Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Haizum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 15:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

[edit] Description

Basically Haizum's behaviour has been a little off recently. He has personally attacked users and not responded well. I'm not suggesting any action be taken, I just want him to understand that what he's doing is not considered acceptable.

He has deliberately altered the comments of other users and as shown here he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. Grace Note, this user's actions can not simply be brushed aside as if he has done nothing.

Why not? What harm would it actually do to move on? -- Grace Note.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. My first interaction with this user was reverting a weird edit which looked like vandalism. I dont recall what page that was...something related to Islam...I then saw his completely inappropriate comment here
  2. When I warned him about his behaviour here he responded with this-which does not violate policy but shows an unwillingness to acknowledge past mistakes
  3. Very uncivil comment on my talkpage-"Keep your half-truths and empty threats off of my talk page. Got that?"
  4. Just look at this. All of these anons seem to be him.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:POINT

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. 1

2

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. freestylefrappe 05:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. I did not appreciate being reported to a government that conducts cover-ups opperations, assasinations and torture to people. -- Striver 05:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):


1. My first interaction with this user was reverting a weird edit which looked like vandalism. I dont recall what page that was...something related to Islam...I then saw his completely inappropriate comment here -freestylefrappe

a. You reverted something that you thought was vandalism, but you didn't verify if it was so. Take responsibility for that.
b. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's inappropriate. Saying, "9/11, bigger and better" is far more inapropriate than anything I've ever said; so inappropriate that a responsible citizen would mention it to the appropriate authorities for consideration. No policy was violated. No legal threat was made.
c. Take responsibility for not knowing that the "no legal threats" policy refers to interpersonal legal threats, not the benign reporting of what may or may not be considered a federal crime.
Haizum 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

2. When I warned him about his behaviour here he responded with this-which does not violate policy but shows an unwillingness to acknowledge past mistakes -freestylefrappe

a. If it doesn't violate policy, then what business do you have using it as ammunition against me? It seems like you are expecting a crony to sympathize with you regardless of whether policy was violated or not. There simply isn't any other way to interpret that.
b. I will continue to show an unwillingness to acknowledge past mistakes that never existed.
Haizum 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

3. Very uncivil comment on my talkpage-"Keep your half-truths and empty threats off of my talk page. Got that?" -freestylefrappe

a. Saying I "threatened" another user is a half-truth (at best), and since the threat of a ban was based upon that moot point, I was justified in saying the whole post was a "half-truth" and "empty threat." I have every right to demand that spam be kept off of my talk page. It's not complicated.
b. Take responsibility for your spam.
c. Threatening me with a ban based upon a moot point isn't exactly civil. Take responsibility for that.
Haizum 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

4. Just look at this. All of these anons seem to be him. -freestylefrappe

a. This is so terribly unsubstantiated that I'm just going to go ahead and say it's a lie. Viriditas has a long history of nit-picking articles to many a contributor's frustration; however, I have nothing to do with a dispute about veganism. I have a username, and I'm not afraid to use it. Viriditas will probably corroborate this statement unless Wikipedia cronyism is worse than I thought.
b. Take responsibility for making a false accusation.
Haizum 06:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not appreciate being reported to a government that conducts cover-ups opperations, assasinations and torture to people. -- Striver 05:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

2,986 people did not appreciate being incinerated on an otherwise beautiful September morning.
Their families would not appreciate a "bigger and better" 9/11, as you put it.
Haizum 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

He has deliberately altered the comments of other users and as shown here he refuses to take responsibility for his actions. -freestylefrappe

a.Where have I altered the meaning of the comments of other users? Where? There isn't any example of this, therefore this comment is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, or in other words, a lie.
b. I refuse, and will continue to refuse to take responsibility for actions that did not take place.
c. freestylefrappe, you made a modification to the "Description" portion of this page and did not sign the modification with a timestamp; yet another example of taking liberties because of administrative status, and a growing record of dishonesty.
Haizum 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

[edit] Outside View by Grace Note

Guys, chill out. This is a bit of a storm in a teacup. Most disputes here are to start with. If you all just took a step back and thought "Well, probably User:X is okay", you'd get over it.

And don't you feel this whole RFC thing is a bit like "telling tales to teacher"? I do. If you're so very insulted by the stuff you're reporting here, you probably shouldn't be wandering around the Net without adult supervision. Haizum, try to be nice though. There's no need to go off at people like that.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Apologies for not being signed in. -- Grace Note. 203.206.87.165 06:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. --Madchester 06:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by OnceBitten

I find positives and negatives in this RfC. Having reviewed the claims and the edits made by the parties who feel that Haizum needs to be reminded that his behavior is unacceptable, The positive is that these two have attempted to use an RfC as a means to guide another Wikipedian towards behaviors that produce less stress. Frankly I find this, in theory, to be the optimum purpose of an RfC. And it gets me thinking that this quibbling isn't the stuff of high treason and drama that RfC's have become over time.

However I also see tempers in mix and what they accomplish is squabbling, and it seems that both sides know how to push the others buttons and the quickest way to end it is for all parties to just stop it. Sounds simplistic, and it is, but its easier to nip this in the bud then allow it to escalate.

I also really have to encourage both sides in this matter to take a deep breath, and back away from the computer for a couple days and take a WikiVacation. When you get back try (and I mean try) not to engage the other party. The first one who needles the other looses in my view. Good luck. OnceBitten 22:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Mangojuice 18:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside View by Pacian

I actually came here to open my own dispute about Haizum only to discover one had already been opened. Haizum has some fiercely conservative beliefs, and he makes unacceptable attacks against articles with content he doesn't understand. I discovered this based on his entires to the talk page at Bear community. I left him a message on his talk page, and he responded on my talk page with sarcasm and confrontational words. I don't know what to do at this point. I think that this users poor judgement and crass behaviour outweigh his positive input on Wikipedia, and I think it's time for him to be let go. Pacian 04:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Administrator, please remove this unrelated comment. Haizum 07:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Haizum_9336.html"