User talk:Haizum: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:12, 11 July 2007

Haizum's Sovereign Talk Page

Board Rules

1. Fallacious comments will be marked as such with an asterisk (*) at my sole discretion. Fallacious comments may include: dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid, dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter, Ignoratio Elenchi, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad baculum, argumentum ad verecundiam, Circulus in Probando, Non Sequitur, post hoc ergo propter hoc, Plurium Interrogationum, and others.

2. Comments may be marked and/or labeled in a manner which will remain undisclosed, as will the significance of the label.

3. Not understanding rule #1 is not an excuse for anything, including unauthorized restoration/deletion of comments and cosmetic alterations.

4. Making edits to board rules is strictly prohibited.

5. Please sign all comments.

6. Comments that are old or are no longer relevant to an ongoing discussion may be cosmetically altered at my sole discretion. Per Wikipedia policy, the meaning of the comments will not be changed; the alteration will only be superficial, not substantive.

Thank you for following and respecting the board rules. And remember, per Wikipedia policy you must ask before you can remove a user's comments. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Your request to be unblocked has been granted, since the block reason appears to have been a misunderstanding. I apologize for the lengthy delay since your request. // Pathoschild 13:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive tenacity

APO confusion

Your tenacity is impressive. It is difficult because the two of you seem to be speaking in different languages. One of logic and one of desire (to remove whatever is perceived to have casused this insult, which means grasping whatever tools are available, and so occasionally trying on those of logic ).Varga Mila 18:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad controversy

Kudo's for your efforts at keeping the article NPOV and in correspondance with Wikipedia standards. It is a pleasure to read your rational, logical argumentation. Respectfully Celcius 10:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly hello

Wow Haizum, you've been quite busy lately. Anyhows, glad that you're still on and trucking along despite all the weird stuff that has apparently been going on with you and your talk page. Anyhows, just wanted to say hi. Later. --LifeStar 14:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is unbelievable!

I can't believe what I'm seeing! Long before I started editing seriously enough to get a username of my own, I had a lot of respect for Wikipedia as an organization with a benevolent, fair administration. Now I'm seeing things, like the permanent blockage of User:PennyGWoods for use of the one-word sentence "Die." (which I quoted on my userpage and was admonished for doing so) And now User:Sandover has managed to manipulate the perhaps overtasked admins into quashing Haizum's contributions by painting himself as a pure victim on the report abuse page. For whatever reason - I'd guess it's due to overtasking rather than intentional abuse - all the admins involved don't seem to be taking the time to look at the context of all this. Haizum says someone "fails", clearly a remark that is relevant to this whole blocking issue, and he gets NPA-blocked for it. He calls the admin policies fascist, and the admin assumes Haizum is calling him fascist, rather than the actions being taken here. It's almost as if the admins are just looking for reasons to shut him up so they don't have to deal with him anymore. That's not what blocking is supposed to be about; if you don't have the time to "investigate" or whatever thoroughly, don't go blocking people! And maybe some of you should go and read the Laura Ingraham talk page and see who's really abusing the edit function there.

You might say that this is none of my business, but I'm becoming more and more interested in admin accountability, and I'm seeing more and more that admins seem to be more oriented toward achieving quiet than justice. Haizum, unless you object, I wanna list you as an example of admin abuse on my user page; it probably won't make a difference, but this is the sort of thing I do to vent off feelings of blatant injustice. If you don't want me to, feel free to edit my user page to delete it. Karwynn 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe people should spend more time editing pages rather than even muttering "fascist", "die", or anything of the like, regardless of what it's directed towards. --kizzle 20:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would if I wasn't blocked. In fact, I usually try to contribute via discussion on the talk page, and a lot of my frustration came from Sandover ignoring my concerns and jumping straight into edits. Haizum 22:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, you're saying people should just gloss over any possible unfairness, because these Users are "wasting time"? People ought to just edit quietly and fall in line, not questioning the edits of others or admin decisions? Besides, there's more than "fascist" and "die" to these blocks; just read the block logs and tlak pages. Are you also too busy to look at the full context? I suppose it's much easier to just address a random part of what's going on. This is exactly what I'm talking about. How convenient that another minor example has cropped in the very section I created... Karwynn 21:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I'm not an admin, so no, I'm not another example. I'm not familliar enough with why you're blocked, all I'm trying to say is attributing it to "fascism" doesn't exactly help your case. Keep calm and civil in the face of what you perceive to be irrational behavior. Take a breather, come back when your relatively short block expires, and if you get blocked again, hit me up and if I agree with you that it's unfair, I'll try to help your case. Just try to keep civil even if you believe a wrong was committed against you, that's all I ask. --kizzle 00:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your rationale, Kizzle. Although a warning or 24 hour ban would have been preferable, the situation escalated because, in my opinion, Sandover was for the most part refusing to acknowledge the points I was making. I was also frustrated by the fact that my very small additions/omissions were being completely reverted while I allowed his entire section to remain essentially intact. On top of that, the POV tag that I inserted (for both the anti-gay blurb and Sandover's edits) was being removed again and again without dialog. This was especially annoying because the tag was also intended for content that Sandover had nothing to do with. Even though I initially added the POV tag and explained it, I was in part banned for a 3RR, again, even though no one bothered to explain why it shouldn't be there. At that point, I was pretty comfortable calling the whole incident "fascistic" simply because the editors/Admins were moving along without me while silencing me by force. Haizum 01:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AAARGH!!! It's the same thing AGAIN! My point wasn't that you were and example because you were an admin, you were an example because you just ignored all context and just focused on the words, nnot caring about HOW they were used. ANd now you choose to focus on the fact that you're NOT an admin, so you're NOT an example! ANd nthen what? You suggest a solution to the problem: calm down. Settle down. Take a break. Accept the inevitable, you're making trouble. Just conform and quit making waves. AAAAAAARRRGH!!!!!! Karwynn 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back.

Hey. Just wanted to let you know I agree with 99.99% of what you say and I even like the way you say it. Unfortunately, wiki has rules against rubbing people's faces in their own bias/pov. We need you around to counter the liberal bias and you can't do that if you don't "play by the rules", so please do. Lawyer2b 04:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin problems plus re:Thanks

No problem, 'm glad to see that you're back. People who are combatting Wikibias need all the help they can get, although there's not terribly much that can be done about it. Take a look at this: User_talk:BigDaddy777#The_Wikipedia_That_Was. That's the section of his talk page that was declared "the nail on the coffin" in the arbitration.

And better yet, this: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/BigDaddy777

Found this off a link from that kizzle guy's userPage. Make no mistake about it, this guy wasn't banned for the stuff they said he was, it was just for being out of line and persstent attempts to eliminate bias in political figures' articles. There were admins all over his user talk page, shamelessly calling him a troll, labeling his defenses as badgering, and even blatantly calling him stupid. My point? I can't even find the words to describe the lack of freedom of thought around here. I've been scouting for banned accounts (other than obvious vandals), and I'm getting really angry about all the people who were banned for not being Monty Python addicts who sit and drink weak tea with their pinkies in the air. THere are some serious, serious problems in the admin population as well as the way arbitrations are done. The accused don't even really get a chance to defend themselves. look at the way the "evidence" is presented in that arbitration: it's full of editorializing and commentary. "And then, the nail in the cofffin:" "This is what really crossed the line". YOu can tell just by looking at ANY of these arbitrations that all the users involved have no regard for the rules that are supposedly being broken; they've all just got a personal stake in who's being banned.

What I really wanted to say was that I've poked around Sceptre's (Will's) User page and am deeply disturbed... he says outright that he'll penalize some infractions of the same rule (personal attacks) based on the sensitive nature of the attack. Plus, he says point-blank that if anyone attacks him, they'll get blocked on the spot. That's not really the way it's supposed to be dealt with. And the way he handled the Laura Ingraham thing - from removing the POV tag, to restoring a version he preferred before protecting it, to protecting it in the first place - was highly inappropriate. So was the way he banned you. Take a look at this reference for indefinete blocks (aka bans): WP:BAN#Decision_to_ban He can't just ban you without some sort of consensus or something, but he did anyway. This guy's gotta go, and if I try to bring up a complaint, they'll tell me to shut up because it's none of my business. But if you were to complain to someone, I'd definitely do what I could (which I don't think would be much unfortunately). If you're not going to though, let me know and I'll find someone to complain to. These kind of edtors are a major hindrance to free editing and countering bias. Karwynn 16:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make no mistake about it, this guy wasn't banned for the stuff they said he was, it was just for being out of line and persstent attempts to eliminate bias in political figures' articles. There were admins all over his user talk page, shamelessly calling him a troll, labeling his defenses as badgering, and even blatantly calling him stupid. My point? I can't even find the words to describe the lack of freedom of thought around here

Please. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. Did you see the second link with the evidence I provided against BigDaddy? There are rules (NOT guidelines) of conduct and civility around here. BigDaddy was not banned for expressing an alternative viewpoint, he was banned for consistently attacking his co-editors and engaging in a plethora of ad hominem attacks rather than relying on the merits of his arguments. If you believe certain articles are biased, then please engage with your co-editors in a civil manner and present arguments using sources according to Wikipedia guidelines, and you'll be fine. As long as you focus on the content and not the editor, and do so in a polite and civil manner, I think you'll find your co-editors to be more than willing to listen to your viewpoint. --kizzle 01:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may put in my $.02. First, please take into consideration that, per Sceptre's (Will's) User page, he's only 15 years old. Second, as much as I adore Hazium, he was acting uncivilly. He's comments were pretty funny and mostly on the mark, but they were snide and overall obnoxious i.e. uncivil; and you can get banned for doing that as much as he did. Lawyer2b 01:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Regarding the bigdaddy incident, he had the same problem. He was smart and was accurate a lot, but he the waaaaaaaay he went about things was uncivil. Does that mean that people didn't want to get rid of him simply due to his political beliefs? No, of course some did. But if you know the rules and still violate them...and then find them used as an excuse to get you banned you are still to blame. Was that $.04? ;-) Lawyer2b 01:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BigDaddy was certainly out of line, but when you see people GLOATING about him being banned, you know it wasn't just about the rules. If someone, for example, was gloating about it by including it near the top of their userpage almost a year after the fact, it's no longer about upholding the rules. It's about personal triumph and victory over the other person. No one in that situation was being civil; they were all acting like jerks to the same extent from what I read, yet only one got any punishment. And I still insist that editorializing the evidence presented before the accused even is able to put in his input is grossly unfair. And the point about his political beliefs was that his persistence was seen as trolling, and I guarantee it wouldn't have been if it had been the other way around. in fact, it takes two (or more) to edit war, but funny... I didn't see anyone else being called stupid or a troll.

However, the original point of this was to suggest a complaint about User:Sceptre and talk about general admin unfairness, not bring up old (though important) trash. If anyone wants to further admonish me about BigDaddy777, as they're welcome to do so, please take it to my talk page; I'm sure Haizum doesn't want me cluttering up his board. If I'm missing something about that incident (entirely possible, since it happened so long ago), I'd rather be corrected than be wrong, so don't hesitate. Karwynn 18:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at your talk page. --kizzle 19:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, thanks guys. Haizum 21:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is up with Sandover

Hey, it is Karwynn, and I cannot type apostrophes or tildaes, so I will not be using contractions or signing this.

Just wondering what came of the Adminship regarding Sandover.

Waaaa? He's up for adminship? Christ on a bike. Haizum 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHA no I meant your reporting of him to the admins. Geez, sorry to scare you like that. Karwynn 14:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just found out: YOur complaint was automatically archived before getting a response. I re-posted it, assuming I had your blessing. if you want it dropped, you can wipe it off though. Karwynn 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Language

Thanks for the pinch :) ←ΣcoPhreek _OIF 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the advice. ← ΣcoPhreek _OIF 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

As you pointed so well, your refusal to assume good faith and incivility have earned you a 48h block. Have a nice week. Circeus 05:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unbelievable, this is a politically motivated, retroactive block. It either involves the completely harmless comments above, or a harmless debate that I left peacefully weeks ago. I'm contesting this, and I will follow through with peer review regarding your actions when the block is lifted. Haizum 05:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it involves mostly the comment you aim at kizzle on User:Pacian's talk page and (indeed) the incivil and bad-faith assuming comments at Haditha killings. You have a long block history that just recently was "resolved". Harrassing an admin outside wikipedia is not encourageing background. Circeus 06:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, blatantly retroactive and politically motivated (you have failed to rebut). Kizzle and I have spirited debates all the time, and nothing I directed at kizzle on Pacian's talk page was a personal attack. I was just suprised to see him instantaneously comment on the same page that I was commenting on. As for the Haditha page, many users expressed their POV stance by their own admission, not to mention the fact that I made those statements...what...how long ago? I should add 'trolling for violations' to the list. You could probably go back to the week I registered and find something to subjectively block me for. Haizum 06:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my 48hr block was "mainly" for kizzle, do you have my user contributions bookmarked or something? What's the deal? Haizum 05:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC). It's impossible to justify that block especially when one knows my relationship with kizzle. Haizum 06:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On this one point I will agree with Haizum, if you're blocking him for what he said to me then by all means unblock him, as that was not a personal attack (maybe a bit paranoid, but nothing even close to a blockable offense). Maybe there are other reasons to block him, but don't block him based upon a simple question asking if I was stalking his contrib list. --kizzle 06:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kizzle. So now it looks like I was blocked for responding to a comment left on my talk page regarding a debate that I left peacefully weeks ago without any lasting influence. How many times will Pacian call me 'ignorant' before anyone notices? Haizum 06:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my personal opinion is that you are a bit intolerant at least by trivializing what seems to be (and I've never even heard of them until today) a legitimate sub-group of gay people, and making sarcastic comments that you could start your own group. However, that's just my opinion, but the block IMHO is totally unwarranted. If the block is because of me, then I want the equivalent of not pressing charges. --kizzle 06:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatevver your common history, haizum clearly assumed bad faith on your part when you were being civil and making a perfectly legitimate comment. His otehr comments on the talk are not exactly civil or assuming good faith either. Circeus 06:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree, I was commenting on a user's talk page about a subject I had never participated in before, thus Haizum's initial feeling that I was stalking him was justified. After I explained that I had been led there by the discussion on his userpage, he simply continued dialog. Nothing about any of these events assumed bad faith on my part or deserves a block, let alone a 48-hour block. --kizzle 06:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thing was started on my talk page with the following...

a topic about which you clearly know nothing -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is, quite literally, a statemnt of ignorance. -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to further educate yourself -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your seeming need to treat others poorly here on Wikipedia -Pacian This got a pass. Haizum 06:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to unblock Haizum based on several reasons. kizzle's comments above. A seemingly harsh 48 hours. We don't block as punishment. Some of the reasons given are fairly weak. But if any incivility takes place going forward, the block will be reinstated. Any problems with this? Let's all just play nice. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you the man, LV. --kizzle 06:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I'll keep a low profile for the rest of the night. Haizum 06:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmn, it appears I'm still blocked. Is there a lag? Haizum 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably an autoblock. Lemme check. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's a good idea. Let me know if there is still an autoblock or anything. Remember, a little civility can go a long way. And I'm not just talking to Haizum here. We are all part of a community, and the fighting harms more than those directly involved. Let's all just get back to writing an encyclopedia. Thanks. Night. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Haizum".

Your IP address is 69.143.42.26. Haizum 06:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... give 'er a go now. I found the autoblock. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 06:37, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Haizum 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Le sigh. Sandover decided to wait awhile and then redo the same disputed edits he refused to discuss. SInce you were involved before, I figured... yeah. Karwynn (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza

This case has closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

To summarise, Añoranza is banned for one week and the principals in this matter are encouraged to enter into good faith negotiations regarding use of propagandistic operational codenames for which there are neutral alternative names in common use.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 21:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet justice. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 11:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol 69.142.140.177 18:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

This flagrant personal attack against me was never addressed.[1]

I suggest you do something about it before you start pissing on the sovereignty of my talk page, again. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christ! You are such a fucking crybaby. It is worth a multi-day block to call you a pissant asshole. --Nélson Ricardo 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand. I'd simply like my block lifted. I don't have time for tyrannical admins with agendas that get in the way of proper use of privileges. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT WHITESPACE PAGES IN YOUR TALK SECTION AS THESE DOCUMENT YOUR HISTORY OF FUEDING WITH OTHERS

Do not revert again, I can press a button on my computer all day long and revert this back.

FYI, it's my talk page. I can do what I want. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ

@@ Line 166: / Line 166: @@
 :Christ!  You are such a fucking crybaby.  It is worth a multi-day block to call you a pissant asshole.  [[User:Nricardo|--Nélson Ricardo]] 01:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 ::You misunderstand. I'd simply like my block lifted. I don't have time for tyrannical admins with agendas that get in the way of proper use of privileges. --[[User:Haizum|<b>Haizum</b>]] <b>   μολὼν λαβέ</b> 01:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
+==DO NOT WHITESPACE PAGES IN YOUR TALK SECTION AS THESE DOCUMENT YOUR HISTORY OF FUEDING WITH OTHERS ==
+Do not revert again, I can press a button on my computer all day long and revert this back.
+:FYI, it's my talk page. I can do what I want. --[[User:Haizum|<b>Haizum</b>]] <b>   μολὼν λαβέ</b>