`  ::Kudos from me, too. Interestingly, the response here states, ``in the context of Wikipedia, it's the equivalent of counting to ten``. What status does this editor think he has which grants him the standing to publicly ``count to ten`` in judgment of other editors? I do not think this either helps other editors, or builds an encyclopedia. ::He's been meting out this public opprobrium for years, ever since 2007 when he first deleted an appropriate caution from an editor he disparaged in public, and hundreds of times per year ever since.  This year, 17 times so far in December , 8 times in November, etc. Given its sole use, I cannot conclude it's simply a made up word, or simply ``counting to ten``.  He used it on me   as I worked (and sought cooperation) to bring a list of software products from unsourced spambait into RS guideline compliance in Plagiarism detection (edit history).  My edits were upheld by WP:3O, and he used ``awai`` on that editor, too.  It should be noted that in this discussion the editor maintains and defends the belief that a single source must support all claims in a section or embedded list, and that multiple independent overlapping sources don't count, and never relinquishes it. ::This is a sour editor who refuses to publicly agree, cooperate, admit a mistake, or (apparently) read policies or guidelines. When he was blocked for outing in November 2010, he repeatedly requested to be unblocked without apparently reading the guideline for requesting unblocking, and had to be pointedly spoon fed the words to copy/paste in order for his unblock request to be (finally) accepted.  This editor is (in my opinion) unacceptably tone-deaf to cooperative, constructive editing or helpful discussion.    `