User talk:Awilley/Archive 5

< Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

Sandbox revert

Hi - I saw your request for rollback on the sandbox, and obliged, but I think you must have reverted just before I did. Odd that it shows up as a notification for my revert anyway. Normally I don't think it'll notify you about self reverts, or mentioning yourself. If you've got an alternative account you can experiment by switching between the two accounts; alternatively log out and do some reverts anonymously (if you don't mind making your IP public). — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 22:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured that was what happened. (I should have been a little more patient and waited a few more seconds before reverting myself.) You are correct that it doesn't notify about self-reverts or self-mentions. I was just trying to do it without the trouble of creating an alternate account. Thank you again for your help! ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Secular Islam Summit

Yo, are you still interested in this? I'd like to submit a joint edit request for whatever language we agree on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reminder. I've had a lot going on, but I will get back. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Sweet, see you around then. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just got this as I was finishing up a post on the talk page. I made a sample request basically using my old suggestion that you were mostly ok with, and before Jeff and Kwami objected to further tweaking. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Micah True

Buenos Dias amigo. Yes, I received your message. My email address is [email removed]. I hope to hear from you once again .Peace always , Maria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B11E:983B:0:0:0:103 (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Your obnoxious edits

Do you reall have to edit in such an obnoxious way?

• Firstly you reinsert a blatant MOS violation with an image that takes up an entire screen.
• Secondly you reinsert original research by inserting a Quran quote without a secondary sourcee as is required.
• Thirdly you miss the fact you created duplicates accross two articles.
• Please focus!! Pass a Method talk 20:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I have responded to your concerns on the talk page. On a more personal note, if you don't want people to revert your edits, might I suggest that you use an edit summary that gives reasons for the changes? Your summary said "trim, c/e" but the diff showed unexplained blanking of a lot of sourced material. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Pass a Method, is there a reason you didn't provide more explanation of your intentions in the initial edit summary?

@Adjwilley, is there a reason you didn't inquire at Pass a Method's talk page before reverting?

@Pass a Method, your comments suggest more hostility and/or frustration toward Adjwilley than seems warranted. Can you take a calmer, more patient, more avuncular approach even when you disagree with his stance?

@Both of you: There's been ongoing tension between the two of you ever since the dispute over how to give due weight to minority religions, and this incident here is a symptom of deepening personal mistrust. Please don't let it fester. Talk to each other and do your best to take seriously each other's concerns. alanyst 22:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Me: You're such a busybody. @Myself: Hush up! Just trying to help. @Me: They might not appreciate you butting in. @Myself: Eh, you could be right. alanyst 22:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Thanks, Alanyst, your points are well taken. In the past I have tried to avoid posting on Pass a Methods talk page because I was under the impression that they didn't like being contacted there, but you're right that something along the lines of "would you mind providing a rationale for [this] edit" would have been appropriate. When I performed the revert I knew Pass a Method would be notified through the new notifications system, and figured if there were good reasons for the blanking they could revert me with a better edit summary or start a talk page discussion BRD style. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Pass a Method, is there a way you would prefer to be contacted in situations like these? ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You can contact me on my talk page. The reason i did not elaborate my edit summary is because i posted in more detail on the talk page of the user who added the content. But i will try to remember being more detailed one paes we both frequent. Pass a Method talk 07:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know, and I appreciate that. I'll get to the stuff in the article when I get a second. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that Pass a Method deleted a lot of referenced content from the Islam page. Is there a reason for the removal of the referenced content. Does Pass a Method want some changes or more references.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Johnleeds1, I had noticed the removals as well, though I've been fairly busy the last few days. The most important thing you can do right now is to go to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Block_request and give an explanation for your edits, since Pass a Method is asking to have you blocked from editing. (Calm discussion is a good thing there, and you should support anything you say with a link to a source.) After that I suggest opening a thread on the Islam talk page, where I will participate to a limited extent. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

First Vision article

Just wanted to thank you for your brief cleanup on the First Vision page! ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC

File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG

Given our previous interactions, I would be interested in your thoughts about what is being discussed at wp:Non-free content review#File:Friberg Samuel the Lamanite low res.JPG. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have a look today after work. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP Religion in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Religion for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

23:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Your RFA

I really hope that your RFA goes very well, Because, You've given me some great advice. In my opinion, You'd make a Great Administrator.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Anderson. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I , Unfortunately, probably can't vote in your RFA due to my probation. I've asked an admin if they can vote for me.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, Anderson. I really appreciate the thought, but I think it's more important that you don't push the boundaries of your restrictions at the moment. Thank you, though. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Two words: damn it. Although I can understand an admin with clearly stated religious beliefs not wanting to perform admin functions in the religion field, we have few other admins who feel they know enough to perform admin functions in that field. Anyway, look forward to seeing you perform functions anyway. Also, I think there is a chance in the next week or so, say, that ArbCom might be requested to involve itself in a religion related case, and I very much hope that we might be able to get a few senior editors without religious "biases" to draft some guidelines for religion. More or less like my stalled proposal, which was honestly written with ArbCom making such a proposal in mind. There are a lot of matters regarding the intersection of religious, scientific/historical, and popular opinions relating to religion out there that need some sort of guidelines for how to deal with them. John Carter (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll be around, for sure. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind message on my talk page. You really do deserve the adminship, but I must say...wow, can't remember the last admin with a 91 percent support at RFA (Although..I don't pay that much attention).--Amadscientist (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...It ain't over yet though :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't let it worry you, You've got enough support From the community to see you through the last few days of it, And i'm 100% sure by the end of it, The closing Bureaucrat will Sysop you with a  Done.Anderson I'm Willing To Help 20:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am willing to jump the gun (in the same manner as pundits on Election Night) and congratulate you on being approved as an administrator! (look at it this way - the odds of 30+ people suddenly appearing to cast "no" votes in the next day is nil) Collect (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. ~Adjwilley (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did some one order one of these ? Congrats, :P Mlpearc (powwow) 01:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of this one :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, good choice, the starter kit. Mlpearc (powwow) 04:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats Adj :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RFA!--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 22:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Friendly airline pilot

LOL. "Ladies and gentlemen, looks like we're past that bit of turbulent editing and things have smoothed out. If you'll look out your window you'll see a brand-new Good Article; what a sight! We'll be landing this discussion shortly; please be sure to return your Visual Editor to its upright, locked position and double-check your watchlists. On behalf of Wikipedia, thank you for editing, and have a great day." alanyst 14:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I did just laugh out loud...I wish I were clever enough to come up with something like that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

You get the t-shirt, but you have to buy your own mop and bucket.

Congratulations on your successful RFA (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley). I've done the needful and you should now see some new buttons. Best of luck in your new role, –xeno^talk 13:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I see them. I'll start heading over to the new admin school now. ~Adjwilley (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Just here to congratulate you - not because the mop's a prize, but because of the hard work you've done, without editcountitis, that led to this outcome. Thanks for your willingness to distract yourself with a bit... more work. -- Scray (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! You will be an excellent admin and I'm looking forward to bugging you with requests to use your mop. Bahooka (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Congrats friend, glad to see the community (as a whole) was willing to put simple things to the side and see the wisdom in granting you access to the tools. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations and good luck.Tazerdadog (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations from me as well. You might want to check out my monobook.js, there are some useful scripts there with things like dropdown menus for block rationales. ϢereSpielChequers 17:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you all. Dennis, thanks for all the good advice you've given me in the past; I hope you don't mind if I pester you from time to time in the future. Bahooka, always good seeing you around. Scray, thank you for your comments at the RfA; ditto to SpielChequers & Tazerdadog. @SpielChequers, thanks for the tip: I will indeed cheque it out. (You are also invited to check out my common.js page, where there might be some gadgets that interest you as well...try the Adjwilley/cactions.js for two new menus with lots of functions...and if I'm missing any let me know.) Also, is there a way to get rid of the four new "batch" tabs or putting them in a submenu somewhere? ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  Ask away. Even though I'm scarce, I will make the time to help in any way I can. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congrats!--v/r - TP 18:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! (replied) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations, I hope youre not mad at me for the little mishap I caused, feel free to block me ;) Prabash.Akmeemana 19:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, not likely. Actually I really appreciated it when you changed your vote, so thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just here to say congratulations on your successful RfA! Looks like you will be a great new admin. Matty.007 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Congratulations. Now get to work! I see some dirt over there. :) --BDD (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with the tools cyrfaw (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations and sympathies

Congratulations on surviving a misdirected canvassing campaign, and thanks for carrying the bucket and mop and blocking a sockpuppet. And I don't even like the user whom the sockpuppet was attacking. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, always good to see someone with a degree in chemistry. I went from that into information technology because there were too many explosions in the chemistry lab. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Hey, Willey. Many many congratulation to you for a successful RfA. You are a nice user and got the mop. Hope you enjoy mopping. Cheers and happy editing. Oops, don't forget to drink the beer. Pratyya (Hello!) 08:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Pratyya Ghosh, the thought is much appreciated. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

from me too :) Sorry to be late to the party - just got home from driving nearly 1,000 miles over the last 24 hours. Maybe in time to share that beer - certainly need one ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudpung. Goodness, it sounds like you need a rest. ~Adjwilley (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats

It is good to see another admin who at least knows something about the religion field. Also, FWIW, I think Dougweller might have raised similar concerns regarding inappropriate edit summaries like this one. If true, that might make two people who have raised a concern regarding the same type of conduct, which if confirmed would be sufficient basis to start an RfC/U. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John, I'm out of town/extremely busy this week, but will get back to you later. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Congrats and Good luck!!!

	For an awesome future of adminship in Wikipedia
	Congratulations! I gladly voted for your and I'm sure you'll be a great admin! Newchildrenofthealmighty (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! ~Adjwilley (talk)

Re setting up and editing of Damon Matthew Wise page

We were told that setting up of bio required Sections

"This article should be divided into sections by topic, to make it more accessible. (August 2013) "

This setting of sections will allow us eventually to span, I guess ... description as per page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Section — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 03:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith - FAC

Hello Adjwilley,

I have put the article on Joseph Smith up as a nominee for Featured Article Status! I think the article has come a long way, and has a very good chance of being featured this time around. I would personally appreciate it if you took a moment to review the article and vote for it (or against it, I suppose) at it's FAC.

Thanks! --Trevdna (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Chelsea Manning, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I probably won't be commenting. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Manning

FYI, there was an attempt at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chelsea Manning/1 to remove the GA listing, because of the title and pronoun dispute. Someone closed it, but it may be opened again in case you want to watchlist it. I fear for the page once protection is lifted. :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the notification above, but declined to comment after reading the page. I have to say there's something that bugs me about the whole move thing, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. The pronouns are one thing, but would we have moved it if Manning had wanted to be known as "Chris" instead of "Chelsea"? Anyway, I'll put it on my watchlist, but I probably won't participate much in the discussions unless there's a serious attempt to "punish" the article. At the moment I feel there are enough voices without my two cents, and I had taken the Chelsea page off my watchlist because it was pushing everything else off. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the difference between Chris and Chelsea is that, if we were to ignore a Chris name change, there would be no subtext, but ignoring a change to Chelsea says: "You say you're a woman; we say you're not." So there's an element of rudeness to it, apart from anything else (in my view). At this point, I'm more concerned about watching the article fall apart. All that time spent dotting the i's and crossing the t's – everyone else is focused on the title, while I'm screaming, "Don't change the date formats!" :) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Weird edit summary

This edit summary makes no sense. Did you mean "largest" when you said latest?Pass a Method talk 20:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that was supposed to be "largest". Sorry for the confusion. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yasin al-Qadi

Hello Adjwilley and thank you for your side note. Did I take it so far? I was trying to make the page fair and balanced. I was reading about the guy and found that his biography is not well balanced. people should not be judged based on media reports and things should not be taken out of contexts. I went through the courts judgments and quoted exactly the findings not authors opinion. Even i put the facts in chronological order. There are things that are mentioned on the page that are very bizarre and should not be not a reputable source as wikipedia. The whole thing about FAA involvement in September 11 and stating it as a fact is like conspiracy theory.

I appreciate your feedback, and i'm looking forward for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel2002 (talk • contribs) 21:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

@Samuel2002: Thanks for your response. Don't get me wrong, I think you were taking it in the right direction, but I disagree with the blanking, particularly when it's sourced material being blanked. For instance, in this edit, instead of completely removing the part saying that he was listed as a terrorist, I would have split the first sentence into two parts: the first saying who he is, the second saying what he is suspected of. Also, in edits like this I highly recommend using an edit summary, to let people know what you're doing. (Something along the lines of "corbettreport.com is not a reliable source for these kinds of allegations" would be great!) And when you look at all the edits together it gives the impression that the article is being scrubbed, which is why I left the note. That said, I'm not terribly familiar with the subject myself, and I don't remember if I've ever edited the article before, so I could be wrong... ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice on Talk Page

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lloyd_Banks

Just wanted your advice on my attempt to close out one of the questions pending a very old edit and its reason for why it was done. To save you skipping off and looking at the page i will try sum it up: A user enquired why the Infobox in the Artists Label section had G-Unit Removed and replaced with EMI. Rather than the situation of displaying both, present and past as it is now. Since the question has been pending a few years, and that receiving an answer on precisely the reason behind that edit being IMO a pain to find the exact edit in question and then, the reasoning of why the change was made as it was is not likely to present in the Edit Summary, and there being no interest from the editor or anyone else with an opinion present.

So, I replied to the user with the same as above re:edit summary and that the edit was made in good faith and that the Infobox has since been modified to represent both past and present label signins. Therefore issue closed out, and can ideally go to archive, i see no point on leaving such minor curiosity only issues open that in answering really wont advance wikipedia or address any outstanding or new case to be addressed by the community.

Yes... this is long winded, I just want some feedback on my behaviour on the issue and the soundness of my reasoning. Cause to be honest, I am sure that I have not read every piece of guidance material for editors so I could be missing something and screwing up badly... which also means I am wasting your time if that is the case :))

Thank you for your time, and forgive my brain dump.. I hope my need is apparent. Cheers Jcislowski (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Jcislowski: It looks good to me. I took the liberty of adding {{archive}} templates around the thread, to show that the issue is resolved and the discussion is closed. (Let me know if I screwed up on the rationale.) If I were more tech-savvy I would set up the page so that a bot would automatically archive threads older than a few months, but I'm not terribly confident that I'd do it right. I think it's fine though for now. Thanks for the inquiry, and let me know if you have any more questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: Thank you again, just want to make sure I not to cavalier with this sort of thing. I am intending on a push to clear up a pile of unresolved issues like that one. They just noise, if you got some pages or a group of topics that might need some attention let me know. I got time to give back some at the moment. Cheers mate Jcislowski (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all..I think your actions were just fine..a good example of being WP:Bold :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

List of new religious movements

Hello! I am writing to you as you are an editor who has participated in the disccussion at List of new religious movements. There is a related discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard which primarily consists of the same editors and many of the same discussion topics as the RFC. In an effort to forward the discussion to a resolution, I am inviting you to participate in the RSN thread as well. Thank you in advance for considering it. Cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you advise me on whether it would now be appropriate to simply remove the Landmark/est entry from this List? There have been no more comments on the RfC for a couple of weeks now, and little if any response to my notice on the Peer Review page and other editors' requests on the NPOV nocieboard and elsewhere. The consensus seems firmly that the case for listing there is extremely weak - even more so now that the term 'philosophical group' has been removed from the definition (both at the intro to this list, and the main New religious movements aricle), so far without dispute. Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be a logical next step to me. The consensus does seem to support that. If you had any concerns or if someone reverts you, you could always ask for an "official" close by requesting at WP:AN. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

My removal was immediately reverted, and also the same editor has re-instated the terms "philoshophical" and "ethical" into the definition of NRM in the lead, as well as adding some contentious commentry which I can't see is justified by anything in the literature. I don't really want to get into an edit war over either of these points. I have put up a request for closure at WP:ANRFC but so far no response. Any suggestions? Thanks. DaveApter (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Smith Question

While I haven't gotten involved in the issues you have been disusing on the Joseph Smith page, I think I may have an answer to at least the question "Why is this such a big deal?". I have posted my comments here, because they don't really related to the issue being discussed. It is just my own personal observation regarding the Joseph Smith page. Whenever I go to the Joseph Smith page, I see four type of editors:

1. Some zealot Mormons, who want to push a pro-Mormon POV. I admit it happens. I have distant family who would be those Mormons if they edited Wikipedia. Most the time it is obvious and is immediately reverted.
2. Editor who wish to push an anti-Mormon POV, so much so then end up in the newspaper. These tend to be the more vocal, sneaky and annoying. They push and push until they ether get sanctions, or you give up and there POV issues end up on the page for good.
3. Those who are trying to keep the middle NPOV balance in one this page.
4. Those, like myself, who have given up and avoid editing this page as much as possible. I avoid editing this page (Joseph Smith) because every edit created a firestorm. This is the reason it is so heavily referenced.

So the answer to your question is, it's the nature of the page. It sucks that the administrators don't do more about it. I have never seen a page with so many edit wars that isn't at least semi-protected, but it isn't.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 12:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. This is in regards to behavior related to User:Canstusdis not yours, but you were involved with.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

When I went to notify User:Canstusdis I noticed that you had already started an "Incidents" noticeboard page, here on this issue. So the one I made is redundant. I have moved my comments to That page. My apologies.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 13:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley

We spent a year going through the Muawiya I article and collecting the information and going through hundreds of books. The Muawiya I article is related to the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" articles. We spent a lot of time on it. I put some of the background information on the "First Fitna" article and the "Battle of the Camel" article but Zabranos removed it. I don't have the time to edit war and don't want to edit war. I have a busy work schedule and already spend a lot of time in the evenings going through hundreds of books collecting information. Adjwilley if you have some time, can you please review every things. Adjwilley, since you are the admin, I don't mind what decision you make or what changes you make. We just need to make sure that the articles are accurate, neutral and not offensive to anyone. Thanks --Johnleeds1 (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

You might be interested to know that User:Zabranos was blocked today for abusing multiple accounts. (See here for details.) It looks like they were blocked for a week, so things should calm down a bit on that front. I'll have a look at the articles tomorrow, though I'll warn you, this isn't my area of expertise. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley thanks for getting back to me. Also thanks for turning the Islam scholars diagram into a proper template. Thanks--Johnleeds1 (talk) 07:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

There's been a request for a few extra eyes on the article's talk page, and, with your new status as an admin, I figured I know have the right to pester you with more requests like this. You can also probably expect more requests like this in the future, actually. Ain't you happy you ran? ;) John Carter (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist now: I'll have a look tomorrow when I get more than a few minutes :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy cow, you can sometimes tell something is wrong by counting the adjectives and citations in the 1st sentence of the Lead: "[BKWSU]..is a secretive,[1] renunciate,[2] Millenarian[3][4] new religious movement (NRM) of Indian origin." What?? ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the background to why is that the Brahma Kumaris editors have been attempting to whitewash the topic as much as possible over the years and create much conflict over it. Consequently it has becoming very well referenced if a little misshapen in place. However, once you start to become acquainted with the topic, you'll find that it is actually highly accurate.

In essence, what they are seeking to do is make it more vague and fall inline with their religion's PR. --Januarythe18th (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this here but one can see the discussions on the talk page including archives between neutral editors, BK editors and Januarythe18th to see who is creating conflict, using deceptive edit summaries, act against consensus, often insulting other editors and cherry picking from references to skew the article. In my view a well referenced topic is not necessarily encyclopedic! Changeisconstant (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:28, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I am genuinely disappointed, but not exactly surprised, that you chose to bring your noise here. There is enough of it on the talk page. It would be better if you could bring some benefit to the Wikipedia as a whole.

ADJ, if you are taking an interest in the Brahma Kumaris, I'd like to discuss with you getting up to speed on the references and resources available about them, their beliefs and practises. Which have you read so far? Thanks. --Januarythe18th (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Renunciate

Re: renunciate, the talk page is a little busy and too difficult to follow right now, so I'll answer you here.

Actually, I answered it by starting a separate section on Asceticism and renunciation. Largely, it's well referenced and stating the obvious when you look at the religion's lifestyle. It matches any other renunciate order. They renounce sex, renounce relationships, renounce meat, renounce alcohol, renounce stay in bed after 4am in the morning, have few to no personal belongings, and so on. It's a full on monastic lifestyle without the monastery.

What references do you have to suggest and support they are not a renunciate order?

A more subtle point arises though, which has been discussed before, and that is, "how does one delineate who is a Brahma Kumari and who is not?" or who is the article about. The Brahma Kumaris live like nuns. It is a renunciate order even if their supporters may not to. However, we have to define the BKs by the BK, not their supporters who might conduct themselves in any manner.

If we look at a recent Times of India article, a representative states that individuals only become BK members after 6 years association [1], therefore I think we have to apply the terminology strictly to apply only to "members" rather than just anyone who might come along. Does that help?

I moved secretive down but it should also remain as a key factor given all the references supporting it. --Januarythe18th (talk)

Hi Adjwilley, the same issue with splintering threads arose when Vecrumba was assisting as an independent editor on this article. He suggested the thread be pasted over to the talk page. Is that okay with you if I move this piece across? Regards Danh108 (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm so sorry that I've been so slow about replying. I have some pressing commitments in real life, and I'm afraid I'll have to back out of this conversation for the moment. Please forgive me for this, and I'll look forward to discussing this again as soon as I can. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That's cool Adjwilley - at the end of the day, real life is the most important thing. Best of luck with it. Regards Danh108 (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard Protection

Hello Adjwilley. I know you are familiar with some of the background on this article, having been the closing Admin on an edit-warring ANI concerning user Srich several days ago. In light of the continuation and escalation of that behavior recently, I'd like to ask you to extend the page protection for a longer period, perhaps a week or ten days, in order to ensure that further discussion proceeds to acknowledged consensus before the EW has a chance to resume. Needless to say, if consensus is reached prior to that time the protection could be reviewed and lifted sooner. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response, I've been pretty busy today. I got your note (thank you) but I was reluctant to extend the protection for now, as that might be seen as an endorsement of the current version. You are correct that I have been watching this case (Srich, MilesMoney, Binksternet, and more recently, yourself) for several days now, and across a couple of articles, and I will continue to keep an eye on the article. Hopefully people will exercise a little more restraint this time around, but if not I can protect it again for longer. I don't want to pull out the block hammer, but that's not entirely out of the question either, unfortunately. ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your keeping an eye on things. Srich has now begun similar EW behavior at the Mises Institute article and frankly I am disappointed to see him respond this way to your administrative restraint at the recent 3RR noticeboard. Anyway, I am going to move back another step from these articles so thanks and adios. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. I think it would be healthy if everybody took a step back. Thanks! ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Who are these SpokAnCap and Deathye people? They seem to know you, and are obviously not new. Think I should I block 'em? ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I have no idea -- never saw these names before. There's just a huge disconnect on these articles between those of us who have taken an academic/research interest in some of the issues and on the other hand the partisans who see the article content as some kind of partisan struggle or political debate. It's very discouraging. SPECIFICO talk 03:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I happened to notice your interventions on Rothbard when took a peek today and then this thread. I gave up editing/unwatched the articles in question a while back because of Wikipedia's inability to deal with the POV pushing of editors Specifico and Steeletrap. At Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Meta-note in my contribution I quote them revealing their truly negative and hostile opinions on these individuals which explains why their "academic" entries are always the dirtiest and most critical things they can find. I quit in part because there was a constant fight to keep in old and new neutral and factual WP:RS secondary source material that might actually make the subjects of articles look credible. (Trying to keep such material in is what they consider partisan POV pushing!) So please do not buy this "academic neutrality" line. Unfortunately, it's that kind of bad faith editing that drives some people to sock puppetry. User:Carolmooredc 22:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I realize that it is a very difficult situation to be in, and I've been in situations like that myself. As an administrator my influence is a bit limited in that I can't take a position in the dispute itself. Basically my job is to make sure that people are following the rules and do my best to keep a level playing field. I can protect the article and block edit warriors and socks, but I'm not allowed to say whose position is right or wrong. So in a way, I will be following your request of not buying the "academic neutrality" line, but I can't take the opposing stance either. I understand your discouragement, but unfortunately I'm not sure what can be done without completely changing the system. (This is in essence what I see as one of the most pressing problems facing Wikipedia.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adjwilley. Apparently the edit-warring behavior is continuing at Rothbard. I just had a look at the article and noticed that most of the images have again been removed, despite the ongoing talk page thread. Perhaps you could have a look. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

[2] ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013 AFC Backlog elimination drive

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from October 1st, 2013 – October 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. --Mdann52talk to me!

This newsletter was delivered on behalf of WPAFC by EdwardsBot (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Disconnect

Adjwilley, I think we got off on the wrong foot and there's no way for us to recover from it. Once this sock thing blows over, I'd like us to agree to disagree and then politely avoid each other. As I said earlier, there are plenty of uninvolved editors who can get involved in my behavior if it proves to be a problem. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was just reading your last comment over at SPI, and I'd be happy to part ways. One thing where I think you may have misunderstood me was thinking that I had treated you poorly because I had butted heads with StillStanding. I was actually one of their earliest defenders against User:Belchfire's harassment and I thought they had a great sense of humor and lots of spunk for an IP editor. I most certainly didn't agree with the way they were behaving, but to the end I was trying to convince them to get off their self-destructive path. If anything, me thinking that you were him held me back from taking any action against you. I fully intend to part ways after this, though, and have already begun to do so. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adjwilley. I really hope you'll consider withdrawing that SPI on Miles. I see that you're busy but perhaps you'll re-read the entire page and do the right thing here. I can't believe that we want WP to put editors, even aggressive or irksome ones, through such a trial with virtually no evidence or cause. Incidentally, you forgot to remove the word "similarly" from the first row of your comparison matrix in Miles' column. SPECIFICO talk 02:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Specifico. I've given a lot of thought to your request, and I'm not sure if that would be the best path forward. I don't think it would be fair to MrX, who suspected the same independent of me, and it probably wouldn't be the best thing for Miles either. Here are the five scenarios I can think of, listed in order of best to worst:

1. Miles is innocent, I don't withdraw the request, and he's exonerated. If he's innocent, there's a very good chance that will happen. (I don't understand most of what the Checkusers do, but this much is certain: if Miles edited from the IP address 24.45.42.125 he's finished for sure, since StillStanding used that IP exclusively. If he didn't, he's probably not going to get blocked. Likewise, if the evidence is as weak as you say it is he'll get off.)
2. Miles is guilty (he and StillStanding are one in the same), I don't withdraw the request, and he gets blocked, saving Wikipedia editors countless man-hours that would have been wasted in a repeat of all the escalating drama surrounding StillStanding the last time.
3. Miles is innocent and I withdraw the request: Everybody's curiosity will be piqued, Mile's enemies will assume he's guilty, his friends will assume he's innocent, it will be a source of contention and hang over him until it is finally taken to SPI again.
4. Miles is guilty and I withdraw the request: Wikipedia suffers, Still/Miles continues down the same self-destructive path until he's finally blocked, perhaps in a flurry of pitchforks and torches at AN/I. These kinds of things are very damaging to Wikipedia, in my opinion.
5. Miles is innocent, I don't withdraw the request, and he gets blocked anyway. Users could argue all day about whether this would benefit Wikipedia, and I don't care to venture a guess myself. It would certainly be unfair to poor Miles, but he's obviously edited before, and with his technical knowledge, he will certainly edit again. As I said before, however, the chances of this happening are small.

Anyway, with these in mind, I'm going to refrain from withdrawing the request. Let's just wait for the clerks/CUs to do their job, and there's a good chance things will sort themselves out as they should. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

6. Miles is innocent but CheckUser is prone to false positives so each dip in the fishing pool is a chance to get bitten.

The theme here is personal accountability, not finger-pointing. Blocking me for the actions of others is bad. Blaming MrX for your decision to press charges is bad. If MrX "independently" suspects me, they can just as independently press charges. Instead, the SPI has the weight of an admin behind it, the weight of your credibility. If a false positive knocks me out, the fault will be all yours. MilesMoney (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Miles, what evidence do you have that CheckUser is prone to false positives? Is there something in your editing history that you think might come up as a false positive? (If there is, you don't have to say it here, but I'd advise you to send a private email to the CU who takes the case, explaining the circumstances. A little transparency goes a long way.) As for accountability, I am certainly not trying to blame MrX for my actions. I am accountable to myself, my own conscience, and to Wikipedia as well. I need to to do what I see as best. If you're concerned that my accusation carries too much weight and that I'm exercising some sort of superuser power, I would say that 1, I don't think the checkusers really pay attention to that sort of thing, and 2, any extra "weight" I might get will probably be cancelled out by my general suckiness at making SPIs. Since that probably won't satisfy you, I'll be happy to leave a note at the top of the SPI investigation asking the CU/clerk to treat me as an ordinary user, if you so request. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I Googled it. CheckUser is viewed with extreme skepticism because the underlying reasoning is never explained and there's been a demonstrated bias towards false positives without a chance of appeal.

Because I use a VPN, there are no results that could conclusively exonerate me. In fact, it's automatically viewed as suspicious because the blocked user apparently had a VPN. There's likewise no way for me to defend myself.

There's just no upside for me, but plenty of downside, and edits like this show that editors I've had conflicts with are drooling at the possibility that this will get me blocked. Whatever your goals, you are serving their purposes. At this point, nothing you do will satisfy me, so we should just end this unproductive discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course, with several hundred checks run each month for years and years, there have been some false positives. At the same time, it's not unheard of for sockmasters to relentlessly plead their innocence off-wiki in the face of all kinds of evidence. If I were you though, I might take the socking suspicions as a wake-up call that people are finding some of your behavior problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What I'm taking it as in an indicator that, rather than deal with any problematic aspects to my behavior, they'd rather just get rid of me. That is, after all, the sole purpose of an SPI. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Mark and Adjwilley. I don't think that anybody, Miles included, denies that some people find some of Miles' behavior problematic. That doesn't justify putting him up for the death penalty with absolutely no evidence and no supporting facts. If you haven't done so already, please review the thread on SPI. The first item is based on Adjwilley's misreading of "North York" for "New York" and it goes down hill from there. We already know that Miles uses an open proxy, whatever that is, he stated that in another context long before the SPI. When I urged Adjwilly to drop this matter, he says it would be "unfair" to user MrX, who piled onto Adjwilly's SPI with what can only be called a preposterous and incompetent theory about the use of "falsely accused" by Miles and Still on those occasions when they have been accused. And of course the background to all this is that some of the behavior for which Miles is criticized occurs at the libertarian/Mises related articles on which several other editors are far more aggressive without any recent guidance, let alone accusation or judgment, from Admins who have been in a position to exert a stabilizing influence. By the way, lest there be any misunderstanding, I appreciate the good and conscientious jobs that you, Mark, and you, Adjwilley, are doing for WP. SPECIFICO talk 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The "vote your enemy off the island" mentality is unfortunately common, but I don't believe that Adjwilly was acting in bad faith here. Nor do I think MM is destined for an indef block, while I may have concerns about some of his behavior (WP:BLUDGEON), I trust they can be resolved without blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of the point: I'm not destined for a block based on my own behavior, but a false positive at SPI is a death sentence. Read about the False positive paradox and you'll understand why I don't want to be subjected to SPI. MilesMoney (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I certainly don't think Adjwilley has acted in bad faith. On the other hand, his stature would be greatly enhanced were he to reverse his good-faith error bringing the SPI, or were he to show some of the same tough love for the other editors who tangle with Miles on various articles. SPECIFICO talk 22:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Specifico, I appreciate your sincerity. I should probably clarify that the distinction between North York and New York isn't important because the argument was based on time zones, and both are in the Eastern Time Zone (UTC-4). (I understand that some people are night owls, but when somebody's peak editing hour is midnight, they're still going strong at 3AM, and have on occasion stayed up as late as 6AM, it makes me wonder if they're really physically located in that time zone. And if they're not in that time zone, why would they say that they were? It just seems fishy to me, and the only other person I've ever seen do that was StillStanding.) If that were all I had to go on I would have never taken this to SPI. If Miles hadn't been following the same patterns that Still did there wouldn't be a case. If I didn't believe there was something there I would strike my comments at the SPI noticeboard (I'm pretty sure I'm not allowed to close a case myself, especially after others have commented on it.) So what would you have me do? I trust both Alanyst and MrX, but they see different things in the evidence. It's not that I don't trust you, but you are just as involved here as, say, SRich, who I don't not trust either, but who, I'm sure you'll agree, definitely shouldn't influence me in this case. (excuse the double negative) The person whose judgement I would trust the most (even more than my own) in this case would be an uninvolved SPI clerk or CU who has lots of experience in dealing with cases like this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what you're actually claiming and I can't come up with anything coherent. Have you actually thought this through? MilesMoney (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I think too many people are mistaking an SPI request as a ban proposal. It's not. "Death penalty" and "sole purpose [is to get rid of a user]" is careless rhetoric at best, and posturing at worst. An SPI request is the proper way to express concerns that sockpuppetry is occurring and to have it handled with as much respect for editors' privacy and as little public drama as possible. Even if a checkuser were to find merit to the request and confirm sockpuppetry, it is not necessarily true that the accused person would forthwith be banned from WP. Someone would still have to evaluate the sockpuppetry in context and determine what sanctions, if any, would be appropriate to levy against the account(s). There may even be circumstances where the user gets off with only a warning or admonishment. An SPI is by no means a fait accompli, which is why the strident objections against this particular SPI surprise me: they seem well out of proportion to the actual risk that MilesMoney appears to face. No, I didn't find Adjwilley's evidence compelling personally, but I see little harm in the SPI either being withdrawn or allowed to reach a checkuser's judgment. alanyst 22:25, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

alanyst, I just posted something on the SPI page that amounts to a rebuttal, explaining why subjecting me to checkuser scrutiny on this flimsy basis is itself harmful. MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Adj, I see that you're a fairly recent Admin and I don't envy your position in this and the other tough matters that come up all the time at WP. Just one point, however: We need to call a spade a spade. For reasons which I tried to make clear on the SPI page, MrX's stated reason, the bit about "false accusation" is simply wrong. It's incorrect reasoning. It's some sort of plain-language statement of a fallacious application of statistical reasoning. Yet even after that was pointed out, he did not choose to withdraw his suspicion. He reiterated his viewpoint, even though it was then based on no stated reason. Yet here we are still talking about MrX's "evidence" when what he stated was in fact nonsense. It's a real misapplication of the concept of "trust" if that means we hang on to an erroneous statement from an otherwise good citizen. In real life, we all trust in the American Bill of Rights and jury system, but we implement that through ensuring fairness in legislation, police enforcement, prosecution, and other steps of the juridical process. The suggestion that it's OK to ignore everything pre-trial because no error will be sustained by the judge is abhorrent. Even though this is only WP, the model of fairness and due process is significant for its own sake, and it's clearly being violated here. OK, I'll get on to other things and drop this now. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

@MilesMoney: You expressed a desire above for the two of us to "politely avoid each other" in the future, and I've done my best to comply with your wishes. Might I request that you show me the same courtesy? Continuing to badmouth me as in this edit to a completely unrelated page isn't going to help anything. (If anything, it is reminiscent of the way StillStanding continued to badmouth User:TParis after he gave him the "final warning", in which case, it definitely doesn't help you.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh-huh, I'm sure that everything I do somehow reminds you of dear departed Uncle Barry or Aunt Jane or whatever, but that's entirely in your mind and has nothing to do with reality, so it really doesn't interest me. If you stick to reality, you'll remember that it was not a one-sided offer on my part, and you broke your side of it.

I said I would avoid you once the SPI was done if you avoided me, but it's not done and you're not avoiding me. Even after CU bounced it, you refuse to retract the accusation. Instead, you're dragging it out to allow a touchy-feely, subjective fishing expedition for statistically insignificant similarities. You hold up your end, I'll hold up mine.

In fact, the only reason I mentioned your name is that your witch-hunt SPI was brought up by your fellow admin to discredit my legitimate SPI against a pack of meatpuppets from Reddit. She brought you up, so "I put you down", but all I said is the simple truth. It's a fact that you have a track record of falsely accusing editors of being socks. You have only yourself to blame for that. MilesMoney (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, MilesMoney, the more snarky contempt you continue to direct against others well out of proportion to whatever legitimate grievances you might have, the more your behavior resembles that of StillStanding-247, not only to Adjwilley but to others such as myself who remember that editor. It's to the point where I'm beginning to reconsider whether Adjwilley wasn't on to something in his suspicions, because so far you've missed the chance to demonstrate noticeably different characteristics. alanyst 22:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it an illegitimate grievance? MilesMoney (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request

Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris - a kind request

Hi Adjwilley, It's a better offer than in the past - the disruptive editor recently crossed the line and has been blocked. However mud can stick a bit, so it would be really good if you or some with NRM experience who is independent and well established on Wikipedia could be involved in the repair of the article. I note that you are busy, so if you could recommend someone or become available, that would also be fantastic. I will post the same message on John Carters page in case he can keep a supervisory eye too/instead. I'm sure there will still be disagreements, but at least it should be civilised now. Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a look. In the mean time, try not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. (The new lede doesn't seem neutral either.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have some articles from various sources available for e-mail purposes, and if you would want them just drop me an e-mail. I have some reservations about the nature of the draft first paragraph myself, although in all honesty I'm not real sure of exactly how to improve it. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm really happy to implement changes you suggest. Whenever you have time, feedback is greatly appreciated. I have picked up Vecrumba's advice and will try and rely mainly on existing encyclopedia's and other strong reference books. Other advice welcome. The more 'middle road' the article is, the less it should attract SPA editors (from both sides). Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Please do bear in mind that previous content was seriously twisted - I think many people may not realise how far off track it was and formed views based on that. January was certainly a powerful advocate for his group - but that group never invited outside input like this or tried to work collaboratively. This in itself speaks a huge volume about the accuracy of the content. Thank you both for feeding back so quickly. Regards Danh108 (talk) 18:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Middle road is really important for this article for long term resolution else either of the camp will continue to have this tussle and in nocase should it now be swinging towards an advert for Brahma Kumaris. Thank you Changeisconstant (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. @John, I'll shoot you an email for the references. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

As an admin you are supposed to be setting an example. You're not setting a very good example when you are edit warring across multiple articles, or threatening to block editors you have content disputes with in violation of WP:INVOLVED. Pass a Method talk 16:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley, I'm getting the impression that this comment is relating to some particular content area the above editor and you might be disagreeing about? If that is the case, it might help to indicate where. Granted, I know PaM tends to have really serious opinions about people he or she disagrees with, but in general the more eyes there are on an article the better off everyone involved is. John Carter (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not sure what you're talking about. The only article I've "edit warred" on is the prophets one (with you) where I was partially reverting to the WP:STATUSQUO version, while making helpful tweaks and keeping the new sources you were adding. (I don't intend to revert anymore until a consensus has been reached. I made a request for a third opinion yesterday at WP:3O, so hopefully they can provide some clarity in the next couple of days.) [Insert] Nevermind about my post at WP:3O...it looks like you had already noticed that.

Other than you, I'm not in content disputes with any editors, and I don't recall having threatened to block anybody other than the occasional vandal. While we're talking, could you explain to me what's so bad about moving the sentence from the Lead to the body? It makes for a better article overall. I think you may be taking things too personally here. You're the type of person who goes around adding stuff to articles, and that's fine. I'm the type of person who takes that stuff and works it into the article. To use a woodworking analogy, you're a chopper, I'm a polisher. Both our jobs are necessary for making good quality work...but the chopper has to let the polisher do his job too. You can't insist that I leave your writing untouched, especially when it's as rough as it is. (If you have a problem with people editing your writing, well, maybe Wikipedia isn't the best hobby for you.) It's nothing personal that I took your sentence that you added to the Lead and worked it into the body...that's just what I do. I hope you'll understand that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@John Carter: our disagreement is so silly I'm embarrassed it's gone this far. It's the position of this sentence (whether it should be prominently featured as the last sentence of the Lead section, or whether it should be worked into the body of the article). ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Keeping your distance"

First you jump on my talk page, then you jump on ANI. This is not how someone backs off, is it? MilesMoney (talk) 22:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I must say, Adjwilley -- although I know you to be a hardworking good-faith Admin, I was disappointed to see this edit [3] the meaning of which was not entirely clear to me, but which appeared to be denigrating MilesMoney and validating a rather hostile, unconstructive, undocumented, and off-topic personal remark by User:Medeis. Just my reaction, take it for what it's worth. SPECIFICO talk 22:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

@Miles, I left a short comment on your talk page to clarify that I didn't "hate" you or User:StillStanding-247 as you had implied in this comment. (I had previously asked you to keep your side of the deal by ceasing to badmouth me in unrelated forums.) I've been watching the current dispute for several weeks now, and I feel I am qualified to at least comment on it from time to time. You can be sure that I won't be taking any admin action against you. So far my only admin actions in your regard have been to give you warnings instead of blocks, and to protect an article that you were edit warring on. (Incidentally, I protected it on your preferred revision, and didn't budge when I was asked to revert to an older revision.)

@Specifico, My comment was meant to reflect the slight amusement I felt, when trying to interpret User:Medeis's comment (before they refactored it) I did a search of the talk page for the words "personal attack" and found that in every instance after the NPA template at the top, it was either being used by or was directed at Miles. I did not say, imply, or mean that Miles was the "sole cause of all this disruption" as Medeis said, nor do I believe that. It takes two...or in this case...five or six...to tango. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Adjwilley and thanks for the clarification. My concern is that, as I said to another Admin on his talk page, it's like lighting up a cigarette at the gas pump. Some editors come to these noticeboards grasping at signs that they can turn Admins against other users. In that kind of charged environment, even an simple remark can be taken as encouragement by an editor bent on discrediting another. I didn't understand the other guys remark about O'Connor, but given the setting and human nature, I bet he thought you "sided" with him in his disparagement of Miles. Again thanks for your reply. SPECIFICO talk 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On a completely unrelated note, it might interest you to know that cigarettes can't ignite gasoline. It's been tested hundreds of times. The cigarette lighter will, though, so that's why it's illegal. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Ha! But what about the fumes? I think the pump lets out some fumes which can start the process. Thanks for the note. SPECIFICO talk 03:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Counter-intuitively, even the fumes don't ignite. You can drop a burning cigarette into a puddle of gasoline and it won't do anything. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey Adj. I am surprised and disappointed to see you, an educated and generally even-handed member of this community, stridently attacking user Miles money. What is particularly discouraging is that you don't even provide diffs that corroborate your claims about him. From what I've seen of Miles, his only crime is overzealousness. I hope you reconsider your vies in this regard. Thanks. Steele Steeletrap (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Steele, I have to ask, did you read my response to you here or the content immediately above? I have not, to my knowledge, stridently attacked anybody, especially without diffs. (If you're talking about the SS SPI, that had plenty of diffs, and I don't think "strident" would be the correct word for that...besides, can't we put that behind us by now?) Speaking of diffs, if you have any I'd be happy to look them over and explain any misunderstandings. If you're talking about the one that Specifico linked above, I'd ask you to first read my explanation there. I'm going to be out of town tomorrow, so I probably won't be able to respond immediately, but I will get back to you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

[4] – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's problematic that Bink keeps saying stuff which shows he doesn't really understand economics, particularly its history. Of course, we're all ignorant in many fields, but it becomes a problem when we edit articles about those fields. At some point, we have the socially awkward but necessary task of pointing out that a fellow editor is in over their head and drowning. I have a great deal of sympathy for Steele's dilemma, and I could see that they were trying to be as tactful as possible, but how tactful can you be while essentially telling someone that they don't have a clue? That's a serious question, and not at all rhetorical.

I run into this problem all the time, even with you, and it's a hard one. If you wanted to help Steele, I'm sure you'd have contacted them directly. From the fact that you posted this here, I can only conclude that you did it as a sneaky attack against them, and you don't really care about the problem we all face when dealing with, for lack of a better term, incompetents. I will remind you that the term is not forbidden, which is why we even have that essay, WP:INCOMPETENT. Being grossly incompetent in front of Steele and then complaining when that's pointed out amounts to a form of trolling, don't you think? MilesMoney (talk) 15:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

There is discussion on the talk page of the above article initiated by an editor who is a member of the group about changes to the article. I am in the process of adding some concerns of my own, specifically about how the content should be structured. Unfortunately, this is kind of a vague field according to existing policies and guidelines, at least so far as I understand them, and I would be very interested to see additional input specifically on what content to put in which article relating to medium/channeling topics. John Carter (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I saw you joined the discussion on the Ramtha's discussion page and I was coming over here to thank you for stopping by when I saw that John Carter started this conversation here. I hope it's okay that I add to it.

I want to point out that I am not a member of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment, but I am working with them to improve this page. I have written the draft I added to my user space myself. You can see the updated draft here: Ramtha's School draft

Also, I have a subscription to Time and I can view the full article you asked about. I assume I can't share the full article with you because of copyright reasons, but are there any questions I can answer for you about it?

I hope you'll have a chance to look at my draft and let me know how you think it compares to the current page. Calstarry (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. I'm no expert, I think it would be within fair use if you were to use the Wikipedia email function to email me the text of the article. (I can delete it later, if needed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! I'm waiting on an email so that I can confirm my address with Wikipedia, but as soon as I get that handled I'll email you the text of the article. Calstarry (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, did you get the email I sent? I've never used the email feature before and I wanted to make sure I did it right. Calstarry (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I got it, and read it. Thank you. Someone else sent me an email with some other sources as well, so I just need to work through those as well. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh good, I'm glad you got the email. Let me know if you have any questions about my draft. Calstarry (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I was wondering if you had a chance to look over the Ramtha sources I, and the other editor, emailed you. Since our conversation on the Ramtha's page got so long I summarized the discussion so far. I'm waiting to hear back from Astynax about the "Criticisms of the school" section, but I'm hoping once that has been addressed that we might be able to agree about replacing the current version with my draft. Let me know what you think when you have a moment. Calstarry (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for feedback

If you have the opportunity, I'd appreciate any critical feedback you might have on an idea I've been kicking around and have finally put into writing. I want to get a couple of people's opinions in advance of possibly suggesting it at Village Pump. It's at User:Alanyst/Curations. Thanks, alanyst 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mentioned at ANI

You have been mentioned at ANI in this thread. - Sitush (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

You looked as Dark Mistress, her history and her unblock request, and gave her a substantial further chance. Time will tell if she is worth it, and I hope she is. I don't have the bandwidth to mentor her, but a suggestion of her asking for mentoring coming from you (together with how she might achieve it) may be a wonderful service you can do for her. She has no need to accept the idea, and her self declared autism may make that awkward for her, but I feel it worth suggesting, and I can see that she respects your advice, Fiddle Faddle 00:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you have not addressed the concerns that were the actual reason for my block – namely, that in my opinion Dark Mistress is probably a sock puppet. I checked this opinion with my fellow check users and functionaries before blocking, and they concurred with my findings, so this was not just a random whim I had. I was concerned to see you neglect to address the topic whatsoever in your dealings with the appellant, and I am therefore very concerned by your decision to unblock. AGK [•] 19:49, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I consider all of this strictly academic. I don't intend to re-block this account, particularly given how fragile a state she appears to be in; I merely want to draw your attention to the fact that you appear to have overlooked a rather significant aspect of the situation. Regards, AGK [•] 22:23, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

To be fair the only way one ought to handle sockpuppetry is, surely, the official way. AGK, you are in a unique position that you can, should you so wish, use the checkuser tool to determine with some degree of accuracy whether a person is likely to be a sock and of whom. Pure opinion is something we ordinary editors have.

If she proves to be a sockpuppet in the future you will not find me defending her, but this is all rather ephemeral unless the tools have been used to check.

How could Adjwilley do anything except what they have done with regard to your assumption and that of several of your colleagues? My view is that it was correct to ignore suspicions without any evidence being presented. Fiddle Faddle 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @AGK: Thank you for the note, I really appreciate the feedback. I had noticed the concerns of sock puppetry, and I had similar concerns myself, even before you blocked her. (I almost blocked her myself, but you beat me to it.) On the sock puppetry, bit, I didn't realize you were a CU, otherwise I definitely would have contacted you first (my apologies!). I saw her statements that she was "not new" and had previously edited under many IPs, and unverifiable as they were, I figured she seemed contrite enough that I'd give her one last shot, whilst trying to minimize any potential damage - thus the fairly hefty editing restrictions (0-1RR, ban from many Wikipedia namespaces, advised to stay away from user talkspaces, etc.). I specifically made the unblock with the intention to keep an eye on her, and if she started causing trouble it would be very easy for me, or anyone else, to reinstate the block permanently.

@Fiddle Faddle, I'm not sure whether or not mentoring is a good idea...maybe it would help, but I'm kind of trying to steer her away from the user talkspace, as I don't want her thinking that this is a social network of some kind. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:24, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I admit I had not noticed the contraindication of mentoring and user talk space. i think several of us are keeping a watching brief. I shall be racing to be the first to pull the trigger if I am let down, but I suspect you may beat me to it :) Fiddle Faddle 00:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I am pleased to see that several of us are keeping an eye on the situation, and that the sock puppetry question was in fact considered by the unblocking administrator, so I am happy not to do anything further at this time. Regards, AGK [•] 13:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I have really nothing left to say, except that I am not a "sock puppet" (I have a basic idea of what that is, is it multiple accounts?) but I will only really edit articles that interest me. For me as well I am tech savvy kind of girl, which is why I mostly edit things related to computing, games and things that I may be just reading ( I mostly use Wikipedia to look for things) and when I see something needs to be corrected, remove and/or reword the article. I could do something more substantial, but since I cannot focus to much it's an unreasonable expectation on someone such as myself. About the autism, more specifically I have aspergers... Yes, I do! But despite this, I have a high IQ.. although I can't translate that into stuff on computer(I have a hard time typing) so it doesn't seem I'm that smart. But it does not matter, sort of. As I said before, I explicitly deny creating and/or having an older account. I'm sorry, but I also don't use Wikipedia as a social network(I don't know what that term is ether, never heard of it) and although I have forums accounts, I don't use them often. For me, being on the internet since 1999 is sort of cool, although in 1999 that was elementary school with high speed internet back then. Then for 5 years I didn't go back into the internet until 2008 (aside from 2007 Windows Vista computer from gateway) and I was largely restricted from the internet by a filter installed on that computer. I got back into the internet in 2008 via an old dinosaur Compaq Presario 1500 that was 7 years old by the time I got it(it was $3000.00 new!) but that crashed, threw it away. Anyway, for me I only really make small edits because I get to pointy if I do anything more then that. I am lazy, find it to hard to do anything more... which is why I haven't edited a lot today, only one edit and only then to my user page. I am sorry if that disappoints you, but I repeat, it's way to hard to do anything more then that. ... um, the fragile part... I'm kind of nervous about that, I think you are right.... I.. don't know how to respond to this, it hurts my heart just thinking about it... I'll leave it aside for now. I am in depression lately, lonely... but I'll stop this right now, don't want to talk about that. For after this posting, I will still not do anything more then just minor edits, since I get worked up over any disputes...

Yours truly, Unknown... --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Unknown. Don't worry too much, we all have our own issues that we're working through. The reference to "social network" basically means that we are here to be writing a good encyclopedia, and communication between editors should be to further that goal. Avoiding disputes is a really good idea, in my opinion. Good luck with your editing! ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to accept Dark Mistress's denial that she is a sock puppet. Indeed, WP:AGF says that we should believe her. If anyone thinks that she "seems familiar," that's probably because we've had other editors with similar personalities in the past. -- 101.119.14.122 (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Getting copyright approval

Hi Adjwilley, I have sent quite a few emails to: permissions-en@wikimedia.org It's been a couple of weeks but no responses...is that normal? I have some great photo's I want to include in an article.... Any advice/referral to follow this up would be great. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This could be more specific - I have works created by other people, and they have given me their written permission for them to be used on Wikipedia under any license. So I have emailed this to the above email, so that hopefully I get emailed a code that will allow me to complete the image upload process...On a separate note, if you had any time to offer an opinion on the BK article, any feedback would be cool - but no worries if time doesn't allow...sorry to see John Carter retire. Regards Danh108 (talk) 05:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, Danh, I know I've been awful at responding here lately. I've had a lot on my plate, and "real life" is keeping me hopping. To answer your question, I don't think I've ever uploaded images to the en.wikipedia. I've always just done them straight to Commons. (You can still use them on Wikipedia, in fact it's better to have them there IMO because they can be used on any Wiki.) I think the page you might be looking for is here, and it says they have a backlog of about 3 days. Kudos to you, by the way, for taking the time to track down quality images and getting permission to use them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thank you Adjwilley. I give uploading them to Commons a shot - maybe the other email/process has been superseded by this....Much appreciated. Regards Danh108 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk templates

Hi, I saw you relatively active in some page histories recently. I wonder if you can help me add the appropriate templates to the new article The Gardens at Temple Square. Definitely in the LDS and Utah projects, but don't know how to rate the importance and quality of the article. If you get a minute, please. Bobjgalindo (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

How's that? You can usually find out more about the quality and importance scales at on the pages of the individual Wikiprojects. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Fresh start: Ramtha's School of Enlightenment

Hi Adjwilley. I wanted to let you know that I posted a new message on the Ramtha's discussion page. A few editors had mentioned that it might be better to work through the article section by section and since the discussion has gotten so long and complex I agree.

I'm asking editors to look through just the Research section with me. I'm hoping since you had been part of the earlier conversations on the page that you will be able to look at this new request. Thank you. Calstarry (talk) 18:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Calstarry, Sorry I've been so slow to respond. Life has been busy, I've been traveling, and there have been a couple of, well, events that have completely taken precedence over my Wikipedia time. I had read over parts of the draft a while ago, and didn't see any glaring issues...I will do so again when I can, either today or tomorrow, or after the Thanksgiving holiday. In the mean time, I wouldn't object to you editing the article yourself, as long as you are very careful to follow the NPOV guideline. (I would recommend just adding stuff, not deleting anything for the moment.) If that's not something you're comfortable with, I respect that, and I can do it for you when I get the time. It's just been a difficult month. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I just saw this note. I completely understand that you're busy, it seems like lots of editors are these days. I suppose that's to be expected during the holidays.

I still think it's best for me to not edit the page, considering some of the comments that were made on the talk page, but if you had time to look over my message about the Research section that would be great. I don't mean to stop you from working on any other sections of the page, if that is something you want to do, I was just trying to focus the discussion on a shorter and simpler part of the page. Thanks and have a wonderful Thanksgiving! Calstarry (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, after reading some of those comments I think you are right about editing the article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Chelsea Manning

I am considering a GAR request on the article. Go to the link above. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello, Adjwilley:

WikiProject AFC is holding a two month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from December 1st, 2013 – January 31st, 2014.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 2600 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code enhancements, and more. If you want to see a full list of changes, visit the changelog. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

View of the Hebrews

For what it's worth, I prefer your version to mine. All the best,John Foxe (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the note. I hope all is well with you, and wish you a happy Christmas season. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

AE discussion

Ringmaster (circus) – please intervene. – S. Rich (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply remove me from the AE project. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You know what? I think I'd rather be taken out of the experiment. That is, remove my comments/section and those related to me. The reason is I resent having unsubstantiated allegations made against me, which are not sincere suggestions for better editor cooperation. For example, I'm accused of shouting "BULLSHIT" on my talk page, when I simply used the word "bullshit". Another example, I'm (again) accused of posting "inapplicable, mis-cited, or misunderstood policies" in discussions, but never once has such a supposed misused or misrepresented policy citation ever been challenged on the ANI, much less with diffs. And even when asked to provide an example, as was done here User talk:Gamaliel/Archive 19#Murphy, there is no response. Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 07:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)SRich, I'm very sorry about those allegations being left up for so long...it was my intent to remove them to the talk page, as I have done with similar comments, but I was trying to give the authors a chance to fix them first (after my talk page post of clarification). Since that wasn't done, I have moved them to the talk page. I can still remove your section completely if you like. I should also apologize for not doing anything yesterday...I had a very busy day, and on my way to my last appointment my car died on the freeway in a construction zone. It ended up just being the main fuse, but I had to have it towed and fix it in preparation for another very busy day today, which took up my entire evening...time I was hoping to use on the project. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Me, too, because it is degenerating rapidly into the usual entrenched positions. I was only ever really a talk page bystander to a small subset of these articles and I've no desire to have my name raked through the mud by people with agendas and little ability to substantiate them. Your effort to resolve is appreciated and I've no problem with my comments remaining there but I'm going to unwatch the user page & its talk. From my point of view, the only outcome from my involvement in the exercise has been to make it inevitable that I'll be named in any Arbcom case, which wasn't likely previously. If I do get named, I probably won't say anything (and if it happens soon then I probably won't be around to say it anyway - there's another date with an operating theatre pending). - Sitush (talk) 16:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very sorry about that. I was really hoping that you would be leaving some review for the other editors, since as one of the few neutral parties your suggestions would carry a lot more weight. I understand your concerns about Arbcom...I have very little experience there, but I have seen too many of my friends go there and then retire shortly thereafter (sometimes via sanctions, but usually some sort of disgust). In my mind that's where editors go to die, so I've tried to keep my distance. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ringmaster: regrettably, the project required full time moderation. At any problematic edit, the poster needed to be taken to the woodshed. Alas, that sort of monitoring is impossible. Your effort is greatly appreciated, and I'll post a barnstar for you once the project is concluded. But I really do want all of the stuff involving me removed. – S. Rich (talk)

Indeed, and I can see that my unexpected lapse yesterday has done a fair amount of damage. Is this enough, or do you want it completely removed? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, your "lapse" did not cause anything! The participants are the ones responsible. Please remove all of comments related to me. Doing so will send a message in and of itself. – S. Rich (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

The message would be that Srich is unduly upset by criticism of his behavior and that, as he showed in his attempts to expunge his Sanctions notice, he appears to be focused on control rather than collaboration here. SPECIFICO talk 17:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good assumption at all. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

My "neutral" USP has gone, Adjwilley, if you believe Carol. Of course, it hasn't really but I'm not prepared to take that kind of broad-brush accusation from anyone of experience: there is little possibility of useful discussion if any statement that runs contrary to one person's opinion results in that contributor assuming bad faith, making inaccurate statements and generally personalising things without providing much in the way of useful evidence. Some people have learned nothing during the last few weeks. Even the accusations wouldn't prevent me from treating their content-related contributions neutrally but I can do without the abuse & she'll obviously now never accept anything I say as being other than biassed against her. Which makes my involvement pointless. I'm preparing info for one RfC/U already but it looks like I might have to prepare another - at that point, it becomes easier to let ArbCom sort it out if they are willing (and, yes, it will not be a pretty outcome for those more involved than me). - Sitush (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(ec)

@Sitush... You wrote: "I've no desire to have my name raked through the mud by people with agendas and little ability to substantiate them." -- Please be specific and use the names of the people to whom you refer. Are there in fact more than one who have raked you on Adjwilley's AE threads? To whom do you refer? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley. Look, we're all open to criticism in your AE forum. I am surprised and disappointed that a soldier and litigator like Srich, successful by his own account at his real world activities, would exhibit what I regard as hypersensitivity to critical commentary of his documented behavior on WP. Let him criticize me or anyone else in this group, and I hope that none of us asks to have his words erased. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adjwilley, I think you made the right decision here. With Rich and Sitush gone, we lacked a quorum. Thank you for making a reasonable effort; it's not your fault that it failed. MilesMoney (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ringmaster, you are correct, it was not a good assumption. And if you would, please redact the talk page material related to me. I'll be happier if commentary about me is confined to the usual fora, such as my talk page and the noticeboards. (Indeed, the material is spilling out into yet another unwelcome arena – here.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to leave in just a couple of minutes for an 11 hour work day. I might be able to make an occasional minor comment from my phone, but I will be gone for the next bit. Sorry ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. I've only been through one mediation with equally or more vociferous individuals on the Israel-Palestine issue and an inexperienced mediator who had to start from scratch 1/3 of the way through. Check it out: Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Jewish_lobby. I'm not sure where all the discussion is or if they remove it when the mediation is done.

But it turned out to be very helpful as she got more experienced and we all settled down. I have wished people would try more formal mediation, but given no one even wanted to go to WP:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard when I suggested it (as I mentioned at WP:ANI), I wasn't optimistic. Frankly I was surprised people agreed to it when you suggested it. It's silly to go to ArbCom without the people who really are interested in the Austrian economics/libertarian issues trying it. Also, I've asked here on the talk page your thoughts on getting another mediator to step in; given disruptiveness of issue, I think it would be easy to find one. Hopefully, you could facilitate that process. Discuss it over there?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long absence...busy day, and yet more car trouble. I'll give it some thought, Carol. Off the top of my head, User:Mr. Stradivarius comes to mind as one of the best mediators I know for dispute resolution, but I haven't the faintest idea how interested he might be in the prospect. In any case, I think it would be best to leave things where they lie for the moment. I didn't get a chance earlier, but I did want to thank all of you who participated in the "experiment", whatever the result. I realize that all of you started it in good faith with good intentions, and that you spent significant time answering the questions. I really appreciated that. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I haven't read up on any of the background here, but if you are interested in mediation, the thing to do is create a new request for mediation and ask the other parties to the dispute if they would like to take part. Once you've done that, MedCom can take things from there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

self-hatting of comments – S. Rich (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thanks. Mr. Stradivarius. Overall I am detecting (and encouraging) willingness to cooperate between editors in a non-personality-based-mode. In this regard, User:Adjwilley efforts have born fruit. (Now whether it is fruit of the forbidden tree or tree of knowledge of good and evil remains to be seen.) In any event, I, myself, am encouraged. One of the editors in our menagerie was my buddy until July, another is one whom I extended an early welcome, two others barred me from their talk pages. We also have two others who are lifers (long-termers) who have plenty of ground to plow outside of Austria, so I'm not too worried if they will join in a LoveFest. And, very personally, I'd like the bullshit – from all sides (including my own) – to cease so that I can submit for admin status and receive unanimous acclamation. Besides achieving the Godawful power that admins weld upon all minions, I will be free to "promote" libertarian thought/philosophy/bullshit by tweaking various articles so that they are informative and helpful, in a pure as the driven snow and non-POV-pushing sense. (I will, of course, strictly avoid issues and personalities that involve any of the contentious subjects that have inflamed editors in our Fight To The Finish.) But most importantly we can leave all of the past personality issues behind! What happens if we have some disagreement? Why, of course, we turn to Adjwilley or Mr. Stradivarius! Absolute power will be conferred upon you (plural) to redact, obliterate, parse, tone-down, etc. comments you see. You can monitor them on your own, or we say "Wait, I'm asking Adjwilley/Strad!" At which point the discussion stops. Moreover, I, for one, will accede to any immediate, no-questions-asked 24-hour blocks (not logged, of course) that you impose. Also, none of us asks the WP:OTHERPARENT about anything. If you tire of the effort (or just get bored from inactivity), you send us off on out own. – S. Rich (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Mr. Mr. Stradivarius, we need a formal mediation. I think the policy issue differences and/or misunderstandings are the sources of conflict, far far more than any "personality" issues - which overall are all the editors' more or less dysfunctional ways of dealing with the policy conflicts. I went through one good mediation in 2008 and was part of requesting a couple more that were not accepted. But they were not part of an ongoing disruptive pattern of noticeboard dramas like this one has been. I think one will be formulated quite soon. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the AE project is dead. Rather than let it stand as another platform for comments, I suggest you delete it. (As you own subpage, can you obliterate it entirely?) Also, I don't think the Mediation effort is going to pan out. My suggestion for interested editors who wish to make difficult changes or reverts to articles: post focused and narrow RfCs for particular edits which threaten to become contentious. – S. Rich (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Srich32977: - I certainly do not agree with your view that Adjwilley's initaitive is "dead," but regardless of the future of these articles or editors, there is no reason to expunge the WP archives of these discussions. The only reason I can imagine to do so would be to deprive editors of the ability to refer to the many useful comments which were made in the course of whatever progress has been achieved to date. I strongly oppose this proposal to "obliterate it entirely" although it has dwindled to the point where it will either go dormant or be hatted and left in place. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

While Formal Mediation archives are removed, I guess it's up to the mediator what to do about them on talk pages. I personally don't care one way or the other - though I'm keeping a copy for myself just in case. However, I do think it is unfortunate that the discussion between Adjwilley and Mr. Stradivarius seems to have been ignored. I guess I should have quoted it on the Adjwilley Mediation talk page instead of assuming people had read it. Anyway, that is the reason I saw the options as WP:DNR or formal mediation. It would help if everyone was on the same page in an understanding of what is going on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is constructive, @Carolmooredc: and we all know that these things proceed at their own pace -- unpredictable and with many factors. We should not give up on any option at this point, and we certainly should not wipe out the archive which is now available for our study and reflection. SPECIFICO talk 19:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

My inquiry about obliteration was technical. Users can request deletion of their subpages WP:UP#DELETE, and I have one which has not received input from other editors despite my invitation. So I wondered if admins can delete their own subpages. If other editors think there are useful (rather, "helpful") comments on the subpage, they ought to record them, now, along with the diffs. But what could they do with such helpful comments? One of the guidelines in legal mediations is that comments made in connection with a mediation are not admissible in any subsequent legal proceeding. And in actual WP mediation all communications are privileged. In any event, Adjwilley is the sole authority on what to do with the subpage, but the recent comments here suggest that deletion is the best course of action. – S. Rich (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Srich, are you proposing that we poll the participants? Rad!!! SPECIFICO talk 19:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

? – S. Rich (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I can delete the sub page, and I may do so at some time in the future. I am not quite ready to delete it right now. That said, I think it would be in poor taste if people were pulling diffs from that page to be used as evidence elsewhere. I wanted people to be civil, but candid, and I wouldn't want that to backfire on participants who were commenting in good faith. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. That's what was so helpful about those pages. Candid discussion which, unlike at ANI, could not degenerate into an open free-for-all. Having the page available helps us to review others' comments and reflect on the views they all took the time to express. Of course we don't need to refer back to the archive to recall our own views, which presumably remain in each of our memories. Thanks A. SPECIFICO talk 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Making AE pages boring

I think this is very difficult to do, while conforming to NPOV. The contemporary Austrians in question (Misesians) are anarchists and iconoclasts, who write polemics against even the most revered (e.g. MLK, Abraham Lincoln) American political figures. It's hard to make that boring. Steeletrap (talk) 19:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. (I actually don't know, but I can accept your word on it.) But if I asked you to identify the very best book sources on, say, Murray Rothbard, I highly doubt they would call him an iconoclastic anarchist known for his acerbic polemics. That's just not the way real scholars talk about real people, at least in my experience. Are there really no sources at all that are generally respected by both Misesians and non-Misesians? No review articles? No tertiary encyclopedic sources? (I'm asking because I really don't know...this isn't rhetorical.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Adjwilley. Having searched far and wide both on the web and in old print documents at libraries and in my personal files of journals and working papers, I find virtually no mainstream economist or political theorist who undertook any substantial criticism of Rothbard's work. Hie work was simply not rigorous or focused enough to find a place in scholarly literature. We do have a few journal articles and books published by independent publishers which comment rather critically on Rothbard's writings. Some are cited in the WP article. By and large, even among the Mises Institute fellows and colleagues, there's a lot of internecine criticism and rejection of various of the other colleagues' theories and opinions. That has been reflected in various articles. For example see Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Jesus Huerta de Soto. One exception is Rothbard, himself. Although he was ignored by mainstream economists, scholars, and politicians, he is consistently described in reverential terms within the Misesian circle. I'll note without comment that he was the officer in charge of staffing and supervising the academic program for the Institute. SPECIFICO talk 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

What about biographers? Are there any good biographies out there? I just found this short bio in a quick Google search...I'd be interested in your reactions to it. (Is it by a Missian? Is it accurate? Note: I've only skimmed it, and I have no idea if it's any good or not, but if it is, perhaps it would be useful in determining weight.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Steeletrap: Opinions of anarchists and iconoclasts are not necessarily banned from Wikipedia. And your inference that all of the Austrians in question (which seems to be dozens) just write polemics against "revered" figures is an inaccurate statement. Finally, since when is it Wikipedia's job to protect the reputation of revered individuals by removing or discrediting articles about anyone who writes critically of them?

User:Adjwilley - I did think you were more familiar with the content disputes. There are WP:RS articles that talk about many of these individuals, including other bios than the one you mention. I found lots over the last six months. The problem is the difficulty of getting sources like that into articles (unless of course they are highly critical or Hans-Hermann Hoppe quotes, since his bio has been so distorted).

Editors always have some excuse for removing neutral and positive material, even as they have wasted hours of our time in their defense of questionably sourced and highly negative material. Such chronic removals - just like lots of AfDs of bio articles replete with put downs of the subject - is discouraging to researching and editing. As I've said, at some point I do intend to just rewrite the whole Rothbard article in one fell swoop with these good sources (to avoid endless reverts and debates on each incremental edit) and when editors revert the whole thing at once, I can take it to NPOV or somewhere. Even if mediation actually works out, bold improvements in structure and content needed there.

The most absurd examples were talk page discussion of removal of 7 RS saying Rothbard was an Austrian economist and this RSN on removal of all most a dozen WP:RS on Rothbard being an historian. So you can see why I might have engaged in a lot of whining. Just wish I’d thought of mediation 4-5 months ago, but since last couple requests a few of us tried were rejected, it took your efforts for me to consider it again. Thank you!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc: As I believe that you are aware, there was never any dispute as to whether to call Murray an economist. The question was solely whether to list "economist" first, followed by "political theorist" or vice versa. A list of sources, even if they had all been impeccable RS, did not address the question of priority in the text. The straw man and WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT arguments from you and @Binksternet: lasted for weeks in multiple venues without ever addressing the simple matter in dispute -- priority. But tell me: Am I mistaken? Do you disagree that the issue was priority rather than whether to call MR an "economist" in the lede? SPECIFICO talk 15:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue included whether the infobox would be the economist one, or a general scholar one. As such, the issue was whether Rothbard was an economist first and foremost. The proof consisted of a great many sources describing him as an economist. Binksternet (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

[Insert: I think there was an emphasis on removing "Austrian" from economist at one point and the info box was changed to "Anarcho-capitalism", leading me to go to WikiProject economist and ask if there now was such a school of economics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

@Adjwilley: Hi. Thanks for your effort. That bio is written by longtime Mises Institute insider David Gordon (see his WP article for a vintage photo of him with the Mises Institute founders.) The bio is whitewashed and omits key detail and gives no indication of support or reaction to Rothbard's "scholarship" beyond a few weasel-sentences which imply without evidence that the works were taken seriously by independent scholars. Much of the text is strikingly similar to earlier versions of the Rothbard WP article, with somewhat different wording, in both content and sequence of presentation. Unfortunately this "bio" has already been cited by one editor who repeatedly alleged bias among those who don't accept Gordon's portrayal. SPECIFICO talk 15:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't go to the bottom to see if that it is "a" David Gordon bio. He's written several short ones AND a whole book. The Essential Rothbard published by Mises.org. There are two other book bios: Raimondo, Justin (2000). An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard, Prometheus Books and Casey, Gerard (2010). Meadowcroft, John, ed. Murray Rothbard. Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers series #15. London: Continuum and chapter in Ronald Hamowy, Editor, The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, Cato Institute, SAGE, 2008. Plus there are some smaller ones in my files probably never even mentioned yet. These barely have been mined for good info because of less productive debating activities as described above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Nothing has prevented you from adding what you assert is RS content over the past 12 years. That fish won't swim. SPECIFICO talk 16:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And you've had a year to beef up all the unreferenced or poorly referenced bios of the economists you probably like and I don't see you have been doing it. Unfortunately, on too many issues I spend most of my wiki time putting out POV BLP trash fires, not adding constructive material. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Do you want to file it or shall I? It's obvious that he's a sock of a banned user with a long track record of ideologically-motivated edits on these articles. Given his aggressiveness, your suggestion seems quite likely. MilesMoney (talk) 04:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I was just logging on for that very purpose. Incidentally, I was also hoping to have a chat with you. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, feel free to chat. Or, if it's sensitive, drop me email. MilesMoney (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I feel a bit weird filing an SPI on someone who I suspect was User:StillStanding-247's arch nemesis, while I am more than equally as certain that the person they were abusing is a sock of User:StillStanding-247. Wikipedia's a funny place I guess, and I appreciate irony. Anyway, I wanted to say that I haven't filed another SPI report on you in part because I was hoping that with the old one hanging over you, you would be more cautious about falling into the same patterns. I've said before that I don't hate you, and I appreciate your wry humor and unique personality. This constant borderline behavior and disruption, however, has just got to stop. Is there anything I can say to convince you to change your ways? ~Adjwilley (talk) 07:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

All I ask is that you hold me accountable for my own behavior, not that of anyone I remind you of. Yes, Rocco baited me into an edit war, but the reality is that he violated 3RR and should have been blocked the moment he set foot on ANI with dirty hands. It is a testament to how messed up that drama page is that he was allowed to get away with it. Accusations aside, I didn't violate BLP or RS, and I made attempts to discuss the dispute on the article talk page and the appropriate notification page. All of these things make me a much better editor than Rocco/Belchfire, much less Stillstanding.

I don't claim to be perfect, and if I did, I'd be a liar, but I'm confident that my overall impact upon the quality of Wikipedia articles is positive. Unfortunately, I'm also a lightning rod for the sort of people who wish I didn't keep getting in their way, but I don't see any way around that. I'd like to imagine that some would be ok with disagreeing with me without making it personal, but this seems unlikely.

Bottom line is that, if you have any specific suggestions, I'm willing to listen to them. But they have to be about me, not anyone else. MilesMoney (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, how would you feel about a voluntary 1RR restriction? (Not enforceable, just on your honor.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be easily abused against me by the sort of people who like to bring me to ANI at the drop of a hat. I'm all for pushing harder for BRD and avoiding edit wars, but not for making myself a target. MilesMoney (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood: nobody can take you to ANI for violating a voluntary 1RR restriction. Heck, I've been doing a voluntary 1RR for a couple years, and nobody took me to ANI the couple of times that I violated it. In fact, following a voluntary 1RR would be the exact opposite of making yourself a target. ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't need ANI to game the system. If I publicly committed to 1RR, an editor could simply revert a second time and then stall the discussion. Better that I avoid any commitment, but minimize my reverts. I've already been doing this; I just haven't announced it. However, I reserve the right to revert a second time, perhaps even a third. MilesMoney (talk) 07:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

If you've been keeping up with the ANI stuff, I did a 1RR on a pair of articles to restore deleted material and went to the talk pages to try to get some explanations. Despite this, my actions led to false accusations, evasive talk page comments, and reverts. I don't think 1RR is the answer. MilesMoney (talk) 06:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I noticed. Look at it this way...if you weren't so eager to revert you would be able to avoid the trouble you keep getting yourself into. The revert on the California representative (I don't remember his name) was a BLP violation (unless one holds the view that radical Islam = Islam, which I hope you don't) and though I know you didn't make the original edit and didn't mean to incorrectly paraphrase the guy, you ended up being held responsible for it because you couldn't keep your finger off the revert button. If you could just lay off the reverting and make your own edits many of your problems would go away. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

While I never objected to including "radical", that wasn't actually in the quote. The quote was correct; I verified it myself. But even if we assume I'm wrong, this only justifies adding the r-word, not removing all mention.

There is all too much of that sort of whitewashing going on, particularly on right-wing articles. Yet when I objected to outright libel against a Democratic operative, I got jumped on. Wikipedia has a serious political bias problem. MilesMoney (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

SPI

As I noted on the SPI page, there is about zero chance that Nazariyah is a sock of Belch, and a fairly slim chance that Rocco is (20% or less) -- there is, unfortunately, a specific epithet ("fellow traveler") that MM has used there which is precisely one which SS247 used repeatedly in the past, and about the same people -- making the odds thereon up to about 80% IMO. Especially if you look at the overlap in interests as well. If you were going to file an SPI case on him, I suggest you do so, as I suspect you have sufficient evidence thereon. There is, moreover, zero chance that MM is not a returnee to Wikipedia from his familiar contempt for me and Arzel as given in his post on the SPI page, and per his admissions above on your talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Appending: The only thing needed last time was "behavioural evidence" which is, at last, apparent. CU was not gonna prove much, but the attack on specific editors using the "fellow traveler" mantra, is. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd say your percentages are off: There's a 100% chance that Roccodrift is not new, and probably a 60% chance it's Belchfire. As for MM/SS, I'd put the percentage significantly higher than your estimate. I'm not really in the mood for more SPI drama right now...the last one was two months ago and I still haven't heard the end of it. Yes, there's more evidence now, and there has been for a long time, but it's not really something I personally want to pursue at the moment. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at times of edits for RD and Belch? I find the difference to be significant, and generally do not like accusations with that much of a difference. Also the overlap is very small for any "sock" I have seen - and I have reported a few with a 100% accuracy at SPI <g>. I just feel that if you believe MM is a sock, then his excuse "but I been behaving" is insufficient for a pardon -- and I assumed you had actually accumulated the evidence needed for an SPI on him. The last one did not exonerate him, AFAICT. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I did. Belch slept most consistently between 10:00 and 15:00 UTC and Rocco slept most consistently between 11:00 and 16:00 UTC. I don't see that as being a terribly significant difference. (If you do, you should probably drop the MM/SS theory as well, since they are also off by an hour or two.) On the MM/SS case, I'm not convinced that involving myself in another dramafest at SPI is the way to go...he's probably old enough now to be treated as himself. If he continues to go down the same road as StillStanding, he'll be blocked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Question on Checkuser

I want to volunteer for checkuser to put these incompetently-documented sock-puppet charges to rest. My concern is that I sometimes use WP in public places (mostly just the campus library at the university I attended, and the one I now teach at), and thus someone else could have logged on to the same IP that I did at some point. (Obviously, there would in this case be no (or virtually no) overlap in articles edited, etc, with the user who "shared" my IP by using the same public computer.) Does Checkuser account for such misleading false positives? Steeletrap (talk) 04:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, nobody really knows what the checkusers do but the checkusers. I'm certain they do account for those false positives, as a significant percentage of WP editors are college students. I've done my fair share of editing from university computer labs. That said, I'm fairly certain you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Nobody is going to do a CU on you based on that SPI. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll probably steer clear of it in that case since there seem to be a lot of contingencies, and perhaps some privacy issues, associated with it. BTW - is there any way I can get a section on the page to provide a salient response to the (pathetic, incompetent) charges? Given that I'm being accused, that only seems fair, although I have no idea what the norm is for socking investigations. Steeletrap (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

/* Speedy deletion nomination of Run Sheldon & TouchMail */

I need your help on activities of new user, who is nominating speedy page deletion of two pages that are notable TouchMail and Run Sheldon. Can you please look into this and do needful. Anishwiki12 (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...looks like the speedy noms have been declined (rightfully) and the articles are now candidates for either deletion or being moved to another wiki. The user does seem rather, well, aggressive, for a new user, and it's clear they have experience, possibly on other wikis. I've added their talk page to my watchlist. As for the nominations, I'm hard pressed to make a judgement call on that. The TouchMail article did seem a bit promotional, and the gaming article move proposal seemed ok. (I could see it going either way.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Harassment, PAs, and false accusations by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

Here, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz follows in the footsteps of Collect, accusing me of "socking" and being a liar, on an even more patently bogus basis: The fact that I said I've been a participant in many successful AfDs, including as nominator and participant. Here, s/he refuses to apologize or withdraw his PAs. Can you or another admin deal with this? Steeletrap (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

By coincidence, they just edit-warred to whitewash The Ayn Rand Cult, claiming it's not a cult-related book. Hilarious. MilesMoney (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what an AfD. I think cooler heads would have been helpful all around. I'm on vacation right now, and only get to use a computer every day or two, so I'm sorry I haven't been able to do much. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your vacation. MilesMoney (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The above attack on me is out of bounds in Wikipedia. Steeletrap has voted "delete" (and only "delete") on a total of 11 AfDs, of which only four ended as "delete." I consider "4" to be less than "many." It is pertinent to note the ArbCom rulings on "new religious movements" and on "cults" - the definition here used seems to allow articles on the LDS to be placed in the same category as long as they use the word "cult" in them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC) (participant in 550 AfDs now, and a larger number of MfDs IIRC)

First you ban me from your talk page, then you follow me around and contradict me? Tacky, tacky.

Also, you're completely wrong about the cult thing. MilesMoney (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My post addressed the contents of Steeletrap's post and ArbCom cases on point for issues raised in this section and has naught to do with you personally whatsoever -- as for "following you" that is likely Godot's entrance line. Editors can readily see the gist of your edits on my user talk page and deem whether I was intemperate or a candidate for sainthood with my patience. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

That's simply false. I was the one who brought up cults in this section, so your comments about cults necessarily involve me, even when you don't do me the courtesy of using my name. MilesMoney (talk) 00:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Problem editor.

Willey, I was wondering if you could help me with a problem editor I've run into. Let me outline the issue.

• Earlier, I noticed a category removal with an edit comment that was flat wrong. I reverted, with an explanation. According to BRD, what should happen next is a discussion, but that editor dropped the issue.
• Instead, another editor -- one whom I've never noticed had any interest in this topic but did have some hostile behavior towards me -- violated BRD by reverting it back, with a comment that was false in a different way. He claimed that the category was for books dealing with the subject generally, which is unquestionably false.
• Since nobody was talking, I opening a discussion. And since his revert was wrong (both in terms of BRD and the stated reason), I reverted with a comment insisting that he talk about it. My feeling was that, if I hadn't reverted, he would have ignored my attempt to get him to talk, based on prior experience. Despite this, he violated BRD some more by reverting again.
• He actually joined me on the talk page, but was argumentative and hostile. Instead of summarizing his reasoning, he made a snippy remark about how he had already explained in his edit comment, adding the false claim that I knew what his answer would be and that I didn't dispute his stated reason.
• Instead of responding kind, I chose not to take the bait. I replied politely, copying his edit comment since he had refused to, and quoting directly from the category to refute his claim. At the end, I asked him to self-revert.
• His response did not address my points at all. Instead, he denied the validity of the category's definition on a basis that makes no sense and violates WP:AGF. In fact, his logic was entirely reversed; his argument contradicted his conclusion. Since it didn't address what I said, it looked like an attempt to sidetrack the discussion. Rather than pick it apart, I rejected it.
• In the meantime, he decided to game the system by changing the category, though not in a way that makes sense. Previously, the category included "groups that had been called cults", which means that Wikipedia's voice was not used to call them cults. With his one-sided change, the category now stated in WP's voice that these really are cults, which is a violation of BLP/RS/etc.
• I reverted his change to the category, and of course he immediately reverted it back, violating BRD again. I once again tried to get us back on track by reverting with a comment asking him to discuss it. His response, of course, was to revert again (now at 3RR) and just ignore the discussion I started.
• Since he was at 3RR on the category, I warned him. He removed the warning with no reply other than an insulting edit comment accusing me of false reports and trolling. This was a personal attack.
• Finally, since the only place he was willing to respond was the book's talk page, I explained what was wrong with their edits. They once again chose not to respond.

I believe that this behavior seriously violates many important policies and must not be permitted to continue. MilesMoney (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)