Haizum's Sovereign Talk Page |
---|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Thanks for the pinch :) ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
This whole thing was started on my talk page with the following...
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hazium, I blocked User:Cr8tiv for 3 hours because of their comments here on your talk page, but having looked at the interaction between the two of you more closely, I'm of the opinion that comments like this one just bait people into insulting you and do nothing to promote worthwhile discourse on the Wiki. You're entitled to your opinions, but please keep talk page discussion germane, even if other users are straying into unrelated matters. A Train talk 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are a creepy evil little man and probably look and smell just the way I imagine! PLEASE GO AWAY! You bait others and then hide behind a smug attitude of Political correctness. Inflection can also mean "bend or angle" which is relected in your mechanical "Universtity of Theran" mode of academic writing and communicating that leads the reader to guess that English IS NOT YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE! You can pick nits all you want with any spelling or other "problem" you see in this note but remember, you will never fully be accepted in British or American Acedamia because of your attitude and cultural backwardsness...I am never looking at my Cr8tiv page again, refuse to ever edit any past articles under any "sockpuppet" or ever look at your silly self-important,rants that you carry out with others editors. Seriously dude get over youself and quit trying to destroy Western Culture which is far superior to that of Kite flying Yak milkers who smell like free stale cheese. It is called deodorant and dude it is CHEAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr8tiv ( talk • contribs) at 11:55, 24 July 2007
Hi, I am a professor at Boston College studying the development of the Wikipedia page on the Virginia Tech massacre. You were one of the top 5% of editors to the page, and I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a brief survey about your participation.
Your participation will help me (and hopefully the Wikipedia community) better understand the collaborative process that results in exemplary articles. If you do not wish to participate and this solicitation was unwelcome, please accept my apologies and simply delete this message from your talk page. I will not contact you again.
-- geraldckane 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Haizum, Thanks for your support regarding the Ernest Emerson article. I put alot of time and research into that piece, hate to see it deleted by a bunch of editors who are afraid of weapons. Mike Searson 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that templating, let alone boilerplating, the regulars is frowned upon, but then so is personal attacks and incivility. I feel that if you are unable to comport yourself to proper standards then your sensitivities are of less import. LessHeard vanU 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have begun an ANI thread in regards to you at [[ WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. My apologies. • Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have extended your block to indefinite. Looking back, I see no evidence that you either understand the problem with your behaviour or are interested in fixing it. Some people are not cut out for editing collaboratively with others; it appears you are one of these. Guy ( Help!) 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Haizum ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Retroactive and capricious indef block based on vendetta ANI.
Decline reason:
You have offered no reason to believe this is true. — Yamla 20:18, 15 November 2007 (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.
I have, to my knowledge, never interacted with you and have no prior quarrel with you. I hope you can take these comments in a constructive manner. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing consensus that your net contribution to this encyclopedia is negative. The majority of your edits are to talk pages and relatively few contribute content. There is a long history of difficulties in collaborating with other editors, as witnessed by your block log. There is little evidence that you understand that this is a problem and I don't see any attempts to change the problematic behavior, including your comments after this block. There are many venues on the internet available for all kinds of matters, but this is a project to build an encyclopedia - editing Wikipedia may not be an activity suited for everybody. I'm sorry. henrik• talk 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Haizum's Sovereign Talk Page |
---|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Thanks for the pinch :) ← ΣcoPhreek OIF 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
This whole thing was started on my talk page with the following...
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)
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)
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)
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)
Hazium, I blocked User:Cr8tiv for 3 hours because of their comments here on your talk page, but having looked at the interaction between the two of you more closely, I'm of the opinion that comments like this one just bait people into insulting you and do nothing to promote worthwhile discourse on the Wiki. You're entitled to your opinions, but please keep talk page discussion germane, even if other users are straying into unrelated matters. A Train talk 20:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
You are a creepy evil little man and probably look and smell just the way I imagine! PLEASE GO AWAY! You bait others and then hide behind a smug attitude of Political correctness. Inflection can also mean "bend or angle" which is relected in your mechanical "Universtity of Theran" mode of academic writing and communicating that leads the reader to guess that English IS NOT YOUR FIRST LANGUAGE! You can pick nits all you want with any spelling or other "problem" you see in this note but remember, you will never fully be accepted in British or American Acedamia because of your attitude and cultural backwardsness...I am never looking at my Cr8tiv page again, refuse to ever edit any past articles under any "sockpuppet" or ever look at your silly self-important,rants that you carry out with others editors. Seriously dude get over youself and quit trying to destroy Western Culture which is far superior to that of Kite flying Yak milkers who smell like free stale cheese. It is called deodorant and dude it is CHEAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cr8tiv ( talk • contribs) at 11:55, 24 July 2007
Hi, I am a professor at Boston College studying the development of the Wikipedia page on the Virginia Tech massacre. You were one of the top 5% of editors to the page, and I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a brief survey about your participation.
Your participation will help me (and hopefully the Wikipedia community) better understand the collaborative process that results in exemplary articles. If you do not wish to participate and this solicitation was unwelcome, please accept my apologies and simply delete this message from your talk page. I will not contact you again.
-- geraldckane 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Haizum, Thanks for your support regarding the Ernest Emerson article. I put alot of time and research into that piece, hate to see it deleted by a bunch of editors who are afraid of weapons. Mike Searson 15:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that templating, let alone boilerplating, the regulars is frowned upon, but then so is personal attacks and incivility. I feel that if you are unable to comport yourself to proper standards then your sensitivities are of less import. LessHeard vanU 13:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have begun an ANI thread in regards to you at [[ WP:ANI#Haizum_-_request_for_further_admin_action. My apologies. • Lawrence Cohen 18:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I have extended your block to indefinite. Looking back, I see no evidence that you either understand the problem with your behaviour or are interested in fixing it. Some people are not cut out for editing collaboratively with others; it appears you are one of these. Guy ( Help!) 19:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Haizum ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Retroactive and capricious indef block based on vendetta ANI.
Decline reason:
You have offered no reason to believe this is true. — Yamla 20:18, 15 November 2007 (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.
I have, to my knowledge, never interacted with you and have no prior quarrel with you. I hope you can take these comments in a constructive manner. Unfortunately, there seems to be a growing consensus that your net contribution to this encyclopedia is negative. The majority of your edits are to talk pages and relatively few contribute content. There is a long history of difficulties in collaborating with other editors, as witnessed by your block log. There is little evidence that you understand that this is a problem and I don't see any attempts to change the problematic behavior, including your comments after this block. There are many venues on the internet available for all kinds of matters, but this is a project to build an encyclopedia - editing Wikipedia may not be an activity suited for everybody. I'm sorry. henrik• talk 20:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)