User talk:Winkelvi

This is Winkelvi's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

This editor is a
**Senior Editor II**
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Hi, welcome to my talk page!

I'm only human and I make plenty of errors -- if you are here to complain about a tag, a warning, a deletion, or something I've said, please assume good faith.
If you've had any kind of issue or misunderstanding in your dealings with me, there is an excellent article/essay on Wikipedia editors with Asperger Syndrome found here that might help.

This user has
Asperger's.

If you're here because of an editing issue or a revert I've made to one or more of your edits and you feel I've made an error, please leave me a civil message on my talk page. Being rude will get you nowhere.
If you have erred, chances are I'll help you get round it and over it, but I don't like game players
Pet peeve: Editors who spend more time reverting others than actually writing content and/or finding sources to support content written by others. Instead of deleting/reverting content out with a dismissive "Unsourced", have you tried to find a source first? If the answer is 'no', it should be pointed out that such behavior is disruptive because it tears down rather than builds up. We are supposed to build an encyclopedia, not rip it to shreds. Deletionism vs. inclusionism. I used to be a deletionist, but no more (with the exception of culling undue weight). I also used to be an edit warrior. All of the aforementioned behavior goes hand-in-hand with edit warring, and actually is edit warring/bullying, even if the 3RR bright line hasn't been crossed.
Chronic edit warriors (both individually operating or tag-teamers) are engaging in assholery as it benefits nothing but their own egos and personal need for a sense of power. It can also be a form of harassment and hounding, depending on who's doing it, to whom, where, and when. Being a chronic asshole in Wikipedia is antithetical to building an encyclopedia and does nothing but disrupt. No doubt such "editors" are also assholes in social media and other forms of internet communication. Bottom line, it's a way to get attention through bullying and only emphasizes their own insecurities - which brings me to the policy of WP:NOTTHERAPY. How many "editors" are using Wikipedia as therapy? Probably more than one realizes at first glance. Don't be an edit warrior.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We need another Trump-focused editor like we need a hole in the head." -- Posted in Wikipedia by a long-time Wikipedia editor, October 29, 2018 Bias? Nah. There's no us-versus-them bias in Wikipedia designed to cull politically Conservative editors - don't be ridiculous! (yes, that was sarcasm)

"When an editor doesn't know the difference between POV language and encyclopedic language and insists on the presence of POV language in a Wikipedia article, they need to go elsewhere. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia is being destroyed by these users who are using Wikipedia for their agenda pushing and entertainment. It's been going on for the ten years I've been here, but never so prominently as this very moment." -- Via email, from a wise, longtime Wikipedia editor who shall remain anonymous

"The reality is that Wikipedia is not a grassroots collaborative crafted through the shared effort of People Like Us. Its rules are applied selectively and secretively. It is common to find articles on living persons written up as smear jobs, replete in some cases with outright libel but more often disguised as “neutral” assessments in which undue weight is given to negative evaluations and mischaracterizations of a person’s work while their defining achievements are minimalized or left out. Victims of these hit pieces have no opportunity to address the attacks on their reputation by anonymous editors whose qualifications are frequently nonexistent. Despite Wikipedia’s stated protections against character assassination – drawn up in the aftermath of a scandal which saw a journalist smeared as an accessory to the Kennedy assassination – the rules are selectively enforced and there is a clear bias toward individuals whose work supports the status quo, whatever their field...a cabal of ideologically-motivated editors control what can and cannot be uttered by the modern Oracle of Delphi with a Kafkaesque thicket of rules that morph to suit their purposes, locking outspoken anti-establishment voices in reputational cages from which there is no conceivable escape." -- From "Wikipedia: the Modern Delphic Oracle" by Helen Buyniski, on the Gary Null Show - 25 September 2018 [1]

"There's a trend I'm noticing more and more every day in print and televised media, social media, and Wikipedia: Americans who hate President Donald Trump more than they love the United States of America. They aren't a majority but they are loud and they are being enabled by the press and the internet. And that, frankly, is incredibly dangerous and frightening." -- Me

The Facts stood in front of a crowd of Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers and said: "Hey, I'm The Facts, did you want me?"
The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers replied, "We only want the part of you that supports our opinion!"
The Facts replied naively, "Ha-ha, you can't just take a part of me, silly!"
After having a bite taken out of it by The Angry Agenda-Driven Finger Pointers, The Facts sadly and with tears dejectedly said, "But...they could. And did."
True story. Just look at the politically-based articles in Wikipedia and their related talk pages for evidence.

"Jesus fucking christ, you people can bring this to ANI if you want, but I'm a fucking liberal who hates Trump and I agree with motherfucking Breitbart right now that you fuckers are bending over backwards to push you[r] POV into this article instead of making even the slightest good faith effort to be an encyclopedia."[2] -- written by a woke, honest Wikipedian

"Trust no one here or anywhere on the internet unless they are a personal friend or family member. People love to screw with others online, usually because they have empty, meaningless lives and want to take their personal misery out on others from their computer keyboards." -- Me

"Those who spend more time reverting the edits of others and directly quoting 'sources' rather than actually writing content with their own prose aren't editors, they are "users" (because they USE Wikipedia to promote their own biases and get a feeling of power by toying with the real editors)" -- Me

"Know and remember this: The title of Eliot Ness' book "The Untouchables" is also a metaphor. Untouchable individuals exist in every system that eventually becomes corrupt and organized crime isn't always criminal by immediate definition. Mafia tactics exist on various levels in practically every walk of life. Thing is, Karma is a real concept, what goes around eventually always comes around. You just have to be patient and wait it out to have that moment of satisfied vindication." -- Me

Wikipedia is no place for humour.
Everything is very serious here and we are all terrifically important.

Some Wikilove for you

	White Russian
	Did you know that the White Russian is not really Russian. Merely accused of being Russian. Kinda like you! – Lionel^(talk) 10:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I'll be sure to drink it. Since it isn't likely to make me Russian. Never did like their winter hats lol. Thanks, Lionelt for the laugh! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMG - seriously...that's what I had during Happy Hour at my house yesterday!!! Shhhhh...🤐 ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With a side of borscht and caviar while wearing your ushanka, right? :-D -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely!

^{Atsme📞📧} 16:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wears it better...? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		Thank you for all your efforts at Liberty University and other articles, remaining civil and ensuring that content is encyclopedic and NPOV. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Marquis de Faux. I try my best to accomplish all those things. Your thanks are appreciated. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does make sense...

You see, I was the 🎯and not anyone else - they pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. I've heard that somewhere...funny how certain things stick in one's mind. Hope you're taking some time to enjoy the weekend, Winkelvi. Plumbing issues have been my most recent priority - seems like I've had more than my share of 💩 in my life. Now...where the hell is Karma?? 😂 ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Atsme. That plan of attack you mentioned above is #13 in a particular list, isn't it? [3] Yes, I do believe it is. Funny how real life mirrors internet life, isn't it? You've got shit issues, I've got pest issues. Waiting for Orkin to show up anytime now. At my home, that is. Hopefully, the karma bus to the rescue isn't actually this one and isn't driven by a guy named Edgar as seen in this film. Then again, he did seem to know his shitty pests and life does often imitate art! ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😂😂!!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 18:50, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sixth pillar, I guess

This is "building an encyclopedia"?

😂😂😂😂😂😂 - I just caught on to what you meant. Freaking hilarious!!! ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I did the research - you haven't quite reached the 6th pillar - there are a few more pillars ahead of you - [4]. My research does not include any of the spikes at Talk:EEng. Pardon me - I need to take a short break to doctor the rug burns on my elbows from ROTFLMAO. --^{Atsme📞📧} 03:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

😂😂😂😂😂😂 -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Suicides at the Golden Gate Bridge, which is largely your work, is an excellent contribution to the encyclopedia. It is of special interest to me because I have crossed that bridge perhaps a thousand times and my father was very interested in the design and management of that bridge, and advocated for a suicide barrier. He also supported movable lane safety barriers. Both of those things came to pass after his death.

It is possible to appreciate the work that an editor does for the encyclopedia while simultaneously being concerned about some aspects of the editor's behavior. That is the case here. Please take my concerns seriously, and I will reciprocate. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have friends and relatives who were there for the building and dedication of the bridge. Yes, I'm that old. Thanks for the thanks. We need to see more of that in Wikipedia offered by administrators. Actively and often. Not in conjunction or simultaneously. Focus on the one needs to outweigh the other. I'll let you guess which is 'one' and which is 'other'. Recently saw an episode of The Waltons where John, the father, got a job in an office in Charlottesville. The boss/manager in the office was tyrannical and controlling - feared by his staff. They never got any praise or thanks but plenty of negative criticism and threats. Employees were pitted against each other through favoritism and plotted against each other in an act of survival. Places like that soon become eat-or-be-eaten. In a work environment, one gets a paycheck and so it's understandable why folks will put up with that kind of thing. In a volunteer situation, no one should, yet we do because we like the reasons why we volunteered in the first place. Praise and visible appreciation has to take the place of the paycheck for volunteers. Without it, you get discontent and people act out because that is human nature. New "bosses" often come into their management position with wide-eyed enthusiasm and the best of intentions. But with the eat-or-be-eaten environment, that enthusiasm and those best intentions are eventually replaced by less favorable behaviors, including the picayune and heavy-handedness. That's my take on the sociology and psychology of it all, at least. Nothing personal intended, just my own evolutionary observations of the parallel between the tv episode mentioned above with "this place" and how to fix it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I spend a lot of time answering questions from new editors at the Teahouse, in the hope of helping them write acceptable articles. I believe that a review of my editing history shows that I try hard to be helpful and polite, and that I thank other editors for their work quite often. I did not seek out the role of administrator and actually declined quite a few requests to put my name forward. But eventually I agreed and the community in turn agreed to give me the tools such as the power to delete unacceptable articles and to block disruptive editors. I take that very seriously and I try to be cautious and conservative in their use. It is tough to warn someone in a friendly way, but I do try and I am obviously still learning. At this point, the toughest part of being an administrator is dealing with highly productive content contributors who sometimes engage in disruptive behavior. My goal is always to work towards ending the disruption without losing an editor. This is not easy and I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I've been noticing your contributions to discussions on some of the talk pages I frequent, and I'm consistently impressed by your civil approach and conduct, sometimes as the lone voice in a crowded room of opposition. Well Done! Bennycat (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bennycat. I think there are those who would disagree with you, but I do appreciate you noticing that I truly do attempt to maintain civility as much as possible. Cheers! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:17, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

MONGO, check your email. Can't post the notification on your talk page, so I'm posting it here. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 04:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checked. Remember I am a member of the Vast right-wing conspiracy...associating with me is a very bad idea on this site!--MONGO (talk) 15:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you are not actually a Russian agent or associated with some well-coordinated and trained group designed to infiltrate Wikipedia and push a particular agenda, I'll take my chances, MONGO. ;-) -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:46, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only agenda I ever had here was to keep the lunatics at bay. Some folks here have one purpose and that's to do nothing but promote their political ideology. They edit almost nothing else...not a bridge article, or one about a massive landslide or even about a mountain or a monument like Mount Rushmore. All they edit is political articles...and oddly, almost none of them get sanctioned, unless they are truly horrid. The admin corp on the site defend them, even when they openly state that they have nothing but negative sentiments about the subject they are editing...I guess they could be thanked for admitting their bias, but sure strikes me as odd as hell that their constant efforts to emplace nothing but negativisms into these same bios are held to be beacons of neutrality. Anywhere else, like in some place where sanity reigns, this entire theater event would be comical.--MONGO (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amen, brother -- preach it! There are so many other things important and enjoyable in this world to add and edit than politics. I've spent quite a bit of time and honest effort editing each of the things you mentioned above (as you know), in attention to contributing images I've spent much time prettying up and taking on my own. How incredibly joyful it is to just do that and not have to face near-immediate reversion of my thoughtful edits because of an agenda to be pushed or to have to endlessly defend an addition or removal of content. Some people live for controversy, division, and dissention. Some do that as well as seeking to crush what they see as an online opponent. What gets criticized? The honest editing effort. What gets ignored? The controversial, divisive, dissenting behavior. What gets praised? Not the good articles created, the good content added, the beautiful images gifted. If more attention was paid to the good behavior over the bad behavior with the good behavior rewarded, the perpetrators of the bad behavior would see that and seek it for themselves, eventually abandoning the bad behavior. In turn, if the perpetrators of the good behavior would feel properly rewarded and see the bad behavior quelled, there would be less arguing between the good and bad and the good would prevail. It's basic behavior management. But, you have to have a majority of good among the rewarders to make it work the right way. There in lies the rub. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓

And that my friends is exactly why a place like AE or arbcom are failures. Unless someone is a monk here and has never engaged in a "battlefield" discussion, even the very best at being cordial will trip up more than once...sometimes really nastily as its a normal human condition. When faced with object ignorance we can decide to either not argue with fools or almost inevitably make oneself look the fool for arguing. Of course some of us need a prodding, a reminder or two to simmer down, but the ban and block buttons are used to frequently, too unilaterally, etc. and all that does is foster resentments, especially if this action has a very partisan application.--MONGO (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or join this as I did like 13 years ago! [5]--MONGO (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MoS and first names

Hi. Regarding Cindy McCain and your edits to "remove misuse of first name per MOS" etc, have you seen MOS:SAMESURNAME? It explicitly permits usage of first names in certain contexts, such as for political couples, where otherwise the writing would get too confusing or awkward. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your condescending question: yes, I've seen the policy. With the proper use of pronouns and nouns in the content, use of her first name or her husband's first name/first name with last name is unnecessary. And actually, how it was written, was extremely awkward. But if you read closely the policy you noted above, the use of first names isn't justified. Good, intuitive, and creative writing eliminates the need for what you are suggesting, Wasted Time R. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:34, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not meant to be condescending at all and I apologize if it came across that way – MOS:SAMESURNAME is separated by an intervening section from MOS:SURNAME and my experience has been that even veteran editors sometimes miss it. As for the policy, different people interpret it differently. I was peripherally involved in the creation of MOS:SAMESURNAME and I know that some other articles which rely on it use unadorned first names and joint first/last names more often than you do. That said, I don't intend to contest your changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased you had not intended to sound condescending, Wasted Time R, and I appreciate you clarifying. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

You've been mentioned here at ANI. Leaving a procedural notice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:02, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification, SNUGGUMS. Coincidentally and completely by accident, I also made note of MF's behavior in reverting and ignoring advice from several editors at WP:AN here: [6]. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the odds of our timing :P. Just read your post, and I'm sure at least one thread will lead to a block. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS, I simply don't understand why she would do what she did when (a) she knows that kind of behavior is what got her blocked to begin with; (b) she promised not to lather, rinse, repeat; (c) she was told to not go there by several admins at the AN thread as well as at Drmies' talk page just hours after she was unblocked. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, neither do I. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:14, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

If you are genuinely in good faith trying to help MaranoFan to integrate back to the community, I would suggest in a similar situation next time, please leave a message at their talk page first, wait for a little bit to give them a chance to self-revert, and if nothing happens after that, then revert with individual justifications (not with the same copy and pasted edit summaries). Otherwise it gives a different impression regardless of you are saying. Alex Shih (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. And yes, I was genuinely in good faith trying to help MF integrate back into the community. Why in the world would I lie about it? I'm not known in Wikipedia as a liar, why the fuck would I start now? Thanks for the note. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ding dong!!! 🎎

Happy Halloween!

Why are demons and ghouls always together?

Because demons are a ghoul's best friend.

What happens when you goose a ghost?

You get a hand full of sheet.

^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:53, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the greeting, Atsme Enjoy the festivities on Wednesday! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding input

Hello,

I was just wondering if you can take a quick look at the talk page at The Washington Times about ongoing lead issues. There has been a lot of news spamming and unencyclopedic content pushed lately, and it would be nice to have someone more level headed look at it.

Thanks!

Marquis de Faux (talk) 00:38, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look later today. Thanks for the heads-up, Marquis de Faux. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

As you have clearly violated your interaction ban against MaranoFan on Meghan Trainor, including snarky edit summaries you are blocked indefinitely. I appreciate the article has issues and needs cleanup; that's kind of one of the goals of a GA review, but there are other editors around to help, and you knew full well what would happen if you did this. If you want to appeal the block, please add {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to your talk page as per the usual process. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the community of the block and started a discussion : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Winkelvi Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What? I haven't said anything to or about MaranoFan. What's going on here? What GA review? Ritchie333, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 12:59, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa. I just looked at the link you provided above, that wasn't snarky in the least nor was it directed at anyone. It's very similar to many edit summaries I leave when editing articles that are filled with fan site material, content, and wording. And if you think I was aiming any of my edits or comments toward MF, you are 100% wrong. I wasn't considering MF in the least with my edits. I have no idea what she's up to, don't care. Why do you think those edits were about her? And I still have no idea what you're talking about in regard to "one of the goals of a GA review". I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what you're thinking here because I'm totally in the dark. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, shit. Looking at the Trainor article talk page, I see that MF put the article up for a GA review. Honestly, I had no clue. Why would I? I didn't realize MF had edited the article a few hours before I did. Looking at article edit history is not something I do before editing and article. If I had, I would haven't even attempted to edit the article for probably several days. If I had know she put it up for GA, I wouldn't have touched it at all. This is a case of bad timing and coincidence, not an iban vio. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, looking at your comments now at AN, I see you quoted the following: ""This means no commenting on the other editor, no reviewing their GAN's, no pointing out their failings. Leave each other alone and go about your regular editing business .... As both editors are well aware of what an Iban is, failing to observe it will be very quickly considered disruptive." Absolutely NONE of that happened with my edits. None of it. You're making a big leap by assuming my edit summary was directed at MF (it wasn't, because as I explain above, I had no clue MF added any of the content I removed). You're also assuming I knew about the GA (I didn't, not until just a few minutes ago when I looked at your comments at your own talk page and the article talk page). None of my edit summaries were directed at anyone in particular, let alone MF. The reason why is because (1) I don't think about MF other than to remind myself to leave her alone; (2) I'm not an idiot and wouldn't do something so that would put me in a situation where I would get blocked. Especially not indeffed. I get how it might seem I did these things, but if you take a step back and look at it objectively, I would hope you'd recognize that me putting my editing career here in jeopardy over something so petty (which is what you think I did) doesn't make any sense at all and is not really part of my pattern over the last few years. I would NEVER knowingly violate the iban - never. I'm asking you to take a moment to consider all of this, because it makes logical sense. That I would go after MF after the reminder of the iban a couple of months ago, does not. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I now have is that I have your word (this was an honest mistake) against the conversation on my talk page (this was too much of a co-incidence not to try and game the system). Which one of you is right? I'll wait to see who else responds at the AN thread, and if there are no comments within 24 hours I'll unblock as "time served". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that's a problem. I had no clue that discussion was going on at your talk page until I looked at your talk page a few minutes ago. Why would you or anyone think I'm paying attention to any of this stuff? I've been editing Wikipedia sparingly for the last month or so, decided to stay away more because of the frustration I was feeling from the political article editing frenzy I was seeing before the midterm elections. My editing has been more toward non-political articles. I haven't even been looking at my watchlist for the same reason. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions, including the assumption that I'm caring or paying attention to what MF is doing. Other than hoping she's doing well and enjoying her return to editing, I don't care what MF is up to and I'm sure not following where she goes in Wikipedia. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful if you explain what brought you to the Meghan Trainor article. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that I've been editing the article for several years. That I saw something about her on the news yesterday and thought I'd look at the article to see if I could improve it since I hadn't been there for a while. The first thing I noticed was that something incorrect in the article I had changed a while back had been edited again back to the incorrect wording. That was my first edit to it yesterday along with removing what I consider to be fan cruft and peacocking - not unusual for celebrity and musician articles. I didn't care who made the edits and didn't investigate because it didn't/doesn't matter to me. If I had looked, I would have seen MF was there just a few hours before I and would have left it alone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking us to believe that you really had no idea that MaranoFan had been making edits to that article, and that you just happened to come in and start making extensive edits just hours later after not having been near it for some time (reverting MaranoFan's changes with a snarky summary, and reverting against consensus in one instance)? And it was pure coincidence that you just happened to have seen something in the news that made you revisit the article? What this looks like to me is pedantic lawyering to frame an excuse for a clear IBAN violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) For context, Winkelvi has 88 edits to the article since August 2014, so it's hardly News Of The World material. ——SerialNumber54129 13:49, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except that 35 of those edits were yesterday -- and the last edit before those were a single edit three years ago. So it's not the mitigating factor you seem to imply. --Calton | Talk 15:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Calton: I wasn't "implying" anything, and if you inferred such a thing, then you should probably refresh your understanding of the word "context". Thank you. ——SerialNumber54129 15:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't "implying" anything...

Why yes, yes you were, by inflating the edit count AND leaving off that it had been (one more time) THREE YEARS since his last edit, you certainly implied that he had a level of investment in the article not actually borne out by the facts. Maybe you should refresh YOUR understanding of both the actual meaning of "context" and of the word "imply". --Calton | Talk 15:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should both refresh you understanding of WP:AGF? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Boing, I do expect you to believe me. Why? Because it's the truth. Another reason why is because, and you can take this to the bank too, if I ever decide to die on a hill in Wikipedia it sure as hell isn't going to be over Meghan Trainor. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, can I suggest something you might consider doing to help towards getting your block lifted? If I come back to an article in which I have an interest and I see extensive changes have been made since I was last there, the first thing I do is have a look to see who made the changes. And if I think any of them are controversial, I check to see if there's been any discussion and consensus. Maybe that's just me, but I would have expected most people to do that rather than just diving in to rewrite things the way they want them. Perhaps if you made a commitment to do that - to always check who made the changes that you think need reworking? I think that might help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just add that when you are under an interaction ban, and you edit in an area where the other editor also works, it really is a requirement on you to check whose edits you are reverting or changing and be sure you're not violating your IBAN. You should always do some preemptive checking. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your suggestions, Boing! said Zebedee and can certainly make a commitment to that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I sent you an email requesting you put my response and comments from here at the AN thread. In the meantime, maybe a couple of things should be noted: 1 - My account of how this happened is the complete and utter truth; I would not throw my editing career at Wikipedia away for something this silly. 2 - Something has been noted by two others at AN which made me realize that there are editors commenting at AN who may not realize that the IBAN did not include never editing the same articles as MF. If that were the case, I would be looking at all articles I edit or want to edit to see if MF were there recently of at all. Fact is, MF didn't even cross my mind until I saw the block notice this morning and she didn't when I was editing an article I started editing years ago (a considerable amount of time before MF had a Wikipedia account, as someone else noted). This is a pure case of wrong place, wrong time, nothing more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but WV made the snarky edit summary comments and then systemically reversed the other editors series of changes without looking at the edit history? Really hard to believe that story. Look at the edit history - it is clear what happend. Not like this was some typo fixes on an obscure topic months after the other editor was there. WV is under 1RR so should be checking edit historys to be sure not to cross 1RR anyway. They know that reversing changes on an IBANed editor is a violation. Legacypac (talk) 19:44, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the comments you made at the noticeboard maybe not the classiest thing to do is come here and shit.--MONGO (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO also commented at AN...yet here they are too? Legacypac (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps both of you should just keep the discussion on the noticeboard. Don't see how discussion here will help in either direction. zchrykng (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Buzz off troll.--MONGO (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I have no idea what makes you think I'm a troll. If you are just venting, I would ask you to strike your personal attack. If you have legitimate concerns please tell me what they are on my talk page. zchrykng (talk) 13:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, I did get your emails Winkelvi; I haven't purposefully ignored them, I was just doing other things last night. I think you just need to let the AN thread play out; other editors have dealt with your concerns. As you can probably figure out from the related conversations, I was expecting me to get a slap on the wrist and something like "alright, no need to go mad with the block button, a couple of days block is enough", not for everybody to endorse my block as good. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your block was understandable but I don't think it should have been indef. Obviously, mine is a minority view, but I read the diffs and I don't see sarcasm in Winkelvi's edit summary. I think his version is plausible and he agreed to what Boing instructed above. When dealing with someone on the spectrum, it may be necessary to spell things out in black and white and set clear limits. I don't always agree with Winkelvi by any means, but I see the value in his contributions and I hate to see him run off the project. Jonathunder (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this block, and read the events that led here. Apparently MaranoFan did not have the courtesy to tell Winkelvi that he was violating the IBAN when reporting the issue to User talk:Ritchie333#Meghan Trainor article, so that admins only saw one side of the story, and WV could only explain his actions after he had been blocked. This looks like an excessive sanction, the AN thread was a predictable pile-on, and I would appeal for the imposing admin(s) (@Ritchie333 and Boing! said Zebedee:) to dial it back to a couple weeks, with perhaps some mentoring after that (MONGO made interesting suggestions below). — JFG ^talk 12:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CBAN: "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". There was a consensus at AN to uphold the indef block, so it is out of the hands of any individual admin to reduce the duration of the block, and Winkelvi would have to appeal to the community. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see an experienced and responsible editor like JFG make such an appeal out of process, effectively saying that his reasoning should take precedence over this community consensus. One man's "predictable pile-on" is another man's wide agreement, and we're in (even more) trouble if admins start second-guessing the community in that manner. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I said my bit. Would have said the same in the AN thread if I had been aware of it. I understand this ship has sailed, and WV can appeal after 6 months. Still sounds unfair, given his explanation above, and the lack of AGF from the other party to the IBAN. — JFG ^talk 12:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community as I see it would be VP, not AN or ANI, both of which I consider to occassionally be more of an embarrassment to the community than an asset that justly serves the community, but that’s just my opinion. I hope you never find yourself there forced to defend yourself. It gets ugly. Mandruss, you might want to take a look at the discussion over at MaranoFan’s TP, and comment there as well. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 12:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just hoping Ritchie333 doesn't IAR as they said they might and lift MaranoFan's block. That Ritchie333 blocked Winkelvi and is now doing a GA assessment on the article MaranoFan has worked on (that Winkelvi also worked on as well) is suspicious enough. For Ritchie33 to lift that block would be even more ill-advised than this block was. The "community" had many wise admins that chimed in but they were drowned out by others that had an axe to grind, a score to settle and partisan itches to scratch. All this chatter about how Winkelvi is a liar, is playing us, has been harassing and my favorite for preposterousness...that Winkelvi led a meatpuppet ring...or similar are all partisan chants by his political opponents or in the case of MaranoFan, serial sockmasters with lengthy block log themselves.--MONGO (talk) 13:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I'm jumping up and down and cheering about Winkelvi being blocked, which I hope would be obvious from the number of times in the past that I've defended him and stuck my neck out to stop him getting kicked out. I don't really give a flying monkeys who has said what to whom and when, I just wanted to see if I could get an article improved. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:09, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw you had even said you'd not oppose a shorter block for Winkelvi or reduced to time served. I got that. As I stated above, it would be even more ill-advised were you to do as you suggested you might and IAR and lift the block on MaranoFanz especially reading the entirety of that comment I linked above and after blocking Winkelvi. Best if that block is lifted to allow a less involved admin do it.--MONGO (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, you may not be jumping up and down and cheering, but you're not unhappy about it. MONGO is correct: your enthusiastic and near-gushing attitude about doing the GA for MF is really, really suspicious following the block of the individual who was blocked for editing the article you are reviewing. Then, when you take that along with how you ignored my emails and comments to you in regard to the block and were likely communicating with other admins and non-admins about the entire situation out of the public eye (don't deny it, you know it happened) -- it all stinks. It partisan politics stinks. You were on me a while back about something I said or edited at a politically centered article. Every single one of the sharks at the AN who were enthusiastic about the site ban have, at one time of another, come up against me at a politically centered article either editing-wise or at the talk page. Any of those editors who would claim differently are lying. My keen Naval Aviator and military-crafted spidey-sense tells me that in combination with the very, very conspicuous absence of two admins who always chimed in at ANs or ANIs were I was involved and have been on my ass about what they assume are my political leanings for the last eight-to-nine months. None of this is coincidental. Except for my ill-fated and badly-timed presence at the Meghan Trainor article. You all saw the perfect opportunity to get rid of me, which, I don't doubt has been on several admins' radar for a while. Actually, it's obvious to me that plan has been in the works since February, based on a particular two administrators' comments to me then at AN/I. This was dumb (bad) luck for me, opportunistic good luck for my detractors and admins with unfettered Wikipedia power.

I've long known I'm too honest, too NPOV, and too good a contributor for the cesspool that Wikipedia has become. This whole incident and how it played out proves it. In order to survive here you need to play on the playing field not set by the encyclopedia and policy, but a game that has evolved over the last nine years or so and even more on steroids the last two years. The editors who haven't noticed are probably akin to the frog in the slow-to-boil water on the stove. But Wikipedia is definitely at a boiling point. The online socialism-like experiment this place started as has now become Venezuela.

I'll close these comments with a quote from myself, I put in a quote box above months ago:

"Know and remember this: The title of Eliot Ness' book "The Untouchables" is also a metaphor. Untouchable individuals exist in every system that eventually becomes corrupt and organized crime isn't always criminal by immediate definition. Mafia tactics exist on various levels in practically every walk of life. Thing is, Karma is a real concept, what goes around eventually always comes around. You just have to be patient and wait it out to have that moment of satisfied vindication."

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 15:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Then, when you take that along with how you ignored my emails and comments to you in regard to the block and were likely communicating with other admins and non-admins about the entire situation out of the public eye (don't deny it, you know it happened)" Take that tinfoil hat off your head. You sent me an email on Thursday at 6:47pm, when I was busy making dinner. After dinner, I watched Philomenia (that's what motivated me to name-drop our article on teenage pregnancy in a discussion yesterday), then went out for a quickie at the pub at about 9:30, then got back just after 11 and went to bed. You then sent me another email at 12:36am, while I was asleep. I didn't read either of them until 10am the following morning, and this is backed up by the fact I've got no on-wiki edits or activity during this time. I also have an email from the same time period asking me about my views on the proposed Lower Thames Crossing and a revised setlist for a gig in December, and you know what - I haven't got round to replying to those either. The simple reason I hadn't got round to replying to your emails as quickly as you would like is because I have a life outside Wikipedia. Everyone should do this. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, it would be easier for me to believe you if you hadn't so quickly and enthusiastically jumped into GA reviewing the Trainor article. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It surely can't have escaped your attention that I have been concerned about systemic bias on Wikipedia, and one of the better ways you can help is to edit and improve articles outside your typical "comfort zone", which this is. Alright, Meghan Trainor isn't an obscure 19th century female scientist, but it's a step in the right direction, and I don't remember getting any schtick for doing an extensive review at Lady Gaga's FAC (quite the reverse, in fact). As for how I'm aware of Meghan, I was asked to dep for a band and "All About That Bass" was the only song in their setlist that I didn't recognise. Same reason I'm aware of "New Rules" by Dua Lipa, it's a three-chord trick on guitar. Sure, it would be great if you could go to a pub and do two hours of all my favourite groups, but for some strange reason landlords prefer songs that the punters know and can dance to. How odd. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Half of what you just wrote -- no clue what the hell it's supposed to mean. Bottom line, no matter how you try to explain it away, you doing the GA on that particular article after indeffing me for editing that article and not responding to any of my pings or emails shows bias of an admin with all the power and leeway in Wikipedia available to him (or her). Either you were completely oblivious to how it would look or you just don't give a shit how it looks and what it smells like. The former is possible, but only remotely, given your years here. The latter is probable, and most likely, given your years here. Seems that the longer one spends in Wikipedia's admin corps, the more corrupt one becomes because of the absolute, unlimited, and protected power granted with an expiration date of never. I used to respect and trust you. No longer. If you care that I've landed on that conclusion, you're free to try and win my trust back, but I don't think you do or will, given that there's really no purpose or incentive in it for you. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal

Ive been in similar situation many times where I did not know an article was at GAN and merely stepped in to edit it since the GAN notice is not on the article page. I believe you're telling the truth above and I also believe this block is a grave injustice both to yourself and to the website. I do not know how right now the block can be lifted since the preponderance of editors at the noticeboard support it. I do know that the website is forgiving over time but you'd have to ask yourself why you'd want to waste time here if they don't want you. I have quit a number of times over draconian and ridiculous penalties imposed against me or proposed to be implemented and would have stayed away had they not been rescinded. All the FA level work I did was after this website slapped me with their biggest penalty, a desysopping, proving to them that THEY wouldn't defeat me. Therefore I propose to you that you tell them what five articles you want to dedicate the next six months to working to bring them to GA or FA level and promising to edit nowhere else. Minding of course the IBan...perhaps if you tell them that they may lift the block.--MONGO (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winkelvi, can you agree to abide by my suggestion above and do the following:

Honor the current 1RR restriction
Honor the IBan
Select 5 articles or areas that you can work on over next 6 months in effort to bring them to GA or FA level
You will edit only these 5 articles and no where else

--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can, MONGO, but have no idea what articles those would be. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some maybe only need a little work...how about 2014 Oso mudslide? You've got other articles you worked on that will let you abide by this and you can bring to GAN or even maybe FAC.--MONGO (talk) 00:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good enough start. But I think you and I both know that no one will agree to this but you and maybe a couple of others. ~~The voices at AN are loud, biased, and want certain death. It's a crowd outside the prison carrying signs that say, "Let him fry!"~~ -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I've been thinking about your proposal. It's fine as it is, but I have to also wonder about creating articles, which I actually enjoy quite a bit but have found little time to do because of allowing the articles on my watchlist to have my attention. Is it possible to add something to this that would include article creation? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That attitude doesn't help your case. --Tarage (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an honest observation. The other truth that should be noted is the fact that the iban between MF and I did not include staying away from articles either of us has edited -- as everyone seems to think is the case. I'm also seeing that my request to have my comments and responses here placed at the AN discussion is being ignored. I'd like that to happen because it would seem few there have even looked at anything in regard to this issue other than what's at AN. What's at AN is incomplete. And that's why I noted what I did above. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We're reading them, and we are unconvinced. You dug this hole. Stop blaming others. --Tarage (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't blamed anyone for anything. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is kind of hard to copy over your comments when they aren't responding to specific comments there and we could be copying a huge amount of text if we started including the context here. I will post a note to remind people that there is additional discussion here though. zchrykng (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 02:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start off by saying there are no other admins I trust more than Ritchie and Boing. I know Ritchie did what he believed he had to do - technically speaking, it was the right thing - but I hope we haven't reached the point that we're totally discounting the human factor. Like MONGO, I believe Winkelvi - he's not the kind of editor who would intentionally violate his i-Ban anymore than I would purposely violate my t-ban. Having said that, I can relate to how difficult it is to maintain such a high level of awareness after living most of your adult life as a free thinker exercising free speech. It's a shame that we have to resort to issuing "restraining orders" in the first place. I've read the discussions regarding how difficult it is to maintain an i-Ban, so occasional errors should be expected, but I can't help but wonder if we're really accomplishing what's best for the project, or are we just setting editors up to fail? I glanced at what was going on at the dramah board and something there is seriously broken. We're mired in it with no hope for change; ouroboros comes to mind. I can understand why some admins are skeptical of Winkelvi's defense - admins tend to be more aware of things that content creators/copy editors simply don't focus on because they are focused on the prose rather than the behavior and edit histories. I'll wrap up by saying I support MONGO's suggestion, and hope more editors will see how it benefits the project. The latter should be our first priority. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting, Atsme. I appreciate it all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see it close the way it did. When it comes time to appeal I hope you do. PackMecEng (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I have sent you an email. Please check for it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've proposed that you be site-banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless my memory is playing tricks here, I recall that you've never liked me or tried to help me with a damned thing, Bbb23 (if you've got several examples of the opposite, I'll apologize for not remembering). There have been numerous instances where I've asked for your help and you've been snarky, rude, and short - especially at WP:SPI. I guess you going for a site ban doesn't surprise me one bit. Your timing is interesting, just one day after my indef - knowing the pile-on and !votes in favor of your proposal will likely be a landslide. Your comment, "They have a history of disruption, wikilawyering, making promises they don't keep" is completely bullshit. Give me one instance where, since I was long-blocked for edit warring more than a year ago that I have gone back on that promise. Give me one instance where I have gone back on any promise I have made in Wikipedia (other than my bad habit of edit warring). "In my view, their history shows quite the opposite: they are getting worse." What examples do you have of this? "Contrition is no longer part of their pattern. More bullshit. Tell me what I have to be contrite about in this instance and if it's valid, I won't have a problem being contrite. But, in this case, I did nothing intentionally wrong. It was a case of being the wrong place at the wrong time. I've never had a problem admitting I'm wrong before because I actually was wrong. In this case, I wasn't. Do you want me to lie and pretend to be contrite over something I know I didn't do? Maybe that's what men are supposed to be like nowadays, but not in the era I come from, not in the world I grew up in, not in the kind of training I've had and lived through (SERE) with excellence (something the majority of you could never make it through even if you cheated). "They are innocent and everyone else is guilty (unless of course an editor agrees with them)." Wrong again. I'm not blaming anyone for this predicament. Do I think Ritchie is full of crap when he says that he wasn't ignoring my emails and pings? Yeah, I do. Do I blame him for me being indeffed? No. Technically, he did the right thing. Would I have done it if I were in his shoes? Probably. Would I have done what other admins and editors with clout did off-Wiki in gathering the anti-Winkelvi editors together to make this indef stick as fast as they did? Never. Am I sorry that I was stupid and didn't think ahead of time that I should check into who had been editing the article? You bet. How this predicament started is no one's fault but my own. How it evolved into something else (and continues to evolve) is on those who have taken Wikipedia and are trying to turn it into just another social media club made up of insiders and outsiders - and are working to get rid of the outsiders who have dared to speak up against what it's becoming all too quickly. I'm an outsider -- and I know it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ritchie333's comments at AN [ here]: "when Winkelvi goes off the rails and accuses me of being "full of crap" when I don't comply exactly to his demands to the letter, I've pretty much lost all hope of being able to mediate anything." Have you ever been angry over being rejected or fired or told to get lost after you know you fucked up and are being told you're a liar when you're being completely honest? That would be me with you right now, Ritchie333. I've been completely honest with why I'm pissed off, I've been completely honest with saying I'm not going to lie and act grovel when I feel like I did nothing wrong (and then told by too many that I'm a liar). This is one of the biggest problems with online "communication": It's just words on a screen with no emotion indicated (unless you lie and try to create a different impression). I could try to feign emotion I'm not feeling, especially since I've said numerous times I am not lying about how I ended up at the Trainor page and edited it the way I did and am being told I'm a liar (not just a liar, but a serial liar), but I refuse to do that. I've always been honest to a fault in every aspect of my life. Hell, I was even told several weeks ago that I was lying about having to do the cancer dance two years ago - THAT is how fucked up Wikipedia is... that people who would say something like that are believed and listened to over someone who confessed to having dealt with a near-death sentence where the treatment for same screwed up their memory. Yes, I'm pissed off. I've made some really great contributions to this place in the way of words, article creation, and photographs - and all of that is being ignored at the same time I'm being misrepresented and lied about (what was it Softlavender claimed -- oh, yeah, that I was the head of a meatpuppet ring). Someone's honest to a fault, they are treated like shit and disbelieved. Others lie their asses off and treat good editors like crap and they are celebrated. Yes, I'm pissed off. Can I, will I calm down? Absolutely. When I'm treated with some dignity and respect for what I've done positively over six years' time. Why, dear god, does it always seem to come down to this kind of scenario when a good editor is banished? The haters all come out of the woodwork in cases like this, muddying the waters. You see a whole bunch of people talking crap about you and how would you react after a while, Ritchie? Would what Atsme proposed work? It would for me. Would what MONGO suggested yesterday work? It would for me. Why doesn't the admin corps try to work some positive magic rather than use draconian measures that only make things worse and further create an ugly atmosphere? Building an encyclopedia in such an environment is impossible. Building an atmosphere of muck and mire is what's really going on. Those without an agenda see this. Those with an agenda outside the purpose of this place will go the other direction. That's why the close came so quick and the pile on so easy. I'm sure I've ranted too much now. Time for a drink. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was no off-wiki conversation, no conspiracy to get you, no plotting. There is no dedicated admin phone line or email list where these decisions are discussed. I believe that the reaction at AN was almost 100% weariness at dealing with the drama that can surround you, Winkelvi, the number of appearances you've made at ANI, the editing restrictions, the IBans...I don't think it has anything to do with your views on American politics. The admins and editors weighing in just want the conflict to stop and this is how they can end disputes, with blocks of varying duration. What I kept seeing repeated in the conversation was "ENOUGH!". So, while this incident was begun with a violation of the IBan, the reaction was more the result of cumulative exhaustion and admins not wanting to be facing inevitable future ANI visits.

You can listen to friends and end your participation at Wikipedia, that's not an unreasonable decision. But if you want your block lifted in the future (at least 6 months from now), you don't need to grovel, you just have to accept responsibility for creating conflict on the site in the past and assure the community that this behavior will not be a problem in the future. That is not unmanly, that is an adult response to a community saying that your current pattern of behavior is not acceptable, despite your many worthwhile contributions. I'm sure that the AN reaction to you hurts, but hopefully you can return to Wikipedia in time and objectively see the message of that discussion which is, if you are going to be allowed back, your behavior must change. Not your political views, but your editing behavior and how you interact with other editors. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe it has anything to do with politics because you aren't involved in the political activism in Wikipedia, Liz. You don't believe there was any off-Wiki discussion and collaboration because you aren't a part of the group doing it, Liz. In relation to all of that, you are naive. Nothing wrong with being naive -- I happen to believe it's better to be naive than sophisticated or "woke" (to borrow a currently popular term). There absolutely is a cabal in Wikipedia -- probably more than one, actually. That you aren't a part of any of them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Thanks for the comments and attempt to help. I do appreciate the heart behind it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could edit at Commons and after good work there use that as a place where this website can evaluate your work> One guy that was site banned did that, even got an admin slot there then asked to return here and even became an admin here. Anything is possible.--MONGO (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a good idea. Thanks for your suggestions and support, MONGO. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you my personal assurances that I have not had any off-wiki discussions about you or your block with anyone. I believe in open, transparent discussions except in the rare cases that require confidentiality. I want to add that I think that MONGO gave you a good suggestion. I hope that you will continue contributing to Wikimedia projects, and wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:04, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

Hi, I have closed [7] this discussion clarifying that a community consensus will be needed to overturn your current block, and that you can appeal in 6 months. ~Awilley (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop immediately

Interlude65, stay the fuck off my user page. Your "edits" are essentially vandalism and you have no right to be changing anything there. As well, you are not welcome to post on my talk page. Leave me and my userspace alone. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 05:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

This [8], this [9], this [10], and this [11] combined is harassment. He was told to stay off this talk page, yet returned again and again. Could someone take care of it, please? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 06:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]