User talk:Awilley

Awilley — User talk — Contributions — Email

Welcome to my talk page. Please click here to leave me a message.

Picture of the day

The bronze-winged jacana (Metopidius indicus) is a wader in the family Jacanidae. It is found across South and Southeast Asia. Like other jacanas, it forages on lilies and other floating aquatic vegetation, using its long feet and legs for balance. The sexes are alike but females are slightly larger and are polyandrous, maintaining a harem of males during the breeding season in the monsoon rains. Males maintain territories, with one male in the harem chosen to incubate the eggs and take care of the young. When threatened, young chicks may be carried to safety by the male under his wings. This bronze-winged jacana was photographed in Kumarakom on the shore of Vembanad, the largest lake in the Indian state of Kerala.Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

IMPORTANT: A last short needed look

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

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)] [2] 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)

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)

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

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.

Unsubscribe from this list • Sign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter • Translate the user guide

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)