User talk:Vanisaac

 Home talk about contributions userscripts awards templates travels test pages other wikis 

Welcome!

Hello, Vanisaac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Redwarn

How do I know it is working.Tbiw (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: I have no clue what you could be talking about. Could you please link to what you are referring so that I can get some sort of idea and respond from knowledge? VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

redwarn How do i know it is already working.

@Tbiw: Sorry, but I honestly don't know. I use WP:Lupin's Anti-vandal tool for those kinds of tasks. That utility adds five additional links in the tools section on the left side of my browser skin. I do know that if you added code to your common.js file, you might need to WP:purge the page before it takes effect. I'm sorry I don't have a greater insight for you. VanIsaac_WS^cont 10:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Teach me how to use WP:Lupin.Tbiw (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I mean there's not really anything to teach. You just follow the directions at WP:Lupin to add the code to your personal settings files, and start using the tools. It's all documented there, but the power of these kinds of tools lies in how you use them, and that's really only something you can figure out by just digging in and starting to use them. If you have a question about a specific feature, I'd be glad to try to add what I can, but I'm much more of a WP:WikiCyclops-style editor than new content patroller WP:WikiGnome. VanIsaac_WS^cont 11:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations/2020 infobox redesign proposal on a request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-notable subjects

Subjects that clearly fail notability criteria do not require a redirect discussion to be redirected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Articles that have coverage from independent reliable sources are not clearly non-notable in any way. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Warning Block

Your obscene assumption of bad faith is totally unacceptable, Vanisaac. I have redacted your comment. Maybe it's best you do not engage that report any further. Have a heart. El_C 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I have blocked you for a week for that comment. There is a limit to what I, at least, am willing to tolerate when it comes to treatment of persons with disability. You may request a review of the block using the unblock template, but please make sure you read WP:GAB first. El_C 01:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Calling my serious concerns about this editor's behavior "callous" was an obscene assumption of bad faith. And deleting my response to that personal attack was incredibly wrong of you. If you can look through OP's record and not see what I am seeing, then I guess all we're left with is the implicit threat of your admin bit, but that doesn't make your behavior any more acceptable. VanIsaac_WS^cont 01:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If you act callously, don't be surprised when you're taken to task about it. That you lack the minimal decorum for context is not on me. As for your followup suggestion that their disability is being used to game the system: I'm sorry, but I'm having none of it. El_C 02:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@EL C: I think if you take a look at my actual edit without your initial assumption of bad faith, that I made no suggestion that they were using their medical condition, but rather using the existence of the personal attack, regardless of their condition. And please don't use the term "disability", as that term is ableist in and of itself. If I inadvertantly made such an implication, I apologise. That was both not my intent, and diametrically opposed to my intention at expressing deep concerns about this editor's pattern of disruptive and ucollaborative editing. And you still haven't apologised for your now two personal attacks against me. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit summary that this feels like gaming by OP speaks for itself. Disability is perfectly fine term to use. I have not personally attacked you and I have nothing to apologize for here, unlike yourself. El_C 02:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes @El C:, that was the edit summary. Please tell me where you see any mention of his medical condition there. That is another bad faith assumption YOU choose to make, not something I said. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to play this game with you, Vanisaac. If you have an unblock request, another admin will attend to it. Otherwise, I don't really have that much to add at this time. El_C 02:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry @El C:, I was clearly mistaken to try to engage you to see this from my perspective. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Your perspective needs ample introspection, Vanisaac. That you cannot see that is to your discredit, I challenge. El_C 02:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, I'm not sure what that means (seriously, it's about as cryptic as can be). I've already apologised for any implication my comments might have had towards your interpretation, and explained explicitly what my intention was in contrast to that interpretation. You've offered nothing to refute my explanation that I can respond to constructively, so what am I supposed to do? I hope you don't want me to apologise for bringing forth my serious concerns about disruptive and uncollaborative editing, so I'm left wanting here. I don't want some other admin to overturn you in a wheel war, I want you to look at me and my actions as the good faith efforts at building this project that I made them. I don't think that's too much to ask. If you have a specific action that was objectively out-of-line, please explain exactly what it was about that action so that I can apologise for it. But right now, all I have is I expressed concerns about the behavior of an editor who happens to have a developmental condition. VanIsaac_WS^cont 03:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Wow, Vanisaac, I don't know how else to put it. I feel like I explained myself sufficiently and that you have been unresponsive to that — now projecting that notion on me is something I take exception to. You are free to make an unblock appeal. I don't wheel war, so that should not be a factor. El_C 03:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@El C:, if you can't point to anything objectively wrong that I've done and explain what it was that was wrong about it, what am I supposed to do? Is that not what an unblock request is supposed to be based on? VanIsaac_WS^cont 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome to draft your unblock request as you see fit. Regardless of any distortions that I may consider it having, it will ultimately, be weighed on by another admin. If I feel the need, I will comment on it at a time of my choosing. Until then, please stop pinging me. El_C 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

This 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).

Vanisaac (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Procedural per WP:ADMINACCT, blocking admin refuses to engage in explanation of the block.

Decline reason:

I patrol unblock requests as my primary activity here. I really see so much engagement from the blocking admin, discussing the block. Yamla (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2020 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

VanIsaac_WS^cont 05:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I reject this procedural request. I maintain that I engaged sufficiently. El_C 09:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

But @El C:, you refuse to do explain any objective reason for the blockor its continuation, as blocks are supposed to protect against something instead of being punitive. So again, your failure to engage deprives me of the ability to end this. VanIsaac_WS^cont 12:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me, especially with the same repetition. I have nothing further to add at this time. El_C 12:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Be warned, Vanisaac, your block will be extended indefinitely if you continue down this road. --Yamla (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Down what road? I still have no idea what this block is ostensibly for. I can't get an explanation from the blocking admin, so what road am I supposed to be on? VanIsaac_WS^cont 14:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because in a very peripheral way I may have contributed to the original misunderstanding that got this all started, I'm going to extra effort here to pour oil on troubled waters. Vanisaac, whether you meant it or not, you ought to be able to see how people saw your post at ANI (the one now redacted) as apparently way off base, even if because they read into it something you didn't intend. If you can't see how it is that people thought that, then that's a problem. But if you can see it, and can enunciate that, I think you'll probably be unblocked. (No promises – I'm not an admin.) EEng 18:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

EEng#s diff please. -DePiep (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

[1] (particularly the edit summary). EEng 01:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Because it was my edit that started all this, maybe I can give Vanisaac the insight that others think should be self evident (and they are not wrong to think so, TBH). First, the complaint at ANI was not about the dispute at template talk:char. Nor was it about my statement that I would no longer engage in debate with the complainant. It only about the fact that in my edit note I had made (entirely unknowingly) a catty remark that was seen as referring to the complainant's disability. I have apologised for that remark because it was deeply hurtful: my absence of 'criminal intent' might excuse me in a court of law but nevertheless it was there on the record and could not be allowed to stand. My apology was for that remark only: I did not and do not apologise for the statement itself, nor was one sought.

The big difference with your intervention was that that you did violate wp:NPA by suggesting that the complaint was not in good faith and what was particularly callous about it was to say that the complainant was leveraging their disability. Neither Psiĥedelisto nor I come out of that dispute smelling of roses, which we both recognise: we let it spiral nearly out of control. Fortunately before the red mist deacended entirely, I stopped to read Wikipedia:ANI advice. That advice is for people planning to raise an ANI: it ought to be compulsory reading for those who plan to challenge a reference made there too.

I appreciate your support and regret that your good intentions have led you to this pass. But until you recognise the seriousness of your NPA vio, I can't see the administrators even beginning to consider how long a suspension is appropriate for the fact of having done it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Break

You got railroaded. Here is the best I can figure of the situation, please correct me where I am wrong. There were a few pages and people involved so it took me awhile to sort it out. I believe a consensus was reached somewhere at Template:Char (not sure where though) in May. The template was nominated for deletion on July 6 by Psiĥedelisto, who as far as I can tell had not interacted with y’all before. That is where EEng and possibly you became involved. That discussion is -- well people were not biting their tongues. That led to Psiĥedelisto making some changes to the template that were BOLD, which were then Reverted, by you and another person. There was a talk page discussion in which Psiĥedelisto was less than professional: [2] Wow, two whole months? I had no idea that this was such an enduring consensus!, [3] Gee whiz, you have better things to do? I don't?, [4] Is no-opping a template as part of the BRD cycle according to you deliberate obstruction of Wikipedia's purpose? Seriously?. I believe that is where you disengaged [from the conversation] because of OP's disruptive and uncollaborative approach, as you said at ANI.

Let’s look at that ANI. Psiĥedelisto opened a thread because they felt slighted, rightly so, because another person (not you) inadvertently insulted them (this has already been resolved, so no diffs from me). In order to present their case at ANI, which was to ask for a revdel of the offending edit summary and acknowledgment of the smear, they went into detail about their disability. When I first read their post [5], I was confused about why they went into so much detail (were they trying to gain sympathy by playing the disabled card?). I was not sure, mainly because of the Wiktionary diffs where they admitted it could be a personal attack. Now I realize they were going into so much detail to explain WHY the edit summary was offensive, and WHY it should be revdel’d. I get that now and see it was necessary for an otherwise innocuous putdown. So that changed my mind from Boomerang to agreeing to the revdel. When you posted your first ANI comment, [6] you seem to be doing what every ANI does: looking at the other side of the story, I'd like to request at least a cursory look at whether there's a boomerang concerning this editor's consistent battleground mentality and disruptive editing at template:Char and its associated TFD…. Harmless enough, that’s ANI 101, you were clearly commenting on their behavior in the discussion, no PA. But you were dismissed off-hand with your concern ignored [7]. Even I was frustrated when I saw that. Now your second comment at ANI is what got you in trouble: I see no evidence that JMF engaged in a deliberate reference to this user's condition, which as far as I can see was not mentioned once in the buildup to the offending edit. And although it was clearly a violation of NPA, it's not like it just came out of nowhere. I disengaged because of OP's disruptive and uncollaborative approach, that part is perfectly reasonable and can be applied anywhere to anyone.

But the last phrase of your last sentence got you banhammered but bringing this matter here feels more like an attempt to game the system to retaliate against an editor that disagrees with him than anything else. I myself was already deemed "insensitive" at that ANI, but on a strictly generic basis of seeing disputes roll over to ANI, half the time this is exactly what is going on. But instead of receiving a chance to see your error (maybe a warning or better yet a personal note on your talk page) you were instantly and permanently labeled as a bad person. Your entire comment was redacted making it look like all you said at ANI was a personal attack so severe that no one would ever want to unblock you, and yet EEng's comment hoovers there [8]. Think of when the internet takes a clip of Big Bird and bleeps out a word; now Big Bird is an X-rated show. But EEng’s last post at that ANI is beyond the pale [9] a ham-handed kibbitzer who managed to make a bad situation much worse remains blocked. Unacceptable labeling, this is a PA. Let me tell you a bit about EEng: the last time I used the phrase “beyond the pale” this person posted [10] a picture of an albino African man standing in front of a dark-skinned African man with the caption “There is a darker man standing beyond the pale.” Their racist and insensitive post still remain in the archives. So don’t ever take any apparent moral superiority from EEng seriously; it’s all smoke and mirrors there.

This whole ANI was handled so poorly it should be used as a case study. Who got the shaft? You got the shaft. I don't know the way forward at this time, but I did this timeline because I don't believe you were ever given a chance to defend your comment. And the way you have been treated is beyond "beyond the pale." Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)