duck block, I don't think there's enough evidence for that, and I agree with Dennis that such decisions need to be made at SPI, not here.
  • @BullRangifer, though I only said talk and article space, if Technophant is wise he will unwatchlist all pages associated with the subject, userspace included. (I think the "broadly construed" implies a lot of that.)
  • @BoboMeowCat, I agree it was a short time to leave the noticeboard discussion open, but I think it was a case of WP:SNOW. I had been considering a year long topic ban from Accupuncture the day before (under the Discretionary Sanctions imposed on the topic area), but was waiting to see how the 3RR report would be closed. When I happened upon the ANI discussion (about 20-30 minutes before I closed it) I knew before I had finished reading the first section that I would be making the DS topic ban. Then I saw the sections below. The topic ban by that point was inevitable, so I figured I might as well close. The duration and scope (indefinite, alt-met) came from the preferences of the people voting in the thread. (I would have limited it to Acupuncture-related.) The appeal in a year clause came from me, because I believe that people can change given time and motivation.
  • @Technophant, I'm sorry things turned out the way they did. Sometimes disruption reaches a point when the community throws up their hands and shouts "Enough!". I think that is what happened yesterday. I realize you were under a lot of stress, and people tend to do stupid stuff when they're stressed. (See WP:MASTODON.) I tried to get you to slow down and calm down [8] [9] but sometimes those words have the opposite effect. Anyway, I won't lecture you further, but I will say this: nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, but things take time. There is no way I can undo or modify what has been done, including my own closure, without causing way more disruption than it's worth, but if you can manage to move on yourself...go write an article or two on an uncontroversial subject...fight some vandalism...contribute positively and stay off the drama boards...I will be your number one supporter when you come back to appeal the topic ban. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pass a Method

It's more interesting this time. Flyer22 (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: That is indeed more interesting. I'll be interested to see what the CU says. (Definitely enough evidence there for that.) By the way, sorry for my slow response. I had gotten your message on my phone, but I've been out of town all week and this is the first time I've actually been on a computer. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hate to always call on you, but

Here is another sticky request. There is an ongoing Noticeboard discussion regarding a COI case, a Prof and wife editing their own article. The discussion in part has become focused on the tags I placed on the article, and not on the fundamental COI issue. You are welcome to comment on these, link provided at end of this. The issue, rather, is that one editor keeps muddying the discussion by removing the tags from the article (i.e., changing the object of the discussion, before the Noticeboard matter comes to a close). This has as an impact, as I have stated to him, of confusing the discussion, by making changes to the article that make it difficult to follow the discussion for new editor's joining in. I reverted once, asking him to leave it in place until the discussions ended. He near immediately re-reverted, ignoring the argument regarding confusion. (He is simply not a fan of tags, and a following opponent of me.)

Here is his deleting edit: [10]. Here is the ongoing Noticeboard, [11]. If you want to read deeper, the COI noticeboard will link to the BLPN where discussion began, where it veered away from the fundamental COI issue. (It was at the BLPN that I asked that no changes be made to the tags until the matter settled.) Also, FYI, as noted, Boghog is a "follower" of mine — no prior interest in this article, just joining in because he tends to follow me to new articles and discussions, inevitably making the case that I am wrong. This last is neither here nor there, though I wish he would quit, so I can get some things done. Cheers. Replay here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272: Apologies for my slow response (see excuses above). I have probably come too late for the Church article, and I think the BLPN/COI people are doing a good job with it, and looking at my user page might give you an idea as to my opinion of putting tags at the top of articles. I recall you having concerns about User:Boghog following you around before, and it appears that Boghog has concerns about you as well. If you two are interested in talking things over in a semi-moderated forum, I would not mind that happening here, and I would be willing to moderate a bit, but I'll warn you first that my availability is going to be pretty spotty until about the 19th of this month. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Adjwilley for your offer to mediate. I am willing to enter a moderated discussion here. My main concern is what I perceive as WP:OVERTAGGING. Boghog (talk) 08:20, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits by Technophant

Hello Adjwilley, I wanted to let you know I ping'd you to User_talk:Technophant#Wikipedia:Canvassing regarding some edits that editor has made possibly in the area of their topic ban. Zad68 03:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Good grief, what a mess. Part of this is probably my fault for not being more clear with the topic ban wording, although User:Dennis Brown helped to clarify that above. It really should have said "all pages related to...". That said, I would not have blocked him for this general philosophizing and though the link to accupuncture was borderline, I would have just told him to remove it. I'm also troubled by User:Kww's indef block over these issues, as I've seen him express strong views on the subject matter making me question whether he's emotionally "involved" in the underlying content dispute. It's also discouraging to see the blocks come at a time when the user was trying to come clean: voluntarily disclosing his previous retired account (several thousand edits with only one block) and unwatchlisting all pages related to alt-med. I was hoping that the topic ban would allow him to continue edit productively in less problematic areas...now I don't suspect he'll be editing at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't see a voluntary coming clean in this edit. Note that the relationship between Technophant and Stillwaterising was removed, but both accounts were retained, in parallel, as members of the same Wikiproject. The edit he was blocked over was neither of the ones you mention, but this one. Note that the block is indefinite, not infinite. If he makes a reasonable unblock request and you think he will actually comply with his topic ban, I'm not going to whine if you grant it.—Kww(talk) 05:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm dealing with family issues, so short on time to review in full. I will just say that if reviewed and unblocked, I would tighten and make the topic ban very specific as part of the unblock. Not to broaden it really, just so it is crystal clear. There are some behavioral issues as stake that are larger than this one topic, but to be fair to him, we need to be crystal clear in the restrictions, giving him every chance of complying with community expectations. Personally, I don't think we need to rush and do need to investigate a bit more into the accounts, but at the same time, not be nitpicky about what is and isn't socking, using his intent as our guide rather than the letter of policy. If his intent was clearly to do a proper cleanstart, you overlook a mistake or two. If not, well, that is what policy is for. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Bear in mind that clean starts are not available to editors with a topic ban in place, precisely because it prevents enforcement of the topic ban.—Kww(talk) 13:46, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't overlook that, that is what the "scrutiny" clause is for. I'm talking about overlapping edits that were cleaning up, or double listing in Project pages and the like. Overlooking sloppiness, not malice. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kww, thanks for the link, I hadn't seen that.
@Dennis Brown, I'm still trying to get editorinteract to work, but from what I've seen so far the intent was good. In November 2009 Technophant placed the {{User Alternate Acct}} template on his userpage, and in June 2014, following a user page deletion, he added the text "This is a Clean Start account." (You'll have to use your x-ray glasses if you want to verify.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'll agree so far as the original activation of Technophant having been in good faith. I don't think the last day or so's edits were in good faith.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand...you are talking about him adding himself to the Medicine wikiproject? If he were planning on socking to evade the topic ban, why would he publicly link the accounts? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Look at the diff more carefully. As Technophant, he added himself and linked the accounts. Four days later, as Stillwaterising, he erased the linkage and added the second account as a distinct member of the project.—Kww(talk) 15:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmm...that is odd. By the way, I am hoping you'll comment on the topic ban wording section if you want to. (I'm taking the blame for the ambiguity in the original wording.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I unblocked, but have no actual optimism. I see his inclusion of WP:BANEX as a case of WP:ROPE and expect that we will be back here within days.—Kww(talk) 15:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I hope you're wrong. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Kww your lack of faith is disappointing. I hope to prove you wrong. Agf? Adjwilley, many thanks! :-> - Technophant (talk)
Also, not being aware of banex, I could easily see an overly zealous user or even admin blocking me for even mentioning the ban; that's why I objected to wording "broadly construed". If you want to take that term to is furthest most rediculous extreme, even editing my user page (which mentions the tban) could be a violation. When I was asking about it one user (or possibly admin) was saying "anything related to the topic whatsoever. Banex doesn't except commenting upon, complaining about, or even informing other users or other projects about your ban. WP isn't censored, so as long as I stay off the topic related pages I should be fine, right? - Technophant (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
My lack of faith appears to have been wholly justified, based on the antics of San Antonio IPs on User talk:The Banner.—Kww(talk) 05:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Technophant, you write: "Banex doesn't except commenting upon, complaining about, or even informing other users or other projects about your ban. WP isn't censored, so as long as I stay off the topic related pages I should be fine, right?"

What do you mean? You were topic banned because of your battlefield behavior and extreme disruption on several subjects, on many talk pages, and several noticeboards. Do you intend to continue your combative disruptions by discussing the topic ban, which is about the subjects from which you are supposed to keep a distance? That's too short a distance. I'd advise you to move on and stop obsessing about the ban. Failure to do so will only create more discussion and disruption, which will quickly get you blocked again, and this time likely indefinitely, as an editor who is simply incapable of learning. We need to see a positive learning curve.

You really need to let go of this and do something else constructive. Wikipedia is not censored, in the sense that we don't refrain from using pornographic images when they are necessary, or using words like "fuck", "quackery", and "pseudoscience" when they are part of the properly sourced content, but we don't let editors roam around and create disruption. In that sense you have been given a muzzle. Call it censorship if you will, but if you change your attitude, you'll accept it as the way to peace and a regaining of the confidence of editors.

Right now you have zero credibility with the whole community, except for a couple friends, who, BTW, are equally misguided. You need to keep a distance from such types and create a good reputation as someone who can work with ALL editors, especially those with whom you disagree. If you can't do that, and if you just criticize and ban those whom you don't like, then you don't have the collaborative spirit needed to work here. Stop and think about what path you will choose, because it has a fate, either good or bad. You really can regain our confidence if you change your attitude from defensive to cooperative.

I would also advise you to stop constantly deleting, editing, and moving content on your talk page. Only do truly minor refactoring, and when the page gets too long, then archive (you've been deleting, since you have not created any archives) in chronological order. Right now you have made a mess of things and it makes it very confusing for readers to immediately and easily see the correct chronological sequence and context for the content which is left, since you have deleted and moved various comments. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time to remove their talk page access. There isn't a single sign of a positive learning curve:
  • no evidence that they understand and accept why they were topic banned and blocked;
  • no acceptance of responsibility for their current situation;
  • only self-justification and self-defense;
  • no apologies;
  • many personal attacks on opposers;
  • lots of belligerence;
  • battlefield attitudes;
  • lack of collaborative spirit;
  • lots of anger issues;
  • self-admitted mental health issues;
  • those issues are then used as excuses for bad behavior;
  • a huge time sink;
  • They seem to think that some positive contributions on two articles (1, 2) justify massive disruption elsewhere;
  • There doesn't seem to be a single plus to them being here, at least not anymore.
I think you get the point. Technophant (and socks/IPs) is not good for Wikipedia, and editing here is likely not good for their mental state in the real world. They'd be better off if they stopped editing and discussing here, and the community will be thankful. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of bad feelings here on all sides and I think at this point it might be helpful if all involved removed each other's talk pages from their watchlists as a proactive step toward ending all this ongoing drama. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
@BullRangifer: It's only a time sink if you choose to devote time to it. If you, QuackGuru, et al. were to unwatchlist Technophant's talk page (as suggested by BoboMeowCat), you would save yourselves and probably everybody else a lot of time, in addition to not making Technophant feel like everybody's out to get him (lowering his stress level and improving his behavior). He's already topic banned from the area that interests you, and in my opinion canvassing for his indefinite block and talk page removal is a waste of time. He's in control of his own destiny...if he is unrepentant and blames others, his talk page access will be removed. If not, he'll eventually be able to go edit elsewhere. Either way, you're not affected. I've appreciated your involvement in the past, and I hope to hear from you in the future, but I think in this particular case it's reaching a point where it's not helpful anymore. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I should note, however, that your advice yesterday for the user that you left above (changing attitude, building credibility) was good advice. Thanks for that, and also for leaving it here instead of their talk page.
Adjwilley: I haven't followed the discussions about his topic bans and behaviour, but I will put in a good word for him regarding his editing on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi pages, which is the only place I have seen him in operation. I only found out about all this when his absence was noticeable and I got in touch via his Talk page. I have worked on those pages since the Iraq crisis broke and always found him very helpful if I or anyone had a query; in fact, I used to ask him for help, as I am fairly new to Wiki editing. As far as I am concerned, he was one of those who stood out as being a good team member, and he found many ways to improve those articles - I thought so right from the beginning. There was no edit-warring, no disputes, nothing like that involving him on those pages. He was always equable and reasonable. Perhaps you should take a chance and permit him back on those pages and see how things go. (BTW, I am not a "misguided friend"; I only speak as I find.) --P123ct1 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note User:P123ct1. Part of the rationale behind the topic ban was to allow him to contribute elsewhere while keeping him away from the alt-med topic area that seemed to be so problematic for him. Unfortunately not only did he break the topic ban, but the alt-med people can't seem to leave him alone. I'm trying to work with him and the blocking admin, to get this resolved, and I am willing to take a chance on him, but unless he can stop throwing barbs in the direction of old alt-med opponents, I fear we will end up in the same place again if I unblock now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

New message on User talk: Jgstokes

Hello, Awilley. You have new messages at Jgstokes's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jgstokes (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jgstokes. I'll comment there. Just fyi, Wikipedia has a notification system now and you can get someone's attention by simply linking their username in your comment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Church of Christ (Latter Day Saints)#List of early church members. Thanks. —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC

I have posted a Request for Comment at Talk:Landmark_Worldwide#RFC:_Has_the_neutrality_of_this_article_been_improved_or_degraded_by_recent_wholesale_changes.3F You may be interested since you have discussed this subject in the past. DaveApter (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

General Conference (LDS Church)

As an uninvolved admin that is familiar with the LDS Church, could you please talk a look at Talk:General Conference (LDS Church), as well as the recent edit history of General Conference (LDS Church), and take whatever actions you feel are necessary for the two involved parties (one of which is me). —Asterisk*Splat→ 00:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I have commented, though not as admin. (See Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Adjwilley answer to Q10 paragraph 2.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Recently blocked Technophant (talk)

Recently blocked Technophant (talk) has started again violating WP rules by repeatedly reverting content that I remove from my talk page, as I am permitted to do. I request your admin assistance.

[12], [13], [14], [15]

Worldedixor (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Worldedixor I have been notified on my talk page that I was incorrect for doing so. I will refrain from restoring or refactoring your talk page in the future. ~Technophant (talk) 21:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
When Technophant left its message above, I was going to withdraw my request.
Regrefully, Technophant showed its true intentions when it continued to comment about me on its talk page with its unpleasant analogy to H2O2 even after committing its double violations to policy.
For the record, I never initiate contact with Technophant and I always delete its comments and swiftly revert its violations on my talk page, as I am permitted to do, to avoid an unpleasant confrontation with it. I do however respond on articles Talk pages if and when it asks and/or comments respectfully.
I will borrow the words of admin Kww and opine that "I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to Technophant's block won't repeat themselves" and will also add obviously Technophant's repentance was only feigned and short lived.
I also would like to ask Technophant to admit or deny that it previously had "email" contact with another editor/s about me to influence the editorial process. I also ask for information on the permitted mechanism permitted by Wilipedia, if any, to subpoena exchanged emails if there is reasonable cause, or at least, introduce WP rules in the future to expose emails used in violation of WP policy when there is a reasonable cause. Worldedixor (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Worldedixor - I find your reference to me as "it" very offensive. WP is not a legal entity and cannot subpoena. The only way this could happen would be is if there were to be a lawsuit filed by Wikimedia or yourself. I find this whole line of inquiry very offensive and infringing on WP:NLT. ~Technophant (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It is a non-offensive gender-neutral pronoun. How would you like me to refer to you? he or she? I will use it until you inform me otherwise. My intention was not to offend you nor have I remotely implied WP:NLT. It is obvious that you are using this as a smoke screen for your actions, some of them are in violation of policy, and also to avoid responding to a reasonable question: Do you admit or deny that you previously had "email" contact with another editor/s in relation to articles or me? Worldedixor (talk) 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@User:Technophant, as you know, talk page blanking is specifically allowed per WP:BLANKING. (See also WP:DRRC) Also, this was completely unnecessary and inflammatory.
@User:Worldedixor, there probably is a way to know whether emails have been sent, but I highly doubt that you'll be able to use it for this minor dispute. It's not uncommon for editors to collaborate via email. If you suspect that disruptive tag-team editing is going on, your best bet will probably be to see if there is convincing evidence of that. Also, I recommend using the singular "they" instead of "it" when you're referring to a person who hasn't disclosed their gender on Wikipedia.
@Both, please try to disengage and collaborate. Remember, there are no angry mastadons out to get you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
In this relentless pattern, I have one more thing to add done by ~Technophant (talk), a non-admin, on my Talk page, to add [16] and [17]. Worldedixor (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that, and added a note to them above. (I'm surprised I didn't edit conflict with you.) @Technophant: please disengage and stop trying to draw other editors into the discussion. Just drop it and move on. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Adjwilley.Worldedixor (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Adjwilley, passivity is not the answer to everything. There's times where one needs to stand up and fight for what's important. ~Technophant (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Technophant there, and I trust my post to Worldedixor has helped both sides in this. To make it crystal clear, let me say that Technophant and I have never discussed what edits should be made or reverted, in this or any other Wikipedia article! --P123ct1 (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Technophant, "fighting" is rarely a good thing in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia, and there are few things "important" enough to fight over. Defending oneself against perceived insults or insinuations is not important enough to fight over. Somebody calling you an "it" instead of a "they", or inquiring whether you're talking about them behind their back, or even rudely removing your messages on their talk page without response, is not important enough to fight over. P123ct1 had the right approach. In a single post they defused the situation, resolved Worldedixor's underlying concern, extended an olive branch, and possibly made a friend, all without any "fighting". ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Technophant does not seem to be moving on. They are continuing to write inappropriate comments and conveniently change my name, now WP:PA such as "Worldelix has taking a dump" [18]. There is no reason to call me Worldelix. See all my contributions on that article, and you can verify that I have never violated policy, and I have never initiated contact with Technophant, and the record shows that I have indeed responded to them only when they asked in a respectful manner. I blanked out, as I am allowed to, their non-respectful badgering and their multiple violations of policy. Worldedixor (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
It's objectionable to refer to individual by the neuter gender in western culture. Like the psychopath in Silence of the Lambs who depersonalized his female victim by saying "It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again!" Worldedixor, please address me as "Sir Technophant" with masculine pronouns. ~Technophant (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Worldedixor, I really hope that you make a serious effort to try to be more cooperative with other editors. Please stop putting in non-neutral language like you did in the 29 August edit. Please also use complete references, not bare URLS, and be civil. It's considered poor wikiquette to detelte personal messages from your talk page without even an edit summary. If you find that you have to fight consensus to put in every edit then there's something wrong with your editing strategy. I admire your fluency is multiple languages including Arabic and hope that you can become a valued and respected part of ISIL editing team, however you've caused issues with all of top 5 current contributors on the page. That's not good. Take it from me, being Topic Banned sucks. You'll be kicking yourself for the next year if you get banned from editing articles pertaining to military history. Please be mindful that there's nothing gained by bringing this issue here. I did something improper, I was informed that it was improper and agreed to stop doing it. Can you please do the same? ~Technophant (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I have Adjwilley's user page on my WP:Watchlist and only just now read this discussion. The use of "it" to refer to Technophant immediately stuck out to me, and struck me as though it is a WP:Personal attack. I'm certain that very few people would take kindly to being referred to as an "it." There is nothing that is gender-neutral language about "it" in my view, since I don't see "it" as having a gender...unless referring to some non-human animal, such as "The dog ran across the yard. Then it picked up the bone."
The Silence of the Lambs reference above made me giggle, by the way. Flyer22 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I acknowledge the difficulty of finding a gender-neutral third-person pronoun, but have to agree that using "it" on that basis is probably taking the worst option available. "He" or "she" are both used as third-person-of-unknown-gender pronouns today, and "s/he" is an ugly but available choice too. I still haven't figured out which pronouns to use for those editors who clearly are not human but some sort of clearly alien entity, and I try whenever possible to avoid the bots and droids around here because mechanoids give me the creeps, but from what I can see Technophant is one of us humans and so can reasonably think he or she or s/he deserves to be pronouned as such. John Carter (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Considering that I've had the line "Just one man trying to make a difference" on my userpage for as long as I've been reactivated on this account there really shouldn't have been any confusion.~Technophant (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen "xhe" used. User:Worldedix, the Foundation is very keen on privacy and it would take a very strong legal case to get hold of anyone's email from them. Dougweller (talk) 13:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: Problems with Worldedixor on the ISIS talk page have escalated. I've started a draft RFC/U at User:Technophant/Requests for comment/Worldedixor. I would like you to review it and get your advice before I file it. Thanks.~Technophant (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

...for closing that mess. I hope editors will heed your sound advice to let it go. I can't imagine anything to be gained from more "hearings" into the matter. 28bytes (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Cooking the books

The discussion was running 3:1 in favor of reversing the unblock when you closed the discussion by merging votes before and after the reblock into one discussion and then reimposed an early close you had made. You disagree with my strategies? It's hard to describe how much I disagree with yours. If admins won't respect blocks, they are meaningless.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The merge was fine. I'd made my opinion clear and would have commented again if I hadn't been asleep. By the way, Sitush has emailed me and assured me it was purely figurative, no threat intended. And I don't for a minute think Demiurge felt threatened (and he didn't comment when I asked him if he did). As for Admins respecting blocks, one of the main criticisms of us is that we simply join ranks if someone is blocked. I don't think that's true, but I also don't think that we need to accept that every block needs to be respected. Dougweller (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And there is now User talk:Sitush#Explanation. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying that every block is absolute, Dougweller, I'm saying that there needs to be a consensus to override another administrator's action when that administrator objects. Closing a discussion when it is clearly trending against a preferred position is also problematic, and merging the discussion of whether an action is appropriate with discussion that occurred before the action was taken is also problematic. How can discussion that occurred before Floquenbeam's unblock be relevant to whether that unblock was appropriate? The issue at that point was not whether the original block against Sitush was appropriate (I tend to think it was a bit of an overkill), but whether Floquenbeam could unilaterally override another admin when discussion had not shown a consensus that such an override was appropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok. It's moot now, and I doubt very much that if it had run on there would have been a consensus to reblock (eg I and others who didn't participate in that discussion would have probably not supported a reblock). But I'm glad you've clarified your position. That was a bad block (particularly as it was indefinite, if it had been for 24 hours maybe no one would have cared). And you probably underestimate the amount of on and off-Wiki harassment Sitush is having. Dougweller (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
@KWW, I think there are two or three things at issue here, and talking about them as if they were one is going to be problematic.
  • First is the question of whether Sitush should have been re-blocked for his outburst. I think we can agree that a second indef block would have been far out of proportion with the magnitude of Sitush's crime.
  • Second, and I think this one is your primary concern, is whether someone like Floquenbeam should be able to unilaterally revert another admin without consensus. I think it's important to separate this issue from the first because of the highly charged emotional undercurrent at ANI. To the very end we had people calling for blood because they incorrectly assumed that Sitush had actually threatened to shoot someone. (See for instance any comment by Baseball Bugs.) If you want an answer to the question of whether it's ok for one admin to unilaterally revert another, you're not going to get a fair answer if you ask the crowd, "Is it right for one admin to unilaterally unblock somebody who made a death threat?"

    As for my view on the question, I think that it is ok sometimes, and I found Floq's comparison to BRD here compelling. To get a real answer to that question though you're going to have to decouple it from Sitush and probably take it to ArbCom.

  • Third, regarding "cooking the books" by merging the two sections, when I made my count that I used for the close there were 11 in the 2nd section who favored reblocking and 5 who opposed. (I think 1 or 2 may have voted later in an edit conflict.) 3 of the 11 (Mendaliv, Tarc, and Chillum) had already expressed their opinion in the 1st section, and 1 of the 5 (LHM) as well. Another of the 5 (Serialjoepsycho) had switched sides. The numbers in the first section (roughly 19:13 favoring some sort of modification to the block length) were more substantial and I don't think it would have been fair to simply throw them away. Really though it wasn't about the numbers, especially since probably over half the people who commented weren't able to read Sitush's post. The reasons for a re-block were weak, and I think many of the cooler heads who could have commmented had moved on after Floq's stinging comment about those "who live for long stupid arguments".
Anyway, I've got to go to work now, and probably won't be able to respond to anything else for the next several hours at least. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I should also apologize for my hardball revert of your un-close. It was nothing personal; I just felt strongly that putting a lid on that pot would be the best thing for the encyclopedia. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

COI Question

Hey Adjwilley,
I hope all is well. I wanted to get an independent opinion, whenever you have a chance to offer one. There is one editor User:McGeddon- and they are quite affable and reasonable in most regards - but for some reason they are convinced that I should be tagged as a COI on the Brahma Kumaris article, and they are relying on this new editor for their support (the one from ANI).
I thought of you because at least you have been around since that somewhat 'interesting' editor got banned last year, and John Carter gave all the RS for me to start adding content. I think I've edited in a very fair minded way. The article is more readable, professional and on par with other encyclopaedia's. But perhaps because of being a major contributor to content I have developed a blindspot or some ownership??? I wasn't watching the page for the first half of 2014, until some of the photo's i uploaded got deleted (my mistakes/misunderstanding in licensing)...anyway...
No one is identifying the text that is meant to be offending policies/guidelines, so the talk page is all puffery and there is no editing/content focus (except the repeated mass deletions by User:Truth_is_the_only_religion). To McGeddon's credit he raised a COIN But it was very loaded and made no mention of the fact that I was making legitimate reverts under WP:BANREVERT, to some very questionable bulk deletions by User:Truth_is_the_only_religion. Even though the loaded COIN didn't get any comment, McGeddon inserted COI tags without consensus. I have already reverted the tags a couple of times, but again they are back, with WP:Advert in addition. Given the second COIN (still misleading, but scaled back) also got no support, it really would help to get an independent opinion. For the 'Advert' tag, someone needs to be bold enough to identify the specific content alleged to be "promotional content" - at the moment it seems more likely that because some of the beliefs and activities are 'positive' then editors aren't checking RS to realise this content is fully supported and instead think it's 'advertising'. That's not what this tag is about. Given the history of this article and the page stalkers I personally took a lot of care when adding content. I'm really interested to get practical feedback, but so far there is just skepticism, suspicion and assumptions. On reflection, this isn't the most appealing invitation...but would really help. There is room to improve the article too, which would be a good outcome from the current activity. Danh108 (talk) 10:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
My problem here is that User:Danh108 works as a volunteer for the Brahma Kumaris group, and per WP:COS is "advised to refrain from editing those articles directly". But the articles' histories suggests that they have been largely written and maintained by Danh108. --McGeddon (talk) 08:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
The bigger problem is that all 3 BK followers are working as a sort of hive mind or team, therefore it is false to speak of them as having more than one opinion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

BKWSU

Thank you for keeping an eye and fixing bits of the BKWSU article. This article has for long suffered attack from block evading editors or have taken more of advertising tint. Experienced editors like yours getting involved can get this resolved for long term. I hope you are able to spend some time over next few weeks to get this to a stable version. Changeisconstant (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

'Tis the season, indeed

Scottperry made these false allegations on Jimbo Wales talk page. When I asked him to strike his comment with an apology this exchange occurred. I went to Jimbo Wales page and struck the allegations myself. Knowledgekid87 then reverted me. I give up. Would you mind striking Scottperry's false allegations? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo had asked you not to post on his talkpage which you went against, I see you had addressed this issue with Scott here already and took it upon yourself to strike out a comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Why would you reinsert false allegations? I struck the allegations myself because Scott seemed too confused to sort the matter out himself. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
What you could have done is approach Adjwilley first for some advice rather than striking out a comment from a talkpage you are barred from. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2
@Epipelagic, I'm generally not a fan of striking, especially striking others' comments. I've added a comment of my own that hopefully clarifies the issue.
@Knowledgekid87, Except for the striking, Epipelagic didn't make any posts to Jimbo's page after Jimbo asked him to stop. It's a bit confusing with the way it's threaded and with Jimbo asking twice, but if you look at the dates... ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Im talking about the striking, anyways this whole thing looks like a misunderstanding I would let it go. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that's the best course of action from here. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Precious

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)

Thank you, Gerda Arendt, that is very kind of you. I'm surprised you found the absolute pitch bit, as it's been off my userpage for a while now. Also, re: the season, I didn't realize that October was "a thing". I seem to remember something around Christmas a while back where it seemed like half the admins were drunk. Anyway, thank you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tis the season, tolling the bell on my user page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for ending the amusing/threatening trolling, - I would have given you Precious for that, but do it only once ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Awilley. You have new messages at Roscelese's talk page.
Message added 04:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:22, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Reverts

You're changing the facts and history to fit your narrative. The only reverts I have performed are of yours, not two other users. Those were expansions of the information I made.

You're the one starting this revert wrestling match and then claiming that I'm doing this. Please stop. The information that I have put in the article is relevant, factual, cited and adds context to the paragraph. Taking it out makes the article worse. Villaged (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Villaged: Please see Wikipedia:Reverting#What is a reversion? for the definition of a revert. (It's still a revert, even if you don't use the "undo" button.) Thanks for starting the thread on the discussion page, I've replied there. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Closing of Talk discussion by involved editor

I'm addressing this query to you because you're the last administrator I had an interaction with. RGloucester has twice closed a discussion he was involved in. I reverted his first closure with the comment "involved editors do not close discussions". He went ahead and closed it again anyway, with the edit summary "WP:IAR, and anyway, this isn't a discussion. This is nonsense". This appears to be a blatant violation of the rule that uninvolved editors should not close discussions. WP:IAR states, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." How does closing a Talk section he doesn't like help RGlouscester "improve or maintain Wikipedia"? RGloucester has very strong feelings about the Ukraine crisis, and openly expresses contempt for the rebels, calling them "right wing nuts". (Probably not an exact quote; I don't think it's worth finding the comment I have in mind.) I have pointed out to him several times before that his view is unreasonable. So what I did in this Talk section is contradict his view, in effect saying that it is the people behind the central government, not the rebels, who are the real right wingers here. So he called this "nonsense" and closed the discussion. Since when is something published by Foreign Policy and The Guardian, the two sources I quoted from in my last post, "nonsense"?

The situation is exacerbated by someone replying to my comment after RGloucester had closed the discussion the second time, thus "getting the last word in". So it really looks to me like there is a problem here. But if you don't see one, I can live with that, and won't take the matter any further. – Herzen (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC) I guess I didn't explain why I turned to you. Would it be all right for me to reopen the discussion? – Herzen (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM. That discussion is laden with personal analysis that has nothing to do with the article. I was absolutely right in closing it. I find it odd that you thanked me (yes, there is a log of thanks) for closing a similar discussion at the War in Donbass talk page. Perhaps you only like forum-ish discussions closed if they are not going your way? RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but your equating those two very different discussions indicates a battleground attitude. As far as I can tell, this discussion that you closed twice, even though you were highly involved in it, was not going your way. I didn't care which way the other discussion was going. I thought the other discussion was pointless; I wanted it to be closed to prevent people from wasting more time. And the discussion you closed now has everything to do with the article: the reason there is "unrest" is not because some people are "pro-Russian", as the article's title claims, but something else. – Herzen (talk) 23:02, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
If you want to discuss the title of article, you can do that in a new section. The discussion had nothing to do with the article's title, and went far into off-topic OR land. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit ambivalent about involved closings. If a close is good and nobody objects it can be a very good thing. If there are strong objections then trying to force a close can sometimes be worse than simply letting the discussion fizzle out on its own. I'm a big fan of WP:IAR, but if somebody reverts me I don't use IAR to revert them back. I've interpret IAR as "Don't let the rules/bureaucracy get in the way of common sense" but if there's strong disagreement with an IAR action I take then I don't invoke it again because apparently my "sense" isn't "common" enough and it's time to go back to rules.

    I'm not familiar with all the details of the discussion, but it looks like there's a lot of disagreement and a lot of arguments being made that aren't convincing anybody. @Herzen, perhaps the best path forward for you would be to read what RGloucester and VolunteerMarek have said in response to your comments, try to see things from their point of view, start a new section with new arguments that take into account the previous objections, and then do everything you can to keep things on topic. Also, realize that you're going to have to settle with a compromise, so try to think of what things you will need to give up in order to achieve that. @RGloucester, I expect you will also make an effort to see things from the other point of view and work to find a way to resolve this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response and feedback. I take you to have explained that my reverting RGloucester's closure a second time is allowable, even though the article is under discretionary sanctions. However, since some editors are so heavily invested in backing one side in this civil war that they are unwilling to subject their preconceptions about it to scrutiny, there is no point in reopening the discussion. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There isn't anything to resolve, as none of the discussion had anything to do with the article. I have no objections to anything, other than to making talk pages a forum for discussing whether Ukraine is or isn't facist. That has no relevance to the article, whatsoever, and is entirely inappropriate. The only appropriate resolution is to close the discussion as off-topic, and proceed with business as usual. This is what I did, and hence, God will favour me in his judgement. RGloucester — ☎ 01:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
You claim to have academic training. Given that, I really don't see how you can make the patently false claim that the nature of the regime that was installed in February has no relevance to what the title of the article should be. – Herzen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

SPA on Talk:Joseph Smith

I don't know if we need to do anything about this. You seem to have a far better handle on the history and background of this issue than I do. The user hasn't made any edits to content, just that one to the discussion. It looks like an obvious vote stack. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I had noticed that as well. I can't tell if it's socks or meat, but something definitely smells. ~Adjwilley (talk)
Worth keeping an eye on. I can definitely see where the users are coming from in that discussion, but it largely seems a bit singleminded, which is not good. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I did some more sniffing and I'm 99% convinced that Owtc is a sock, and about 75% convinced that they're a sock of Villaged. I filed a report...we'll see what comes of it. I always have trouble knowing the best way of doing things when people show up with an axe to grind. The past couple of times I've tried to skip some of the back and forth and jump straight to the standard compromise, but sometimes it seems like they just take that middle ground and keep on pushing. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:20, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I hear you—ultimately, I don't think this particular issue is that big of a deal, but I think the tone has been kind of unfortunate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Awilley. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Possible sock

Is User:I'm your Grandma. really a new editor? It is the editor's first day and having no prior contact with him/her I have received two bits of questioning on an arbcom page which is all they are doing there (responding to me). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom

Hello Adjwilley. I was disappointed to see you make this comment to Steeletrap [19] at Arbcom Decision talk. First, it's off topic for that page, which is intended to support the arbiters in evaluating the proposed findings and decision as presented. See also [20].

Equally as important, it's likely that many readers will see it as a denigration of @Steeletrap:, a rather sensitive woman editor, who faced quite a bit of gender-related hazing, especially as a newbie in 2013, and who appears to have been all but driven off the Project by the hostility she's encountered. On a personal note, it also reminds me of your failure to stem the tide of conflict in 2013, which escalated under your attempted stewardship. You now have more experience in your Admin role, and you may well be doing better these days. Still, I was saddened to see such a pointless and gratuitous remark on Steeletrap's thread at Arbcom. Perhaps you'll consider striking it. No need to reply. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 00:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

"Unc" Willey is well-intentioned. I'm glad we've been able to get some distance from the debates of last year. I actually intend to step up my contributions to WP in the coming weeks; a family member has required my assistance for the last few months. I am also happy to see that my allegedly "biased contributions" have been overwhelmingly retained since my topic ban. I expect the ArbCom will restore my editing privileges once the required 12 months has passed. Steeletrap (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

AN

Would you look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Lifting_0RR_restriction? To me it seems like everything has been cleared up but the lack of research by other users who are making comment is becoming the cause of repetitive discussion. Can you clarify there, that how John had the authority to impose, like one has asked? You had once clarified on Talk:Ayurveda[21]. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

MH17 article

Hello, you warned me about my engaging in a slow edit war here, so since the same problem has arisen yet again, I am writing to you in order to get advice as to how to proceed.

The obvious SPA Tlsandy has yet again deleted a passage which brings a semblance of NPOV to the article in question. Here is what he deleted with this edit:

He also explained that investigators initially considered four scenarios: "An accident, a terrorist act, downing by a surface-to-air missile, or an attack from another airplane. After the release of the DSB preliminary report the accident and terror scenarios were eliminated. The two others remain."

The edit summary Tlsandy gave was "Previous sentence covers this redundant sentence." The previous sentence is "In an interview with Der Spiegel, the chief Dutch MH17 prosecutor, Fred Westerbeke, said that MH17 was most likely shot down by a surface to air missile." I hope you will agree with me that Tlsandy's claim that the passage he deleted is redundant is absurd.

I will explain the context for this long-standing content dispute in this article. This matter has been gone over endlessly in the Talk page. The article as it stands is egregiously POV-pushing the idea that there is only one possibility as to who shot MH17 down: the rebels who do not accept the legitimacy of the Ukrainian central government. The article as it stands is swamped by rambling narratives based on hearsay and recitation of what has appeared on social media. When it comes to authoritative sources about what happened to MH17, there are only two: a technical investigation about why the plane crashed, and a criminal investigation about who shot it down. Both of these investigations leave open two possibilities: either MH17 was shot down by a surface to air missile, or it was shot down by a fighter jet. That these two possibilities exist is well documented by reliable Western sources. However, involved editors want to maintain the fantasy that there is only one possibility. Hence, all the edit wars.

I understand that it is difficult for administrators to become apprised of the details of a content dispute, but the case here is really very simple. Some editors continually push the POV that who shot MH17 down is an open and shut case (thus violating one of the five pillars: Wikipedia articles are written from a neutral point of view, as opposed to revealing "the truth"), whereas reliable sources make clear that who shot down MH17 is yet to be determined. – Herzen (talk) 01:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The editors who believe they own the article have started another edit war, with this edit. The edit summary says "or just get rid of that paragraph altogether again, as per this talk", but that Talk section never made a coherent case for the deletion of the passage in question, and Stickee, who started that earlier edit war by tag teaming with My very best wishes, has now started this new edit war, by rejecting your compromise. I don't want to get into trouble, so I am not going to revert this edit, but instead turn to you again for assistance and guidance. – Herzen (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

No less than 6 editors have argued why that passage should not continue to be added ([22], [23]/[24], [25], [26], [27], [28]). Just because you may not agree with the arguments presented doesn't mean there was no case made. Stickee (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
No valid argument was made for why the passage in question should be removed. Here is what My very best wishes wrote: "I still believe these insignificant details of ongoing investigation should be removed per WP:recentism. And I think they will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone", which you followed with "Yep I've done this now." I rebutted in that Talk section the idea that recentism is involved: the investigation eliminating two scenarios was a turning point and will always be a turning point. And it doesn't matter if six editors deny this obvious point or thousands do. Also, note that My very best wishes wrote that the passage "will certainly be removed sooner or later by someone", a clear indication that the program was to use the power of numbers, tag teaming, and a war of attrition, as opposed to rational arguments. The downing of MH17 was a criminal act, and criminal acts are resolved by criminal investigations, not social media and blogs. So the criminal investigation is of central importance to this article, as is the progress it has made. To deny this is for editors who believe they know the truth to insult the intelligence of other editors. – Herzen (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
@Herzen. You and USchick are making a lot of unsubstantiated accusations around here. If you believe there is a problem, report it to WP:AE. If not, do not comment about other contributors. My very best wishes (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review diff

See diff. You are the first person to propose improvements for the text. It is much appreciated. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I don't know the subject very well, but based on what I read from your source I would write something more concise like the following: "A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws..." Just drop the link to political agenda and unlink the words websites, social media, and marketing. (Those are very common words; see WP:OVERLINK.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I removed the wikilinks. So far it is being rejected with reasons that are concerning to me. For example, an editor wrote in part: "Per WP:RS/MC a medical journal article is only a reliable source when making medical claims." The review is clearly reliable but editors think it is not a reliable source for the claim. I don't think that argument is based on WP:PAG. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Happy holidays.
Best wishes for joy and happiness to you and all your loved ones from ```Buster Seven Talk 21:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Adjwilley, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

As a WER coordinator

I wonder if you could add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations to your watchlist. I don't expect you to second nominations (that is what the page is for, although that would nice). Rarely there is a discussion regarding policy. There is one now. Your input would be helpful. Buster Seven Talk 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again for your comment on the block. I appreciate that you noted I used the term 'edit' in my summaries. The 6 day (instead of 7) gap occurred because I was looking at the UTC time stamps and my West coast wristwatch. I was being lazy. Later I got a message on my talk page about the gap, but I've developed a habit of largely ignoring some messages. In any event the block was in place for less than an hour. If anyone points to it as an issue, I can point to the comments from Callanecc about how constructively I've acted. Please stay in tune and touch. – S. Rich (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Questions for Sherlock Holmes (you)

Holmes,

If I were willing to run the risk of creating multiple socks--an action that shows total disrespect for the community and the project, and would merit an immediate block--why wouldn't I, using "my" IPs, edit pages that fall within my topic ban?

Also, have you ever taken a basic statistics class? The odds that I am one of the IPs, based on the evidence provided, are something on the order of 1 in 5000, based on the number of other users who fit the profile of the IPs to the same extent that I do. Steeletrap (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, dear. God old Sherlock. I wonder if he may have any idea who is behind this account whose three edits all consist of removing Austrian economists as sources? I saw you made one of the same argument once about Friedman not being an economist, but you later retracted that claim. I also happened to notice that a main theme for the IPs was to insert a claim about DSK falling prey to a honey trap. And you know, old ladies' mind wander, so the honey trap thing made me think about your username Steeletrap, and a particular line in an article you once edited In 2000, Cyndi had caught her husband looking for women in California on match.com; she posted her own profile with a fake name and got him to reply, after which she filed for divorce. But please, don't mind the rabblings of an old confused lady. Miss Marple (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Adjwilley, you write at SPI that you never know what to make of it when people attack the evidence. Really? Isn't that the purpose of the SPI, to evaluate the evidence? What do you make of independent third parties "attacking the evidence" on its merits. Isn't that what we strive for? What did you make of it in the failed SPI you previously filed against [later correction, MilesMoney, (sorry)] [29] when your evidence was "attacked" and your claims were rejected? I suggest you disengage from Steeletap and move on. She's understandably upset, and her tone is rude, but she's entirely correct that your behavior is inappropriate. And is your talk page a place where others can come and cast aspersions on other editors? Iselilja if you intend to be stating an serious and well-documented concern then this is not the proper venue for that message. If not, it's harassment. SPECIFICO talk 22:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
PS Iselilja, did you realize that the edit you link refers to David Friedman, and not his economist father Milton Friedman? SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, very much so. Iselilja (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I doubt that would be clear to most readers, who will instead think that you meant Milton Friedman the economist not David the uncredentialed and largely unrecognized polyglot. In this context, that misunderstanding would further disparage Ms. Steeletrap, there being no question as to using that label for Friedman the father but some reasonable disagreement about whether it's verified as to his son. SPECIFICO talk 23:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@Watson, I've had more statistics than your average college graduate, though I'm probably within one standard deviation of the mean :-). I do know better than to make up a 1 in x number and call it statistics. I actually am a huge advocate of using statistics in SPI investigations, and if I were a programmer I would have already written a script for people to use. Unfortunately I'm not, and I failed to convince anybody else to help me with it. I see SPI right now as being more like chicken sexing than statistics. It's hard to know what to look for, but some people (eg. clerks) happen to be good at it.
@Specifico, you seem to have misread my short comment on the SPI because that is not what I said. And I don't think Miles Money is a very good example for the point you're trying to illustrate. Thanks though for the reminder to disengage. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The example was not Miles Money, it was you. Your behavior in that matter was disgraceful and I'm disappointed to see that you've learned nothing from it. Your interactions were one of the factors that led to the self-destruction of this energetic, immature, erratic, but brilliant young editor. I hope that you don't think that pushing a vulnerable soul to the breaking point proves that false and unsupported aspersions cloaked in a matrix of nonsense called "evidence" is something we should pursue or condone on WP. Good for you disengaging. I have seen you do much better in your subsequent interactions, but your conduct in the events of 2013 and early 2014 was not well executed, nor was it constructive. Best of success to you. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
MilesMoney and StillStanding followed the same trajectory, with the exception that Miles bounced once at the end. They both chose their destination, despite multiple attempts to dissuade them. I tried to interrupt that trajectory, but it didn't work. I said it was a bad example because bringing that up mostly served to remind me that I respect MrX's intuition for socks, as he had he spotted Miles weeks before I ever did. The best evidence for a link between the two came long after the SPI was closed and archived, but by that point I didn't care to revisit the issue...but that's definitely not a discussion for today. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Miles, a teenager, was much more articulate and knowledgeable than most WP users I've come across. His anger was directed at people who added WP:Fringe pet theories to mainstream economics articles. Why did we kick him out? He was open to mentorship. Steeletrap (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your last revert...

Hi Adjwilley, I seem to have thoroughly explained the reasons for the change in talk page. Which parts are still not clear? (Ho visto che parli italiano... se ti è più comodo, possiamo parlarlo fra di noi :D ) CallAng222 (talk) 17:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Grazie per il messaggio :-) I'll have a closer look tomorrow. ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


Safety of electronic cigarettes

It is no secret I wrote most of the page. If there is an issue with the wording please let me know or leave a message on the talk page for editors to review. I want the page to improve and move forward. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I actually wasn't aware that you had written most of the page. I hadn't been following it or any of the discussion on the talk page. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, I wanted to suggest that one way of improving the article would be to take a less combative stance and try to understand the concerns people have with the article as is. A truly well-written article, in my opinion, will be one that people can read without thinking "Hey, this is biased!" Often you can find and fix actual problems with the article by listening to and understanding those people, but still without sacrificing accuracy. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The reason there is a Safety of electronic cigarettes page because I kept on expanding it in the main page. It got too long for the main page and a new page had to be started. 2014 represented the first year the research started to come in. Of course I and others want to know when there are any legitimate concerns with the text. For example, the discussion on the talk page led to me correcting my own mistake. QuackGuru (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a quick question. Is User:AlbinoFerret allowed to comment on disputes involving the e-cig pages on other pages such an admin's talk page or an editor's talk page? I have previously seen editors return to discussing controversial medicine pages shortly after they were banned. They didn't directly participate in the discussion but I've seen comments appear on noticeboards and talk pages. QuackGuru (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer to your question can be found in the section above this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


A question about the arbcom case and possible further action

This question is asked out of a respect for the agreement we made and not wanting to break it. I am a very old school Lutheran and breaking agreements is not something I would do, so this is a question of clarification about dispute resolution I am allowed to engage in. The arbcom case has been declined diff. During the request for the case issues were raised that had not been addressed at AN/I. I asked for permission to bring those issues to AN/I diff but was not answered, though members of the committee hoped that the community could deal with issues without their involvement, and one wanted to hear the case about what I believe to be those outstanding issues. diff Would it break the agreement to bring those issues to AN/I, if you say it is, would approval by a member of the arbcom committee to bring those issues to AN/I make a difference? AlbinoFerret 03:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, this would deal with a specific editor, though would use diff's from electronic cigarette articles to show misconduct. AlbinoFerret 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I hope you don't mind me barging in, Adj, but taking users to ANI based on their editing at e-cig articles certainly would breach your voluntary ban, AlbinoFerret. Approval by a member of arbcom wouldn't make any difference. Arbcom doesn't have any authority in this matter, since they've left it to the community, and members of arbcom don't have any special authority in anything, other than in their quality as respected administrators. There was consensus for an official topic ban, and I'm sure the community only let this voluntary ban pass on the understanding that it would be as tight as an official ban. (I for my part would find anything less unacceptable.) Consequently, a read of the conditions at WP:TBAN + WP:BANEX should be helpful to you. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
Even if it focused in on edits prior to my voluntary agreeing to not edit the articles? AlbinoFerret 12:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. Please don't go further into wikilawyer country. Bishonen | talk 13:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC).
I posted this here to get clarification of an agreement with another person. The "wikilawyer country" comment was not needed. If you dont like answering questions, then dont. AlbinoFerret 14:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino, thanks for asking, and sorry for my slow response time. I tend to agree with Bishonen on this. I see it as borderline on the letter and definitely against the spirit of the agreement. The whole idea is to drop it completely and walk away. I understand the difficulty of going from conflict to a vacuum with no closure, but I think it is for the best. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for answering, speed is not important. Being borderline is why I asked, it could have went either way. I wont be opening any sections at AN/I on anything related to e-cig articles during the 6 months at this point. But it is possible the arbocom case may be reopened depending on if the Community authorized discretionary sanctions pass or not. I do believe that would still be open to me, but I probably would not be able to start any cases there either during the 6 months. AlbinoFerret 12:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Adjwilley,

The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

close at ANI on albinoferret

the bottom of your close at ANI left out the kim dabelstein opposition of the ban. perhaps you want to move the bottom of your close to encompass it? Jytdog (talk) 11:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Kim D's actual vote opposing the ban is actually within my close. The following subsection was a proposal to ban Kim D. based in part on their vote above, and I had shut that down prior to the AlbinoFerret close. Eventually I expect all 3-4 subsections will be enclosed in a single archive box when somebody closes the DS section below. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Impasse

I know you disagree with me about many, if not most things, but I would still appreciate your insight as to the impasse at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:John#Ayurveda_restriction_violation . I don't think that the question of "would you respect a consensus at WP:AN, or do I need to take this to Arbcom?" should require quite so much drama.—Kww(talk) 00:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

@Kww: I read the section on John's page, and I've had Ayurveda on my watchlist for several days now, though I haven't had time to follow the discussion there very closely. I think part of the impasse may be because you and John have different and potentially conflicting goals for the topic area. John's main goal seems to be to restore some semblance of normal Wikipedia process to a troubled page, while yours seems to be to make sure the articles reflect a scientific point of view. I'm actually not sure which goal is more important, or how they can both be fulfilled. (I seem to remember having heard you say things along the lines of "block all the fringe pushers", which I'm not sure is a practical, lasting, or even ethical solution.) But back to the original question: I'm sure you've had times in an administrative capacity when you received a great deal of blowback for not taking someone's preferred "side" in a dispute. You followed policy the best you knew how, you were as impartial as you could possibly be, and yet you had editors hounding on your talk page, badmouthing you elsewhere, and trying to figure out how to desysop you over your "biased" close of some controversial matter. I'm not saying you're one of those people, but I think it is possible that John is seeing you the way you see editors who come complaining to you because your action didn't benefit their side of the dispute.

As to a path forward, I'm not sure. I don't think anybody would thank you for a long AN thread or Arbcom request except those who thrive on long discussions that spread their disputes to as many pages as possible. I think a more practical approach would be to try to convince John to tweak the sanctions in a way that would benefit long-term editors who are more likely to edit neutrally. For instance, I think it could be argued that the current sanctions benefit vested editors with short contribution histories and little regard for their "reputiation". Changing it to "BRD strictly enforced" would at least favor the status quo. That's just an idea, but I think there are similar tweaks that could be made. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

John is impersuadable as an individual: there's no way that he doesn't know that he is enabling the alt-med and psuedoscience crowd, and his demand for "evidence" that he is doing so isn't real. The problem is that he doesn't think that that is a bad thing to do. As you say, I prioritize having articles about medical and scientific topics reflect medicine and science, and believe that the original pseudoscience arbitration case directed all of us to use discretionary sanctions in order to be certain that this is true. We're supposed to be imbalanced, and the imbalance is against people that fail to "adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia", i.e. push fringe topics. I don't know how to make John align to that without outside persuasion. If I were to focus purely on getting the discretionary sanctions modified to something more workable, what would you see as the appropriate venue?—Kww(talk) 10:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your post

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

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

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

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

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

QuackGuru

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

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

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

Mormons

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

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

May 2015

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

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

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

Thanks

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

I think regardless of the changes to MEDRS you are safe @DrChrissy:. The restriction is carefully written to say: Animal biology, behavior, health, and normal veterinary medicine does not fall under the scope of this ban so long as it does not intersect with alternative medicine. The language and intent of the topic ban is very clear. While you will not be able to take part in the possible discussion at MEDRS, that discussion won't have an effect on your ban. As a consolation prize however, if MEDRS is extended to animals you should be able edit those articles still and this would allow you to prove your competency with MEDRS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the note DrChrissy. I can understand your frustration about MEDRS, but I think it's for the best, especially as you disengage from the editors you've been in conflict with. I'm happy you've decided to stick around and keep editing, and I wish you the best of luck in your pursuits. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Awilley/Archive_7&oldid=1077860320"