User talk:Winkelvi

Request return to editing

Would like for the community to consider an overturn of my site ban. Since I know many have watchlisted this talk page, would appreciate comments (from legitimate accounts) re: the request from any and all so inclined. This includes editors I may have previously requested to not post in this userspace. Sincerely, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

This is backwards. If you want to ask that your ban be lifted, you need to explain why it should be, i.e., what's changed since it was imposed.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. My error.

Well, to start with, I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive to the continued development of articles in the encyclopedia. I believe I am a good editor, have a lot to offer in the way of attention to detail, a good instinct for copyediting, and am a decent wordsmith with a good eye for what needs to be "Wikified". I'm also good at adding meaningful photos to articles, having added to and edited hundreds of images for Wikipedia purposes via Commons over the last half-dozen years (give or take). That's the good.

The bad: In my past editing, too much attention paid to the actions of others, which clouded my judgment and created bad relations between me and other editors as well as a bad reputation. Being unfocused on my real purpose for being here (improving Wikipedia) allowed me to make grave errors (which ultimately became my demise with the community ban) that hurt everyone in my path. Moreover, such behavior was detrimental to doing the things in Wikipedia I'm good at (article editing, adding content, improving the encyclopedia). Which ended up being a burden on pretty much everyone - even those who didn't realize it, because by becoming the focus of too many AN, AN/I, and 3RR discussions, I was taking admins and editors away from doing what we are all supposed to be focused on: improving Wikipedia content.

What's changed: My entire attitude toward editing, what I want to edit, what I want to be involved with. My attitude is this:

1 - Just edit/add content/create articles.

2 - Stay away from personality conflicts and avoid dissention/irritating other editors at all cost.

3 - Don't get bogged down or distracted by Wikipedia politics. Unless you're an admin or a 'crat, it really doesn't matter to small-fry such as myself. Editing is the thing, not the other stuff.

What I intend to edit: happy, meaningful stuff. Celebrity articles (happy stuff), destination articles (happy stuff), history articles (meaningful), military-related articles (meaningful), music articles (meaningful and happy). There are likely other "happy/meaningful" article categories I haven't mentioned here, not trying to limit myself by not mentioning them.

What I'm no longer interested in: Current politics. It's just so divisive and creates ugliness all around. I have no stomach for it any longer. It's a trigger for people. Triggering = stress. For everyone in the vicinity. Just not interested in going there any longer.

From what I can tell, that covers it. If anyone feels I've left something out that I need to address, let me know. Thanks for taking the time to read and consider. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who has witnessed the drama surrounding Winkelvi in prior years, I welcome his candid approach to articulating what went wrong, and would support his return to editing. I would further advise Winkelvi, if he is allowed back, not to restrict himself to arbitrary topics, but to apply his renewed non-conflictual approach to any topic he feels like contributing to in the future. The small print: I seem to remember Winkelvi being male, and thus I addressed him this way, but if I have made the wrong assumption, I apologize. FWIW I'm male. — JFG ^talk 00:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• "I am asking the ban be lifted because I have a lot to offer that's positive"

We don't care. Reassure us that the negatives will have gone away. That's the bit we care about.

Otherwise I'd support an unblock, per WP:ROPE. I'd also point out that your indef block actually links to a dispute at a "happy stuff" celebrity article. It was an editorial dispute, not a content area dispute. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can see you don't care why I want to return - fair enough. I made that statement because I want the community to know the only reason I want to return, that there's no desire or plan for disruption, vendettas, revenge, anything like that. Which, if memory serves, ends up being something editors express worry over when lifting a community ban is considered. In other words, I stated my reason for wanting to return first in order to allay anyone's worry that I might be harboring a grudge and have some secret plan to settle scores, play games, or cause havoc of any kind. I've seen returning editors do that - I think we all have at one time or another. As far as you wanting to make sure the negatives have gone away, I believe I did address the negatives. If you need something more specific, please let me know what that specific is. As far as the indef, please take a look at the block log where it clearly states the indef was due to an interaction ban, not an editorial dispute: "03:25, November 1, 2018 Ritchie333 talk contribs blocked Winkelvi talk contribs with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Violation of interaction ban : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=715333046 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/?diff=866635941)" -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

By "editorial dispute" I mean a dispute with an editor, and a particular editor, over the expression of material in an article. i.e. an article that's not in a political or contentious area. So even within "happy stuff", there's still that risk.

I have no wish to weaponise ROPE. But it's a safeguard for the rest of us that if you return to editing, and this were unfortunately to editing in a past and problematic style, then the block could be restored before there was too much disruption caused. It would be up to you. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support - good editor, no reason to think he won't fulfill his pledge. The "Rope" bit gives me pause because of its potential to be weaponized. Just lift the block and let's move on. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 02:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• This editor should not be allowed to edit again. Besides being completely incapable of applying Wikipedia policy on issues in American politics and showing an inability to distinguish fact from fiction (it's still glued in my mind how Winkelvi refused to accept the basic uncontested-outside-of-rightwing-la-la-land fact that Trump had implemented a family separation policy, countless RS were thrown at him/her which stated it and explained, and MelanieN actually bothered to painstakingly explain it to Winkelvi step-by-step[1], and none of it without any success), the editor stalked those who he brushed up against in American politics editing and sought to sabotage pages unrelated to American politics that those editors edited as part of a harassment campaign. The editor made suggestions his/her editing behavior would improve after getting blocked and warned by admins[2], yet was immediately back to his/her bad ways.[3] So, not only was the editing horrendous (I can only comment on this user's edits in American politics) but there were serious behavioral problems. Judging by the history, if allowed to edit again and despite the promises of good behavior, the editor will undoubtedly get riled up about something on Sean Hannity's show, try to correct the fake news media content on Wikipedia, and hound editors when he/she inevitably ends up in the fringe minority on every content dispute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  How about tuning down the vitriol and giving peace a chance? — JFG ^talk 08:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Well that's a concern, certainly (and I know even less about US politics, so I haven't been watching this). Do you think that there's a credible path here where Winkelvi manages to: 1. avoid disputes with editors and 2. avoid US politics beyond the bounds of their knowledge, where we could all be happy?

Per ROPE, as noted, I'm not too worried about an angry dispute with a single editor: we would be able to limit the effects of such a dispute rapidly and with enough containment that cleanup is manageable. But competence on a subject is more of a problem: WP doesn't measure this or regard it highly, so a subject-naive editor can erode a large number of articles in a very gradual manner and there's no way to stop them. It's very hard to sanction an editor if all their edits simply make everything a little bit worse (in my own fields, nearer to engineering, there are a couple of names which make my heart sink whenever I see them, but there's nothing I can do about it). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My years of experience in Wikipedia have shown me it's not unusual that editors working strictly with political articles will, when faced with opposition to content and wording dispute from the other side of their own political and ideological mindset, frequently pull the competency card (along with others). That's a claim pretty much standard in political arguments, in Wikipedia as well as real life, social media, and so on. The editor above who is calling into question my competency in editing would be hard-pressed to find editors outside of political editing to call that into question. I always strove for neutrality in political articles, and that was frequently the dispute SS and I tangled in - also not unusual for the American political divide. One sees neutrality the other sees bias. Even if what he is saying were accurate, I've noted in my original statement that my intent is to steer clear of political articles and I gave exact reasons why: it stirs up dissent and division. Hope this clears up the question of my competency in editing. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

My general impression was you mostly argued against posting of current, oftentimes trival latest news clips in an effort to keep political articles from turning into coatracks. Since most of the Ampol articles on current issues/persons are about as fun as scrubbing baked birdshit off the roof of a car, I'd simply edit elsewhere..at least for a while.--MONGO (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as such content, in my opinion, lent itself to bias for the reader since it frequently encourages confirmation bias. Anymore, I just don't care to be involved in such tussles. Which still seem to be the focus of political article talk pages. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 14:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you feel you want this to go out for an official discussion, ping Awilley to move it to AN.--MONGO (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support unban I've worked with Winkelvi on articles outside the arena of American Politics and found him to be a fair better than average contributor. I would encourage Winklevi to unwatch all American Politics articles and spend his time wisely on more enjoyable areas.--MONGO (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Winkelvi has shown an understanding of the problems. If we are wrong in reversing the block I'm sure the edits will be reversed and the block will be reinstated. If we are correct then Wikipedia will benefit from having another editor. The risk-benefit trade off seems to lean heavily toward unblock. Springee (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• I could also support this, but the supports and opposes here won't have any effect since a wider community process is needed to overturne a community-imposed ban. Maybe this can be copied to AN? ~Awilley (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support, but only with an AmPol topic ban in place. That could be reviewed and removed at a later date. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
• Sorry, I must be a cynical meanie and Oppose. The message that we should be sending is that editors are expected to have these changes of heart before consuming hundreds of editor-hours spanning more than several years. Winkelvi had more than ample opportunity to do that. If he needed time away from editing to find his new path – if he has in fact found one – it was his responsibility to take that time off. As far as I'm concerned this is just a continuation of WV's self-centered efforts to play the system as long as the system will allow itself to be played, demanding unlimited "fair" treatment from the project that he spent years treating so unfairly.
  WV used Asperger's as a crutch and an excuse even if unconsciously, and we do not have a separate set of expectations for editors who have Asperger's. Put differently, an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right. I don't care if an editor declares Asperger's on their user page, but I do object when they ask for special "understanding". If we're allowing that, I have "challenges" of my own that I would like the community to take into account when assessing my behavior. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to see where this goes. Everybody has an excuse.
  Mark my words – if this unblock passes, by this time next year we'll think we've been transported to 2015. And we'll start the same arduous uphill climb again, wasting yet more editor-hours in a succession of contentious ANI debates, perhaps achieving the next indef a few years after that. Would that indef be the last one? I honestly doubt it, en-wiki being the Land of Many Last Chances.
  I would be far more receptive to a Standard Offer appeal if the path to indef hadn't been so long, disruptive, and time-consuming. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm confused. The indef was for an interaction ban violation. How is it that a community ban can go beyond the reason for the indef? I'm also incredibly disappointed that something considered a disability is being brought into this discussion and is being used as a reason to keep someone from editing Wikipedia: "an editor who has Asperger's and is unable to manage it in a way that avoids ongoing behavior issues is simply not well suited for Wikipedia editing, which is not a constitutional right." Although I realize Wikipedia is its own entity and doesn't have to abide by the US Constitution, according to the Supreme Court as well as the ADA, those with disabilities actually are protected by the Constitution. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure whether we could expect you to continue using that as an excuse. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe my intent I wasn't clear enough in my response? I wasn't trying to use my condition as an excuse for anything, but was merely attempting to clear up a misconception you seem to have about Asperger's: that it's an actual disability, and those with it have Constitutional rights because it's a disability according to the American Disabilities Act (the Civil Rights Act, too) as well as the US Supreme Court. Frankly, if you hadn't added it to this discussion I wouldn't have brought my Asperger's up at all. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)