FIRST: there is no explicitly stated iban. I indicated in the previous unblock appeal drama that I would agree to one as a condition contingent on being unblocked...an unblock that never happened. Even if there was an iban, there was no interaction. I am free to comment to admin that bad actions by a user continues without appropriate sanction, I am fully at liberty to advise a fellow editor (NorthBySouthBaranof ) to step back from an unnecessary edit war with an known intractable editor. SECOND: This is a blatant abuse of power by Kevin. Apparently, he's become Winkelvi's go-to guy whenever I deign to discuss anything remotely related to him to anyone else...that smacks of an inappropriate collusion--which Kevin was inappropriately glib in his willingness about carrying out. Given the contentious and arrogantly nasty block Kevin executed against me last time, describe by another editor as "overkill" and his vindictive scorched earth campaign against my appeal (apparently I didn't grovel and apologise enough for his tastes), this ban appears to be violative of WP:INVOLVED as this is an undeniable conflict of interest if involvement is indeed construed broadly to include past incidents. I felt Kevin's intention here, as much as last time, was entirely punitive. There is no egregiously bad conduct to warrant a block of two weeks. There's no vandalism, personal attacks...only a comment to an admin of "hey guess whose back at ANI again...for the nth time this month" and a comment to a user who is in a dispute with Winkelvi who I counselled to back away from the fight, stating why it's not worth getting entangled, and to come back after he's moved on". He has threatened future punishments if I deign to mention a certain troublesome editor (I presume since I'm punished for pointing him out to an admin, that I can't even go to an admin to mention conduct without a kevin-wielded hammer). used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users...I damaged nothing. I disrupted nothing. If pointing out several instances of complained-about unaddressed disruptive editwarring to an admin is disruptive, or to advise a user to pull back from editwarring is disruptive, well I'll be damned. This block violates WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE. THIRD: How are my quite restrained comments to both third-parties uncivil? There's no vulgarity, no name calling, no threats directed at Winkelvi. There is no harassment of him as the discussions were with two different users, not the complainer. Is pointing out to a third party, when advising them to disengage, that someone exhibits behavior that is described in WP:OWN and WP:IDHT uncivil? That's ridiculous. Concerning Winkelvi's demand that I be sanctioned for the act of talking about him conflicts with incivility policy, which states: This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To insist that an editor be sanctioned force an isolated, minor incident, to repeatedly bring up past incivility after an individual has changed their approach, or to treat constructive criticism as an attack, are in themselves potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.  If someone doesn't want to be talked about, maybe he could consider not getting entangled in a dozen edit wars a week with different users.

I will be proceeding to dispute resolution as soon as I can after being unblocked and if necessary will pursue this to the Arbitration Committee to seek redress against this already-involved abusive administrator who should have heeded the advice in WP:INVOLVED to pass the buck to another uninvolved admin. This is egregiously poor judgment on Kevin's part and a misuse of his tools. As I stated herewith on my talk page, Kevin is assuming the role of Inspector Javert against me. Going forward, I request an iban between him and me, as his abusive persecution of me will continue--as we see here he's more that ready to jump when Winkelvi pulls his strings...over something that barely would have raised the attention of any other admin. This block is ridiculous and heavy-handed only because Kevin has had it out for me from last time. JackTheVicar (talk) 04:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR but imho Kevin is too WP:INVOLVED to place a block and I've got no issue with Jack's message on my talk. Keep the GAs coming. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 06:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]