This user is a member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.

User talk:Winkelvi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

All the best for 2017![edit]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Christmas tree sxc hu.jpg
Merry Christmas Winkelvi!!
Hi Winkelvi, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! Face-smile.svg

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 22:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Hi Winkelvi, just noticed that you reverted an edit with the comment "(telegraph not a reliable source", the edit is here, are you able to direct me to a wiki discussion that confirms this as i thought it is useable as an independent source , thanks.

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Winkelvi![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


Happy New Year, Winkelvi![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.


Please be sure to sign any comments left. CassiantoTalk 22:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow - can't believe I didn't. Thanks for the notification. -- WV 22:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

missing a part of your happy-new-year messages[edit]

Winkelvi, when I left a comment on MelanieN talkpage, directly underneath your previous message to MelanieN, after saving my comment was "eaten" by your comment!

There is a missing table-close-tag, at the end of your happy-new-year-messages. Can you please add them, like this: [1] That way future comments by others won't get confusingly-included into the unclosed wikitable. And also, happy new year to you  :-) (talk) 09:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

carrie fisher fanmade star tribute[edit]

Hey there, happy new year!!!!!!! I see you just did some editing on carrie fishers page. I just wanted tonreach out because there were 4 fans who not only made the star but stood by it for 6 days straight and then collected all the things left behind for her and donated it to the chinese theater where it is all now on display. The fans names are jason thomas, vanessa velez, ryan wiltberger and lavonne dominguez. They felt that not only did she deserve a star but fans needed a place to go to mourn and celebrate the incredible carrie fisher. Thank you for all you do. We are greatly humbled and so proud of the star. It started out as just an impromptu thing for us and our group to go and became a media sensation. Just so you know the star is currently still there!!!!!! 8 days later!!!!!!!!! Thank you for your hard work and all your volunteer editing you do. Im sure it is a pretty thankless job Museisgod (talk) 11:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Debbie Reynolds[edit]

I am not interested in getting involved in an edit war. I am simply trying to prove the credibility of my source. It has a page on Wikipedia, even if it is speculation. Please come to the talk page, where we can discuss it in detail. It is neither tabloid or fake news. The website is a reliable sources used as a reference for multiple films and actor's biographies all over Wiki. I shall remove your message from my talk page as I consider it slanderous.Radiohist (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The warning was placed there appropriately, you were edit warring. And over crap that is not encyclopedic, is skirting very close to being a BLP policy vio, and is not going to increase a reader's understanding of the article subject. I'm relatively certain no one with sense and Wikipedia experience is going to be okay with that content in the article. It's garbage. -- WV 19:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion you may be interested in offering your two cents on[edit]

Since Talk:Stanley Kubrick is such a mess with arguments over infoboxes, and has been that way for quite some time, I figured the issue should be taken to a sort of higher court. See Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Should biographical articles always include an infobox?. Hopefully less insults will occur over there. –Matthew - (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Happy Lunar New Year![edit]

Chinese New Year decorations and the Merlion statue, Sentosa, Singapore - 20150222.jpg

Nouvel an chinois 2015 Paris 13 danse du lion cropped.jpg

Happy Lunar New Year! Good health and good fortune (3233557417).jpg

Edmonton Chinese New Year 2015 (16444087956).jpg

Hello Winkelvi,
May you have success, prosperity, peace, love and good health on this Chinese New Year. Here's to another year of productive editing. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for this new year.

Kind regards,
Lemongirl942 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

What a nice thing to see today! Thanks and same to you, Lemongirl1942! -- WV 02:07, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


...take a deep breath and use your powers of persuasion on the article talk page. Your contributions here are valued, and it would be Wikipedia's loss if you received another lengthy block. It's not worth it.- MrX 18:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

ThoughtAudio Review Request[edit]

I am seeking independent and neutral viewpoints on the article ThoughtAudio, which is being considered for deletion. If you have a few minutes to review it, I would appreciate your article contributions and opinion on the decision as to whether it merits being retained and improved, or deleted. ThoughtAudio was targeted by the same editor that made a failed attempt to delete the wikiquote article Michael Scott Gallegos. There are only 3 reviews/votes so far. I am hoping that a minority viewpoint as to the worthiness of the article will not prevail. My work is mainly in the creation of new wikiquote articles @ELApro and time is rarely spent in unproductive controversy. I am a long time editor for Wikipedia, but have not created many articles here. I would much appreciate your advice and/or contributions with regard to the process. ELApro (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback and vote in the process. ELApro (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller article, number of countries in travel ban[edit]

Hi, earlier today you edited Stephen Miller (aide) to say Executive Order 13769 is a temporary ban on travel from six countries. Were you not counting Syria in the total because the sentence later addressed Syrian refugees specifically? I'd understand wanting to avoid duplication, but six could be inaccurate, because travelers and refugees aren't the same thing. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Matt, thanks for the note. Syria has an indefinite ban on travellers and refugees, and that is why I removed it from the original seven. -- WV 02:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

US Presidential Timeline work[edit]

Hi, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Presidents/Active participants. The newly created presidential timelines on Template:US Presidential Administrations need work! They're pretty easy to work on! I can't do them alone! The timelines provide great reading material for many Wikipedia readers. All your contributions are greatly appreciated. Ethanbas (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Henry Seewald has been born[edit]

Hi! Is there any way you could please update Jessa Duggar Seewald's page to reflect this? Thw news has been out for a week now. Ben and Jessa Seewald named their second son Henry. Just Google if you don't know what I'm talking about. I tried but apparently the page is off limits to editing unless you have a certain number of edits. RoseMilkTea (talk) 22:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stephen Miller (aide)[edit]

FYI. [2]. I didn't ping you on the page, so as to keep the votes cleaner. --David Tornheim (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


I mean no disrespect to Paxton, but they aren't gonna delay the film's release due to his passing. Rusted AutoParts 17:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

You don't know that. Until the film is released, it's best to not guess or assume. Precisely why WP:CRYSTAL was created as policy. -- WV 17:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Regardless of when they release the film, it'll still be after Paxton passed away. It's always going to be a posthumous release so I don't believe CRYSTAL applies. The film itself is not gonna be cancelled two months to release. Rusted AutoParts 17:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
If they release it. Films are, on occasion, not released. We don't know anything at this point. There's no harm to the article if "Posthumous" isn't included at this time. What's your rush? -- WV 17:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not in a rush, im simply adding factual information to the film. Them cancelling it is your own speculation. Two trailers released all establishing its firm April release, which is now a month away. Why would they cancel it? Rusted AutoParts 17:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Reverted your re-addition of the disputed content and started a discussion on the article talk page per WP:BRD. -- WV 17:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


They're the ones who broke the story. Everyone is reporting off what TMZ reported. Rusted AutoParts 18:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page, please. TMZ is not a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes and cannot be used. -- WV 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Where is that stated? Rusted AutoParts 18:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Us Magazine isn't a reliable source?UConnHusky7 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
US is questionable. And definitely not reliable when they are using TMZ (a wholly unreliable source) as their source. -- WV 19:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
You still have not shown where TMZ is "a wholly unreliable source". What's next? Are you going to disqualify CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post because Trump called them fake news?
You may also be in violation of the 3 revert rule. BurienBomber (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Are you threatening me as a way to WP:WIN? Not cool and definitely not advisable behavior. If you don't believe me re:TMZ, bring it up in an RfC or at the BLP and RS noticeboards and see where it goes. Previous discussions provided at the article talk page have already provided the answer, but, you are playing the WP:IDHT and WP:IDLI card, too, so... go for it. -- WV 20:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

Please be careful[edit]

Please don't do the following:

(1) revert blindly without gaining talk-page consensus. You know as well as I do that on a BLP, there is no presumption of inclusion of marginal content
(2) label non-reverts as "reverts." This edit of mine kept the material at issue. I added new material and moved the content to the appropriate section.
(3) template the regulars. I've been here for a decade. I know our policies and guidelines. I wouldn't template you. You should extend to me the same courtesy.

--Neutralitytalk 01:27, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow. You've gotten dangerously close to being over 3RR and are telling me to be careful. Really? DTTR is an essay, a suggestion. It's not policy. Templating is important, especially when policy is being violated and there could be a possible build up to a noticeboard report. Like the one I would be filing on you at AN/3 if you had breached 3RR on this. Also, keep in mind that to edit war then present an undercurrent of a threat on my talk page that will keep me from reverting your inappropriate reverts... not great behavior for an admin, if you think about it. -- WV 01:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

John Quincy Adams Revisions pending review[edit]

Thanks for taking care of the photo revision so quickly. There are 5 other revisions (by registered editors) pending review which I think you will find unremarkable. I thought you might want to clear these so the status of the article is not complicated. Hoppyh (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Oliver, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages English and Christ's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#Winkelvi --NeilN talk to me 21:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Billy the Kid. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocking admin comment: The length of this block is to reduce the expected administrative burden due to this being your 6th block for similar behavior. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Coffee, I'm confused. How is reverting back to the non-disputed version three times (not four, as the first revert does not count) violate 3RR? -- WV 22:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
What policy states that "the first revert does not count"? I think I've been here for a decade, and I don't think I've ran across that one yet. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Winkelvi (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Three reverts only. First revert does not count (or so I've been told numerous times). This block is for violating 3RR. But, it would appear, that did not occur. I stopped reverting because I knew reverting again would go over the limit and I didn't want to disrupt any further. Further, I was the only editor attempting to discuss at the article talk page. Surely that, plus what seems to be the fact that I didn't violate 3RR, makes this block unreasonable? -- WV 22:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are a serial edit warrior and just because you thought you were skirting the technical edge of 3RR (which you weren't) doesn't excuse the behavior pattern. Edit warring is edit warring, and as soon as you decide to pass WP:BRD, you are part of the problem. I see no reason to offer an unblock or reduce the length of the block. Laser brain (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Blocking admin comment: Even if this wasn't a 3RR violation (which it was), our policies clearly dictate that the rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. You've been here since 2012, so I'm hard pressed to believe you weren't aware of that. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm confused then. For some reason, really didn't think I was violating 3RR. Hence, the reason why I stopped when I saw the last revert of the other blocked editor. But, honest to God, I didn't think I was violating 3RR, and I'm still questioning it because I could swear that in other instances, when I've reported others for the same, I've been told that the first revert doesn't count toward 3RR but the following three will. -- WV 22:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Quite interesting how you accidentally avoided to mention the edit-war in that entire reply. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess I'm starting to feel as if you're not exactly neutral on all this. With that kind of attitude, should you really have been the one to block? I mean, at this point, due to your responses (which are now looking pretty aggressive), can you consider yourself uninvolved/unbiased? Just asking. Regardless, I'm not trying to hide anything. It's my understanding that we are supposed to talk only about ourselves and our own actions in these discussions re: blocks. That's what I'm doing. Why would you want me to talk about an edit war when I'm maintaining that my reverts were about policy (seeking consensus and not continuing to edit/revert while discussion is taking place) and standards (BRD is a standard, not policy) not an effort to edit war? What's more, why are you basically calling me a liar? I may have had issues previously with some battleground behavior and edit warring, but I've never lied here (Wikipedia). That's simply unfair of you to imply I'm being intentionally evasive or dishonest. -- WV 23:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Deflect ad nauseum if you please; we're still waiting on you to provide a link to any policy that backs up your claims. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to deflect. I have a right to express my thoughts on all this. I'm not violating policy by doing so. I'm being respectful. Your snarky and distrustful comments are neither appreciated nor necessary. I thought I was clear when I stated I was going on my recollection of policy, not that I can pull up policy to support what I've said here. I then stated further that I was probably confused and not recalling correctly. I guess I wasn't clear enough with my meaning? I'm not trying to Wiki-lawyer here, I'm just talking to you human to human, admitting my recollection was wrong. If it were me where you are, I'd try to exercise some serious good faith in the face of that. As far as your implications that I'm being dishonest, please, take this into consideration: I've done a number of things over the time I've edited in Wikipedia, I've made mistakes and showed some real bad judgement. But even in all that, I'm pretty sure there are admins and editors who've had dealings with me and would be the first to agree regarding my faults, but they wouldn't say I'm dishonest. I'd even go so far as to say some of them would vouch for me as having good intentions in the midst of all those mistakes and bad judgement calls, never trying to be a jerk or actually do harm.

Those who come to mind: MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Anna Frodesiak, Drmies, NeilN, even Bbb23 (he's been quite frustrated with me at times, but I think he knows I'm not a liar or an intentional ass).

Whatever the case, and whenever my block is up, it's obviously time for me to go back to my personal 1RR (2-RR max) resolve. -- WV 01:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. For the record, I've never known Winkelvi to be a liar. Bad judgement from time to time, sure. A blocklog that's far too long, sure. A good egg while being an unintentional so-and-so? That's probably fair. SFriendly.svg Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
According to the 3RRNB case filing template, you need to do four reverts to violate 3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. Here are the four:
Well, not an emergency. I do think I got caught up into the "this is wrong behavior and it shouldn't be happening this way because there's a way to do it but this isn't it" mindset. Which is not unusual for those of us on the autism spectrum. What you've posted above here about doing four reverts to violate 3RR, that just made me realize that what I was remembering was exactly that, however, I had it backwards. And that's my bad. Like I said, I was going on my memory (which, to provide full disclosure, hasn't been the greatest lately because of real life stresses, etc.). Which was remembering something along those lines, just not in the right direction. -- WV 01:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, you reverted four times, so that's certainly going through the bright line, and even the second revert was already a bit too much. This isn't worth edit warring over. I mean wasn't. I will say that Winkelvi is not a liar, and that he's a net positive, though he has a tendency to get into scrapes like this. Coffee, besides blocking, what is a good and maybe more helpful thing to do? A conditional unblock, the condition being three months of 1R, for instance? Anna, Diannna, what do you think of that? Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd be okay with that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec) Reviewing the similar events of last year, I see you had a 3-month 1RR restriction that time. Therefore I think a 6-month 1RR restriction would be apropos if you are unblocked. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I never accused him of lying. So, it would be helpful if we just chopped up that strawman from the start. I do not see any need to reduce the block at this time. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You didn't say it outright, but you did imply it more than once. -- WV 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I only asserted that you were deliberately not answering particular questions, and were avoiding certain topics on purpose. That appears to still be a fact. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies, Anna Frodesiak, and Diannaa: At most I'd be willing to remove the block and replace it with a 6 month 0RR restriction. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
That would be fine with me, Coffee. Winkelvi, really, seven blocks in four years and 11,515 mainspace edits? This is pretty absurd. You are costing the project a lot of resources. This block has cost several editors plenty of reading. It probably adds up to hours and hours. I think your future must show patience and self control. Do you have enough of that to continue to edit here? Should you retire? You'll end up indefinitely block pretty soon as a net negative if you don't radically change. The answer for you could be very simple: don't click save when you could wait 24 hours. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not okay with me. Much of my work here has been reverting vandalism. I enjoy it, I've been noted for it, and I'm good at spotting it. 1RR is reasonable and doable. If I violate it in that 6 months, believe me, I have enough stalkers out there just waiting for my demise that it will be pointed out to an admin ready to block immediately. Just as the Massachusetts IP did at the edit warring noticeboard today. That particular individual, now "retired" has been dogging me for a couple of years now, doing everything they can to see me blocked or permabanned. I'm sure they will be thrilled to assist should I cross the line. That will save all of this admin time you say is now wasted because of my very existence in Wikipedia. Thanks for the encouragement. -- WV 08:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Then maybe you should stay blocked. You cannot plead "everyone is out to get me" when you've been blocked so many times. You are the common factor with explanations each time. Maybe the best plan is for you to stay blocked, or, accept 0RR and get out of the anti-vandalism business. Why not write some species articles or something else quiet and safe? Wikipedia has an army of anti-vandal editors. There are lots of other areas to work. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

If Winkelvi really, truly didn't believe four reverts would breach 3RR, why did he report another user for four reverts earlier this very day? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I was reporting him for intentional disruptive edit warring and edit warring/battleground mentality. A discussion on the article talk page had been started, he did nothing there to give any argument for his preferred changes, rather, he just said WP:IDLI and went back to reverting. He reverted again even after the discussion was underway and another had commented, claiming consensus had been reached. It hadn't. That, to me, said he was more interested in warring than discussing and doing things the right way. -- WV 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
It would appear that you reported him for a 3RR violation, considering you reported him for making reverts after a 3RR warning at WP:ANEW (I mean, the report is literally laid out as a 3RR report for 4 reverts, I can't stress that enough). Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Blocking administrator comment - It would seem from the following quote, taken from a warning given to an editor by Winkelvi just yesterday, that Winkelvi does indeed know full well that you may not breach the three-revert rule: "It seems you are only interested in WP:WIN at this point, since you have now reverted for the third time and are ignoring the fact that a discussion has been started. You don't get to keep reverting back during the BRD cycle once discussion has begun." [3] Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
My comment means exactly what it says: you have reverted three times and still haven't discussed anything. Why are you continuing to assert I am lying, Coffee? And frankly, this point, it now looks like you are actively trying to prove I am, in spite of stating above you never said I was lying and in spite of others vouching that they know me to not be that type of person. What gives? -- WV 06:54, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You are correct, at this point I do have reason to believe you weren't honest in your initial reply. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
And what would that reason be? -- WV 07:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You filing a report listing 4 reverts as a violation, and you warning a user for reaching 3 reverts... with a 3RR warning (as well as your above quoted statement). That is a bit more than circumstantial evidence. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's a stretch. First, when I file an edit warring report, I do it with the automatic system (or whatever it's called), where you click this choice, that choice, put in the name of the article, it loads the reverts, and you add your own comments. The automated system put in the reverts, I didn't. Note that in my comments in the report I never mentioned how many reverts, just edit warring without discussion. When I file those, it's never been so much about how many reverts, it's been about edit warring behavior and the behavior surrounding the entire situation. I haven't looked before saying this here, but I bet if you look at EW reports I have filed in the past, most all of them have been about the behavior not the actual revert count. Further, I was very clear in my original comments above that this was me seeing behavior on his part and my comments at the report filed bear that out as well. -- WV 07:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
So you have two claims here: 1. You weren't aware of the nature of your own edits. 2. You weren't aware of the actual policy on edit warring. - These claims are supposed to hold up against the idea that you've been blocked for this very violation before, and somehow still be true? Still not seeing how, even considering your usage of WP:TW, that is possible. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I never said any of that. Stop trying to put words into my mouth and mischaracterize my very plain, honest, and straightforward comments. I really, really resent the direction you are now going. Actually, I've resented it since the first time you implied I was lying with a "I've never heard that one before" response in one of your first replies to me below the original block notice. I've told you repeatedly I'm not being dishonest, others have told you I'm not a dishonest person, and yet you persist in insisting I am. -- WV 07:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Were you not blocked for making more than 3 reverts, with the first one counting, before? Yes or no? Answer that directly please. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

qui ne dit mot consent Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to cleverly say, but if you're saying that because I hadn't seen and responded to your question yet, that is evidence of some kind of guilt on my part, I'll have to remind you of my comments early on in this thread: you are showing yourself to not be neutral. Your last several posts have been a pretty obvious campaign to trip me up and prove what you've asserted all along: I'm being dishonest. Drmies asked you numerous posts ago: what constructive and helpful suggestions do you have for seeing things go in a positive direction? Is that what you've been doing or is it more along the lines of protecting your decision to block me? The answer to your question above is yes. But, God forbid that someday you start to age, have your memory affected momentarily due to the a year of the aging process, unbelievable stress, cancer, treatment, friends and family dying at an alarming rate. If that ever happens to you, hopefully someone will accept your honest explanation of having a brain fart because of all that, unlike what I'm experiencing here, now. -- WV 09:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: So, you knew that the first revert was a revert. End of discussion. (And, as it seems you aren't aware: The entire point of this discussion was to investigate about your seemingly controversial claim.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 09:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
No, goddammit, that's not what I'm saying (not what you're trying to say, anyway). I knew it was a revert, of course. But when I got to four, as I've already explained several times, I thought I was still "in the zone" and had not violated policy. Other than trying to show I'm a liar by setting some kind of gotcha trap, I'm not sure what you think you've proven or accomplished here that your response should have the green/gray checkmark/information thingy in front of it. What is your deal, really? Because, at this point, with how you progressed the discussion in an admittedly calculated manner, you're only seeming like a grave dancer who is out to win. Please tell me that's not so. -- WV 11:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


I saw the report on WP:AN3. I seem to recall a similar situation last year when I managed to get you unblocked, so here is my offer - you agree to an indefinite 1RR restriction. That means no more than one revert per 24 hours per page (ie: not just articles but talk pages, drafts, project discussions) with a narrow exemption for reverting blatant and obvious vandalism and harassment from your own talk page. Any violations will land an indefinite block with no chance of appeal within six months (ie: you will need to take the standard offer). Agree to all that and I will unblock; frankly that's pretty much the only way I can see you getting unblocked in a manner that will satisfy everybody. This offer is entirely conditional on the blocking admins Coffee and Laser brain agreeing to this, and if they don't, then sorry but deal's off and you've got a free three month holiday.

As an aside, when I block somebody I generally punt any conversations about the block off to reviewing administrators, and on the (incredibly rare) situations where an admin disagrees, I am happy to just unblock without consulting me. I think this is a good attitude to have; picking a fight with an editor you block is generally counter-productive. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

What does Laser brain have to do with any of this?-- WV 11:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
He declined an unblock request earlier, so I think it's only fair to get his input into it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
(ec x2) I'm fine with Winklevi being unblocked under an indefinite 1RR restriction. Winkelvi, I'm not the blocking admin but I declined your unblock request. Obviously no one is required to consult me but it's courteous. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I had forgotten about the declined request. -- WV 11:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks Ritchie--I'd be OK with that too; Coffee and Anna's points, above, are well taken. So is Winkelvi's, against a 0R restriction. Either way, we can hardly miscount with 1R. Coffee, can you live with this? I know you're strict, but 1R is a tight leash. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
In particular, this is "1R or we won't let the door hit you on the way out". I think we all recognise Winkelvi does good work around here but just goes a bit giddy on the revert button every now and then, and the more that happens, the more admins are going to run out of patience :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Drmies, Ritchie333, Bishonen, Anna Frodesiak, and Laser brain: His comments here do not lead me to believe that he actually understands what he did wrong... instead it appears he just thinks that I'm a rouge admin out to get him, and that it is in fact somehow me that is the issue here. The lifting of the block while that attitude prevails is not going to have an optimal outcome IMHO. I counter offer that a 0RR restriction, with the exemptions listed for obvious vandalism (that Ritchie333 laid out), would seem to solve our entire problem... considering he has said that the only issue he had with 0RR was that it would prevent him from reverting vandalism. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Well I have to say that consensus doesn't appear to be going your way and that a 1RR restriction is the majority preference for admins (after a weekend break). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Is there a good reason to not do a 0RR (with exceptions to blatant and obvious vandalism/spam on pages in the mainspace) though? Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, because he can revert good-faith but obviously wrong edits (eg: somebody changing prose so it is no longer verifiable against the source), 1RR allows him to change either the source or the text, 0RR doesn't. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:16, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coffee: 0RR is simply too extreme in my opinion. Even 1RR is a pretty tight restriction. And all the other admins here seem to be comfortable with a 1RR restriction, as recognized above by Ritchie, who was originally prepared to defer to you. Your insistence that because of his opinion of you Winkelvi ought to remain blocked, or at least have a tighter restriction than other admins recommend, isn't becoming. Yes, he was argumentative and resentful above, but you were very ready to argue, too. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Bishonen: "Your insistence that because of his opinion of you" Um, no... My issue is with his claim this entire time that he did not know he wasn't supposed to do what he did (and I'm talking about edit-warring period, not just 3RR)... he still has not changed that response, and has instead used me as a deflection. Which, for some reason certain pinged (or as I'll state in the ARCA: adminshopped against policy) admins seem ready to accept as reason to unblock. Sorry, but I count 6 admins that don't agree with an unblock, so your assertion of a consensus is not even close to accurate. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The only thing about this discussion that is pleasant is the Intermezzo section header. @Coffee: Which six administrators don't agree with an unblock (with the 1RR restriction)?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
[4]. You'd look better if you withdrew gracefully at this point, Coffee. But I'm done arguing with you. Bishonen | talk 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC).

Floq wades in, unrequested by anyone[edit]


  • WV, I've recently experienced Coffee presuming to tell me what my motivations are, and saying I'm lying. That's his style of communication. It sucks, but doesn't reflect anyone else's opinion of your honesty. You cannot expect everyone to recognize your honesty; you have to settle for a preponderance of people recognizing it.
  • WV, I'll also note that you're doing kind of the same thing: presuming to know what Coffee's motivations are. Whatever you think, you need to recognize when it isn't constructive to keep saying it out loud (nor is it really fair; you shouldn't comment on his motivations when you get angry when he does that to you. (Yes, I know who started it.))
  • Other people watching this: I previously blocked WV for a month, so this is not coming from a buddy of his. It's coming from someone who (a) is pretty annoyed at how WV interacts with people, and (b) recognizes WV's competence and dedication to the project.


  • WV takes a few days off, gets the blood pressure down (so to speak). The break would also help emphasize that this is not a minor hiccup, but a significant watershed moment. (The few days wait before an unblock can be ignored if everyone else thinks it's unnecessary; I just think it's a good idea, but I'm not married to it.)
  • When WV comes back, he doesn't comment about Coffee or ask Coffee direct questions
  • Coffee doesn't respond to WV anymore
  • Having observed WV's interactions with other people for a while, I think Ritchie's idea of an indefinite 1RR restriction is by far the best long-term solution. With the caveats and exceptions explicitly laid out by Ritchie above (and a specific warning from me that you should be really careful what you consider vandalism, because that seems the most likely way you'd get into further trouble). Unlike Ritchie, I won't require that Coffee's agree to this; there are more than enough other admins here that I see consensus for some kind of action like this. Although obviously Coffee's opinion on the idea would be a useful data point; if he has a convincing reason that this is a bad idea, I'd like to hear it, but convincing Coffee is not a prerequisite. But obviously, WV, you'll have to agree to it.
  • If you don't agree, then I won't unblock, and apparently Ritchie, Laser Brain, Coffee, Diannaa, and Anna all won't unblock either (and Drmies is a chicken; he won't do it either! :) ). It seems extraordinarily unlikely that any admin would come along and try to over-rule the judgement of 6 other admins and unblock with anything more lenient that that. So you'd be stuck with sitting out the 3 month block. And you'd be aware that several admins feel that this is your last chance anyway, so any more edit warring at all, even if it wasn't strictly 3RR, would probably result in an indef block. So you'd probably need to force yourself to limit it to 2RR anyway, just to be safe.
  • So it seems like the question is, is being able to do that 2nd revert worth sitting on the sidelines for 3 months.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

  • @Floquenbeam: I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to WP:HOUND me Floquenbeam. You should try and stay away from areas you're involved in, especially as an administrator. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 19:51, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I too will be happy to unblock Winkelvi on condition of a personal indefinite 1RR restriction on all pages, but I have a problem with Ritchie's "with a narrow exemption for reverting blatant and obvious vandalism and harassment from your own talk page". Really? Did you mean that the way it came out, @Ritchie:? Surely Winkelvi should continue to be allowed to remove posts from his own talkpage at his own discretion, like everybody else. We don't want to leave him a sitting duck for borderline pestering on his page. Bishonen | talk 17:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
I would consider borderline pestering to fall under the "harassment" exemption myself. I don't have an issue with Winkelvi having free reign over his talk page in the same way we all do; I just couldn't think of anything he would want to revert more than once in 24 hours on it aside from those things. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:03, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Ritchie333. It may fall under the harassment exemption, but I think it's quite important that Winkelvi is explicitly allowed to make that call himself. I wouldn't at all like having to hesitate to remove an annoying post from my own page for fear an admin might disagree with me about its nature. Also, if Winkelvi has to revert (=remove) something more than once from his page, then it's the other person that's being disruptive. Bishonen | talk 18:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
No problem - having dealt with Winkelvi before, I know he's the sort of guy who wants to get things absolutely crystal clear and nailed down in black and white (I'm not that good with mixing metaphors but you get my drift...) so he's completely comfortable knowing what's okay and what isn't and has no fear of an unexpected block. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with the 1RR agreement, agree with what's been put here as in my best interest as well as the best interest of admins, editor interaction, building the 'pedia and so on. For the record, Floquenbeam, my presumption of Coffee's motivation isn't just based on this incident, but the other time(s) he has been party to a Winkelvi block/interaction. Same "you're lying" and IDLY attitude with a block-hammer in hand. It's a pattern I'm seeing from him that disturbs me, does make me wonder where it's coming from and why it's repeating itself. All that said, if he and I never interact again I'll die happy. I never think about him other than when he's in my face on occasions such as this, so never mentioning him again in Wikipedia will be no problem for me. This is the last time I'll mention any of it. Hopefully, he's done with me as I'm done with him.

I'm also grateful for the suggestion of there being consequences for those who will attempt to make me fail (I think I read that right above) via harassment and other shenanigans. Yes, the 1RR is fine. I like the clear boundary. Whatever you all decide in the way of how I deal with blatant vandalism, whether it be anywhere else beside this talk page, I'll agree to. Thank you all. -- WV 18:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't look like "WV doesn't comment about Coffee or ask Coffee direct questions" to me, so for myself, personally, I'm going to follow the "WV takes a few days off" part to make sure that's the last of it. I've no objection if any other admin wants to enact it sooner. If no one has done so, and WV hasn't commented about Coffee's possible motivations anymore, I'll do it Monday. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I too know that you like everything very clear and without any fuzzy borders. Both 1RR and 3RR normally come with an exemption for obvious vandalism. But perhaps you'd actually be better off without any exemption? Because neither "obvious" nor "vandalism" are really obvious terms. They have shadows and fuzziness. Think about it: would it perhaps be more comfortable to have the rule that you can't make more than one revert in 24 hours on any page, no matter what? A lot simpler, anyway. Please reply without the word "coffee" anywhere. Don't even say that you're going to have a cup of it. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC).
As Bishonen just pointed out, I'm one who likes and needs specifics. No fuzziness. While I'm okay with the idea of taking a few days off, I do think that your comments, Floquenbeam, about no more mention of the other administrator, was not specific. I took it to mean that was going to start as soon as discussion here was completed and my 1RR was in effect. I had no clue you meant it was to start immediately. If I had known that, I never would have mentioned him. -- WV 19:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Bishonen, honestly, I'm good insofar as understanding what vandalism is and isn't. I seriously doubt I would ever find myself in a vandal-fighting frenzy where I would go off the deep end and blow things agreed to here. 2RR in cases of obvious, serious vandalism will be my likely limit. If I have doubts, I'd go to a willing, helpful admin/editor friend or the vandal noticeboard with a report. -- WV 19:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record, since it came up in a recent comment near the top of this section, I absolutely do recognize what I did wrong and have admitted as much more than once in the preceding section. Everytime I said, I was confused, I was admitting my error. I'm admitting my error by accepting a 1RR restriction. If I didn't recognize my error, I wouldn't be saying, "yes, let's do that". -- WV 20:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Pinging admins who were originally pinged above as well as those who have commented here: Anna Frodesiak, Laser brain, MelanieN, Diannaa, Bishonen, JamesBWatson, Drmies, NeilN, Bbb23, Ponyo, Ritchie333, Floquenbeam. Asking for an answer regarding what has now transpired: I don't understand how what's now happening at ANI here. I asked for a block review, it was declined by Laser Brain and I didn't take it any further. Okay. Other admins suggested a 1RR. I didn't ask for the 1RR, now it's being challenged. If the community says no to it, and agrees to what's proposed there (0RR), then I get slapped with an indefinite 0RR? Whatever is decided as a result of something that I didn't ask for (until 1RR was suggested by others, not me, I was going to just ride out the block, right?) I'm going to be the one who suffers the consequences.

Please, none of you who suggested the 1RR with an early unblock take this the wrong way, but because you all started talking 1RR and early unblock without my request for it, another admin takes this to ANI seeking something else. Can any of you tell me how is any of this (1) is fair to me, or (2) is really about me at all? It seems to me that when you peel back the layers of what this has morphed into, the core of it isn't Winkelvi, it's one administrator's disagreement with a group of other administrators who were trying for a different course of action than his own.

That administrator set my block for three months. I didn't fight it, rather, I only put in one block request, and the results of that upheld the original block. I didn't fight that, either. Other admins came in and started talking about a different course. Then, not as a result of anything I did or initiated, the blocking admin suddenly, without warning, decided to change everything in regard the block he instituted, up the ante, and out of the blue take my block to ANI for community input because... That's how things are done? It's like the whole thing was taken down a rabbit hole when everyone looked away for a moment.

God (and administrators) forgive me for ever edit warring. If anything has shown me the results are totally not worth it, this whole thing has. What a mess. -- WV 23:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just shows we're all human unfortunately, and when contentious arise things like how to deal with a block of somebody who's been blocked a few times before but still contributed a lot, admins have an unfortunate tendency to tear each others' heads off as there isn't anyone to, er, administrate the admins. My advice is to forget about it for a bit and go and watch some Father Ted, it being St Paddy's day and all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:46, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Strangely, Ritchie333, I'm not angry about what this has become. I guess what I'm feeling is shock because I've never seen an administrator do anything like this before. -- WV 14:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Another few things I'd like to bring up, Ritchie333:
  • No matter if my block is lifted earlier than the original three-months with conditions or the original three month block stays, indefinite 1RR is still preferable to me (even at the end of the original three month block). I have no issues with that being put into place. As someone else already said, 1RR is a tight leash. I'm fine with that.
  • Further, because it has been asked whether I have stated I "get it" in regard to why I was blocked, yes I do. More so now than ever before. Like I said above, this current mess wouldn't exist if it weren't for my past violations of 3RR in combination with what happened at the time the current block was put in place.
  • Mentoring has been mentioned at the ANI thread. I have never been mentored but have asked at least one admin once a couple of years ago if they would be available. At that time, they didn't feel they had time to devote to it. I didn't pursue if further but wish I had. Going forward, if someone is willing to do it, having a mentor is something I would absolutely be open to and in favor of. For however long it takes or lasts.
  • I think one of the things that's bothering me the most about the current ANI (aside from the facts surrounding how it started, which I spoke of above) is that I'm unable to defend myself in regard to what's being said. There are outright lies, a lot of half-truths, total mischaracterisations, and much one-sidedness being placed into it by too many editors. And all of it is going unchallenged. There are editors and admins !voting "indef" and "0RR" based solely on the dishonesty there. The whole show, from the start of it on, is quite disturbing. -- WV 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
-- WV 19:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to make a statement here in response to what some people have written there, then it can be copied across. I realise you can't that way engage with individuals on particular points, but it's better than nothing. BethNaught (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
At this point, Beth, what difference would it make? None, in my estimation. The damage is done. As am I, from what I'm seeing at ANI. Honestly, it's really all too distressing for me to even consider taking the time to wade through it and address everything there that simply isn't true or should have an explaination/further information provided. I already mentioned a couple of days ago that in the last year my life has experienced unprecedented stress with the deaths of close friends and family, cancer, treatment for it, financial burden as a result, and so on. What I'm reading at ANI isn't really quite the same kind of stress as all that, but it's adding to it. Frankly, I can't take much more stress and just the thought of having to go through what's there and sort the wheat from the chaff then respond to it all is as overwhelming and distressing as reading it. -- WV 22:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm always happy to be at the tail end of a Floq-begun thread. I don't rightly know what's going on at ANI; my spiritual adviser tells me to stay away. Having read over Floq's proposal, but not every comment after that, I think it is a sensible proposal and I subscribe to it. Note that I will not argue anything against the original block, and I have no quarrel with Coffee, or indeed with any other admin who has weighed in: they've all been sort of right, though sometimes differently.

    I have been accused of wanting to be a "mentor", and I put the word in quotes since I find it hard to think of myself as one, but I will be happy to function as a counselor, if that's any help. That means, for instance, that you would ping me or email me to say, hey, what should do with this or that edit, and then I tell you what I think. I've done that before in another case that bears some resemblance to this one, and there it worked. What your counselor will promise is to give you the best advice he can. What he will not do is automatically go to bat for you, or function as an apologist; your counselor is still an editor and an admin, and the project comes first. All this also means that an unblock shouldn't be conditional on anything related to me--it should come in response to what you agree to. And please, let the ANI conversation be; there is no need for you to respond to comments there, as hard as that may be.

    Finally, this hypothetical counselor also knows that you have done the project some good, and that means a lot. Later, Drmies (talk) 01:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Dear hypothetical counselor Drmies: Thank you for the note. And the advice. And the offer to serve as counselor as well as the specific parameters of what that would entail. I'm trying to stay positive. Not looking at ANI has aided in that effort. I've always appreciated your candor and honesty as well as your wisdom, this instance is no exception. -- WV 01:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
At this rate, the ANI thread is getting so long and arduous that attempting to read it makes me wonder if gnawing my own leg off would be a more pleasurable activity. It's getting likely it will not get closed, or closed in a manner paraphrasing "stop this, it's silly", which de facto means you'll be back to no restrictions when this block expires. I don't think that's what many people actually want, but in lieu of anything else, that's what'll happen. I can't believe Coffee didn't see this coming. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
In response to your emails, Winkelvi; I really can't offer any comment on any specific editors unless I've been directly involved with them through articles I've worked on or disputes I've got involved in. If you want another listener, I'd suggest emailing Arbcom. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply, Ritchie333, and the advice. I will certainly take that suggestion into serious consideration. -- WV 19:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
I cannot imagine that this experience is the least bit pleasurable for you. And even though I made a minor contribution to the conversation, I must say that I find the current situation to be almost unprecedented. Admins going after one another; someone being pilloried in the public square; it's all a bit much. I only hope you're able to find some constructive takeaway from it all. You have clearly elicited strong reactions across the board. That alone should give one pause for reflection. And with your claim that you have ample issues away from the project to occupy your time, perhaps it's time to focus on those concerns, willingly. To give them the time they deserve. This project isn't going anywhere. Your priority in this moment, if your claims are honest, must be on you. Regardless of the outcome here, this too shall pass. I wish you peace. X4n6 (talk) 06:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
X4n6: I have been able to cull out some constructive takeaway. Yes, of course my "ample issues" claims are honest. Anyone who has had cancer invade their world knows it's not something to use or be dishonest about. Thank you coming here and for the genuine kindness in your note. It is rare to see that in Wkikpedia; so many seem to forget we are all human and more than the sum of online interaction and edits. Indeed, too many love the anonymity the Internet can provide as it allows them to behave toward others in a way so abhorrent they wouldn't dare do so outside of this cloaked, hidden bubble Wikipedia provides. Such behavior certainly gives a moniker like "the Community" a whole different meaning than (I hope) was originally intended. Take care. -- WV 14:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Your block will now be reviewed by the community[edit]

See here. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this was the wrong way to go at this point given the extensive discussion here. Nor do I think any administrator has to wait for or is bound by the "community"'s decision.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Then you're not familiar with our policy Bb223:

If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

— WP:UNBLOCK#Unblock requests - Wikipedia policy
The community's consensus (AKA policy) is what I follow, not a select group of admins' beliefs and expectations.Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
You do realize the word used in the policy you quoted is "recommended", not "required"? --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 22:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: See straw man. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Why? You are quoting a specific policy and presenting it as if it unequivocally states something it doesn't. Regardless, there is not enough air in this room to continue this conversation without the loss of at least one admin or two by asphyxiation, so I'll gladly leave. --Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Ponyo: "as if it unequivocally states something it doesn't" - Now that is amusing... I literally just quoted the policy. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 23:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coffee: @Ponyo: I agree, why is quoting policy often contentious? Also, nothing is "required" on Wikipedia as far I know, things are "encouraged" instead. Please correct me if I am wrong. Endercase (talk) 19:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

And so it goes...[edit]

What's it all about, Alfie?

"I think that this solution is clearly the best we can get. As I said below, I hope (and am confident, I might add) that if we end up back here in less than a year's time because of Winkelvi's inappropriate behavior that we can finally get rid of him." [5]

-- WV 19:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Outcome of the ANI discussion[edit]

Hi Winkelvi. I've closed the ANI thread regarding you and unfortunately it seems there was broad consensus that you be placed under an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction. Formally, Coffee's three-month block is endorsed. There is also general consensus for an indefinite WP:0RR editing restriction, appealable in six months after the block expires if no talk page bludgeoning has occurred. Those few editors disagreeing with this proposal were mostly split between calling for WP:1RR or an indefinite block so the broadly supported stated proposal seems to be a reasonable compromise. Breaking the 0RR restriction should result in an indefinite block. An uninvolved admin or community consensus will decide if talk page bludgeoning has occurred and you must be warned and given a chance to stop before the matter is brought to an admin or noticeboard. Furthermore, any "poking the bear" behavior will not be tolerated. [6] --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to need some very clear specifics and examples of what would be considered talk page bludgeoning aside from the article on it. Or, maybe the ANI threads leading up to your close could be a good example for future reference? (don't think I'm missing the irony in chronic and part-time bludgeoners calling for and/or endorsing a no-bludgeoning restriction).
Naturally, I don't like or agree with the close conclusion. 1RR, as it had been pointed out by several, including Drmies more than once, would have done the trick. It was obvious that such strong insistence by the pro-indef crowd for 0RR pretty much only serves as a way to punish and fuck with me. I do appreciate your humane addition of the need for a warning/chance to stop and zero-tolerance of poking the bear behavior. Separated the humans from the alternative, in my opinion. Thanks for that. -- WV 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Archives link -- WV 21:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Belated response[edit]

Hi Winkelvi, I wanted you to know that I did read your e-mail when you sent them and chose to take no action. I didn't want you to think that I ignored you. Indeed, I've been following with dismay the ANI thread, and I'm sorry you've been subjected to such abuse. I hope you can let go of Wikipedia during the remainder of your block - and that means not even reading it - and enjoy the real world. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up and kind words, Bbb23. Abuse is an interesting thing: The abusers just move on to their next target(s) while those on the receiving end either get stronger as a result of the abuse or end up dying because of it. whatever the outcome, nobody ends up a winner in the wake of such mistreatment. Abusers have to be miserable inside themselves to behave in such a manner, don't you think? You take care, also. -- WV 15:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Winkelvi, this is better than the indef block that was proposed and had significant support; it is clear to the outside observer that you have made enemies. You know I think 0R is too strict and that I think that 1R would have been enough, and I say so based on some experience. However, it is what it is, and I think NeilN made a fair assessment (though I have yet to read over the entire thing...I'm painting and doing laundry...). What is next for you is two related things: a. abide by the restriction (obviously)--if you don't, your career here is probably over; b. gain trust, by which I don't mean "make friends", but gain the trust of other editors that you can abide by a restriction, so you can successfully apply for a lesser restriction as time goes by. This is always the goal of restriction--that they can be done away with, after the right circumstances are created. So I strongly urge you to turn the page and not talk about the abuse you suffered and the abuse you think you suffered; taunting and personal attacks on you are as punishable now as they were before, but I will add that, as an administrator, I have not seen blockable personal attacks in that ANI thread on you, though I certainly saw a bunch of comments that I thought were deeply unfair. Anyway, Bbb and I, and others I think, will be happy to advise you in days and months to come when it comes to particular edits or situations. This doesn't mean that we (sorry Bbb if I'm including you grammatically, but I think you feel the same way) will automatically jump to your defense in disputes; we're still admins, though we are also sympathetic. Take it easy, and try to enjoy your time off... Drmies (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies. Your advice, as always, is well taken. And I sincerely appreciate the offer for you and Bbb23 to be advisors. See you in three months. -- WV 01:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Objection, your honor[edit]

...poking the bear behavior has, in my opinion, already started here, NeilN. Using my name is necessary for awarding a barnstar? While not obviously blatant negative context usage, the meaning is obvious when you consider the tone, tenor, and overall negativity at the ANI with every single comment there by "awarder" as well as the "awardee". -- WV 16:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I think you have the wrong diff? --NeilN talk to me 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. -- WV 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
You seemed to accept me above as an "advisor". Two things. First, I don't see that barnstar comment as poking the bear. Second, don't you have more constructive things to do in your life than continuing to look for issues on Wikipedia while you're blocked?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Answering the above: I did; I accept that you don't see it the same as I; "More constructive" by whose yardstick? Wouldn't you agree that what's constructive in one person's world isn't necessarily constructive in another's? Nonetheless, your point is well-taken and I appreciate you taking the time to comment as an advisor. -- WV 17:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Bbb23 though I'd say it more nicely, of course. Forget about us for three months; nothing good can come out of trying to follow all these editors. I mean, why are you looking at Softlavender's talk page? It can't be that exciting. Drmies (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your question, I put a few editors' talk pages on my watchlist when the ANI began and became more "interesting" (that's a euphemism, by the way). Not surprisingly, there were some interesting side discussions occurring during the time it was open. I'm not interested in following them further now that the "excitement" (another euphemism) may have died down. Which it likely has, since "they" have achieved their revised goal. -- WV 00:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it was "poking the bear." It's rather obvious who and which talk pages are involved. They also know how to toe the line and they didn't ping you which would have crossed the line. Responding here only lets them know you can be baited. Poking the bear and baiting the bear are close cousins but Wikipedia will ignore the incestuous bear couplings. It's best that you ignore it. Unless you get a ping notice, don't reply here. If you do get a ping (which you may after the obtuse baiting becomes fruitless), call an admin to ask why you, a blocked editor, is being pinged. For three months they will be grave dancing. Good behavior and a month may wrrant a request for admin to lift the block and a few more months to remove 0RR. It won't happen though if you take issue with edits that didn't ping you. Log out and read WP as an IP user so you don't pick up these slights. --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Winkelvi (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Nearly one month into my three month block, I am respectfully requesting an early unblock so that I can return to constructive editing. Obviously, when looking at the discussions I participated in above, I understand why I was blocked. Regardless of the fact that I made a severe error in judgement regarding the number of reverts I had committed, I should have known better than to go past two reverts, and likely should have stopped at one. With the decision based on community input that I be on an indefinite 0RR (found here [7]), it would seem to me that the block truly is no longer necessary. Not just because I understand why the block occurred, but because I will be likely indeffed if I revert. I would be a fool to put myself in a position for that to happen, let alone edit war again. I'm not a fool nor am I interested in reducing my Wikipedia editing career and five years here to big fat zero by getting indeffed. I'm also not interested in further devolving the community's trust in me and giving administrators more headaches than they already have. I would really like to get back to constructive editing and would appreciate serious consideration of this request. To whomever reviews this, thank you for your time and consideration. -- WV 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per my closure of the discussion. your block appeal is declined. BethNaught (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

  • BethNaught, thank you for taking the time to close that discussion (and for shutting down the suggestion that there is a reason to block TPA). Winkelvi, I'm sorry; it would be easy if I could say that all of those commenters were wrong, but there are a few valid points, and it seems clear to me that you'll have to work on mending fences when you come back. As you know, I support your coming back (and I'm sorry I missed the conversation--I think I was at the beach, living it up on my ArbCom salary), but we are a community, and that community has spoken. FWIW, I do not disagree with Swarm's decision (if it was Swarm's decision) to bring it to ANI (though I'd have preferred AN as more appropriate, this not being an "incident")--the block was a community decision, and so it goes. Take care, Drmies (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)