This articlecontains material that may constitute ahoax. Please carefully verify any reliably sourced claims and addreliable sources for any uncited claims. If the claims cannot be verified, consider removing the section in question and/or nominating the article fordeletion. Please see thetalk page for details.(January 2013)
Awilley (bornAdjwilley; May, 2011– ), is aneditor andadministrator on the English Wikipedia.[1] He has an interest in religion, and is a member ofWikiProject Religion andWikiProject Latter Day Saint movement. In his administrative capacity, Awilley occasionally performsWikiGnome tasks, makes requested edits, protects articles, and blocks the occasionalsockpuppet, but tends to spend more time in long term dispute resolution.[citation needed]. During the late 2010s he spent a lot of time working in the American Politics "contentious topic" area. Awilley also enjoys editing articles, when he finds the time. Jamie was here LOL
Awilley has been involved in controversy, which we should mention here because notable controversy should always be mentioned in alead section. One of Awilley's pet peeves is when people tack random factoids onto the end of the Lead because they couldn't be bothered to take an extra minute to work it into a relevant place in the article body.
Awilley created a Wikipedia account on July 10, 2006,[2] but didn't begin editing actively editing until about May 2011.[citation needed] Initially he made a fair number of newbie mistakes, such as using talk pages as draft spaces or sandboxes for editing articles, but gradually started figuring stuff out by reading links on a Welcome template.[3] He still has the habit of using sandboxes as draft spaces.
Awilley tends to edit articles about religion, science, and music, in that order. He also edits random articles on subjects he is researching.
Awilley has expressed interest in methods of resolving disputes, and has said that sticking closely toWikipedia policy helps. He also sometimes adopts aSocratic type approach to disagreements, asking people questions until he can understand their point of view.
Awilley reads more than he writes and is known forwatching the pages of other users and reading the archives of old talk pages.
Awilley's is an inexperienced[5] and extremely problematic[6] editor, and administrator. He rarely cites Wikipedia policy, and when he does, he misunderstands it.[6] His edits are POV, and he stalks people.[6] He is also not transparent in his communication, and likes to send people abusive emails.[6] Awilley is also a fascist[7] edit warrior.[8][improper synthesis?] In 2012 he was reported atWP:ANEW for edit warring.[9]
In 2014 Awilley was part of a 3-admin panel that closed a move review atHillary Rodham Clinton that caused a considerable amount of controversy.[citation needed]
In 2024 Awilley didn't disclose his alma matter before voting in aWP:AN/I thread about a different editor associated with his alma mater. That resulted in two AN/I sub-threads being opened about Awilley.[14][15][16][17]
Awilley's former username was the inspiration for sockpuppet account namedAdjSilly, created and blocked in 2012. During Awilley's RfA in 2013, an opposer said that "There are enough essays on him that an Adjwilleyism template would be possible." In 2019 Awilley's userpage was referenced in a humorousa humorous Wikipedia Signpost article. Awilley probably also features in a meme somewhere on the internet.
I hereby award you this Barnstar for your indefatigable efforts at improving LDS-themed articles.Kant66 (talk) 01:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
For taking the most fair-minded approach at a sensitive article. Oh yeah, the liquid in the mug is hot chocolate.Canadiandytalk 05:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For imagining a whole new approach to the lead at the Joseph Smith article which will be more engaging for the reader, hits the main points succinctly and effectively, and which is both fair and neutral in tone and style.Canadiandytalk 05:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your ability to disagree without being disagreeable.John Foxe (talk) 14:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The Editor's Barnstar
For soundness and skill in making articles more balanced and more engaging. Keep up the good work! —Eustresstalk 04:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
For your good help with your mentoring!Scott Delaney (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
The Morning Star Award
For your tireless efforts at WP:LDS and Mormonism articles – SirLionel,EG(talk) 04:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
Please accept this much-coveted Barnstar of Diplomacy for adding more light than heat to the discussions on the Homophobia article talk page, and for being a shining example of bringing editors together in the spirit of collaboration. -MrX 00:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I was trying to get to the meat without straying into contentious territory but I will go back and change it.Geraldshields11 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
For your work on a complicated closing on a yet another move request atHillary Rodham Clinton. The other half goes to TParis. Thanks again for all your hard work! (Mark Miller)Maleko Mela (talk) 06:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
beatitudes Thank you, willing gnome with a scientific background and the absolute pitch for controversy, forimproving Beatitudes and nourishing Dies irae in yoursandbox, for a smile-provoking user page, for "most of the edits are related to these controversial issues" and "asking people questions until he can understand their point of view", - you are anawesome Wikipedian!
As befits my cultural background, I'd like to offer you a cup of tea. I appreciate your willingness to assume good faith, something we should all do more of. I know you've taken a chance on me, but I shan't allow you to regret it.RGloucester —☎ 04:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
I think the work you did at the Arbitration enforcement 2 case goes a very long way into cutting through the hyperbole on both sides and gives a better picture than all the other participants combined. While you can't help but to draw some conclusion, I think most people would agree they are rational and at the very least, plausible. Whatever the outcome, I can't help but to think the Arbs will pay close attention to your contribution and it will help them formulate an outcome that is equitable and truly better foreveryone involved. You continue to impress with your fairness.[3].Dennis Brown -2¢ 18:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The Anti-Flame Barnstar
I knew that an indefinite block was in Funkatastic's future long before most. His terrible attitude during our conflict last year caught me by surprise, and I (foolishly) allowed him to coerce me into a 3RR violation. Editors who "live" for conflict with other editors, personal attacks, and unwillingness to accept failure or follow rules are all doomed to that same fate. I ardently thank you for your great judgment against a problematic figure whose behaviors threatened Wikipedia as a whole. I award this barnstar to you for doing what I failed to do. Perhaps if I had kept a cool head, many conflicts would not have taken place... Happy editing!~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 06:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For meticulous research and contributions to process on en.Wikipedia.SPECIFICOtalk 14:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your leadership in updating{{American politics AE}} and doing the behind-the-scenes technical cleanup to ensure that the consensus is implemented.Kevin (akaL235·t·c) 00:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
The Admin's Barnstar
For your tireless holding of the guard and helpful enforcement of the ArbCom DS system in the AP2 topic area (a task and area that very few admins are willing to put up with the stress for, yet a task that is highly necessary for our readers), I award you this Illustrious Admin's Barnstar. Thank you so much for your effort and clear professionalism in an area I was quite worried about falling apart in my absence.—Coffee //have a ☕️ //beans // 05:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
^Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive186#User:Adjwilley Awilley had reverted twice (2RR) on May 30 and and twice more on June 1 in a dispute spanning 3 days. As no edits had been made on the middle day (May 31) the edit history on the article made it look like Awilley had reverted 4 times (4RR) in a 24 hour period, which would have crossed the bright-line threshold for an immediate block. Neither the reporting party nor the administrator responding to the 3RR report noticed the error in the report, and Awilley was offline when the report was made. But the administrator declined to block Awilley because he had been using the talk page, opting instead to protect the article. Awilley has always remembered this, and in his own admin work tries to look for alternatives to blocking good faith users when they cross 3RR.
