User talk:Thatcher/Alpha

I am currently busy in real life. I will check here and respond to questions about my own actions and edits, but I may or may not respond to requests for assistance on other matters. Please see the appropriate noticeboard for assistance. Thank you for your understanding.

user: Aynabend

Hi, Could you please have a look at this: [[1]] Thank you in advance. --Aynabend (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Tajik

Beh-nam, you should probably read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik, especially Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik/Proposed decision. Eight Arbitrators endorsed the finding of fact that Tajik had engaged in sockpuppetry to continue editing while claiming to be "too busy" to engage in mediation (which he had agreed to do to avoid arbitration). Even if some of the alleged sockpuppets are not him (which I am not in a position to evaluate) the broad finding remains, and has been endorsed by Arbitrators who do have access to the checkuser information. As I have explained to Tajik many times (and the idea that the anonymous person posting repeatedly to my talk page, as well as emailing me, and posting other places, is not Tajik himself is just silly) he may appeal to the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 00:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

How can he appeal to the Arbitration commitee if he is banned? And I don't blame him for not taking part in the initial arbitration because it was very SILLY to suggest that he was Tajik-Professer and he must have been frustrated with it. Has anyone even looked at Tajik-Professors contributions? They are not anything like Tajik's... for example: Tajik-Professor asked me for help... why would Tajik (a veteran editor) ask me for help!? Take a look here. He asks me to add a map for him. Why would Tajik ask me that? He knows how to do that. Clearly Tajik-Professor was a brand new user and I am the one that actually invited him to join Wikipedia (though I regret it now). So why have the Admins not looked at the contributions? They clearly show they are not the same person. Yes, they have a similar IP, because they both live in Germany... but they live in DIFFERENT parts of Germany and their IPs have a significant difference. The Admins were just rushing and were influenced by the manipulations user: Atabek who spreads around his Pan-Turkist POVs and wanted a way to ban Tajik. I would be really frustrated if I was Tajik and I wouldn't bother asking for an appeal because it's so ridiculous! He is banned now so he cannot appeal, can you please start an appeal for him? -- Behnam (talk) 11:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik can appeal his ban by emailing the Arbitration Committee via the email address given at WP:AC. This is the only route of appeal for users banned by ArbCom. Thatcher131 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher, I posted this on ANI as well. User:Beh-nam keeps insulting me on my talk page, he did so today for a second time [2]. The previous attempt was in September [3]. Atabek (talk) 14:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Beh-nam needs to stop carrying Tajik's water. Banned users have a valid route of appeal, via email to ArbCom, and protests, complaints and edits on behalf of banned users are likely to get one banned as a proxy editor. Thatcher131 04:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Very weak, Thatcher. You had been told before that Tajik did try to contact the Arbitration Committee. But his mails are being ignored. The same way, he has told many times that you ignore his mails. And most recently, User:Ali_doostzadeh has requested an investigation, and his emails are being ignored as well. I took this to User:Jimbo Wales and also asked Tajik to write a short comment. But admins once again ignored. This is not a mistake or failure of Tajik. It all started with you and your injust block. And it continues to this day. And what surprises me most is that you are now even threatening User:Beh-nam. What the hell is wrong with you, Thatcher?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.44 (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no influence over whether ArbCom answers your email, either individually or collectively. I hope that they would communicate with you, of course, but I have no way of knowing whether or not they have. I do note that while you are pursuing your request to be unblocked you are also making disruptive and contentious edits to topics related to Azerbaijan etc., which will certainly weigh against any request. Your best hope would be to apologize and agree to reopen the Arbitration case involving your previous (and current) behavior. You give me too much credit if you think my original block persuaded ArbCom to confirm the block in the face of insufficient evidence, especially as the Arbitrators had access to the underlying checkuser data while I did not. Please pursue this through ArbCom. Thatcher131 11:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

a) I am not Tajik, maybe you should contact him (write him an email). b) everyone is allowed to edit Wikipedia and not everyone needs to sign up. c) which of my edits do you regard as disruptive? There are other users who openly use IP socks and vandalize articles (they also personally attack other users), but the admins don't do anything against it. One such case is User:Moorudd with various of his IP socks (see here). He removing references and valuable information. At the same time, his edits are coordinated with those of User:E104421 (who has recently been put on a 1RR parole). This is meatpuppetry. You are the admin, you can check this and you will see that I am right. Do not point fingers at others and do not see Tajik where he is not. Tajik has quit Wikipedia and you know that. I am active in the German Wikipedia (which, by the way, has a much higher quality than this Wikipedia) and I do not intend to waste my time in here with corrupt admins and silly "Armenia vs. Azerbaijan vs. Iran vs. Turkey vs. Afghanistan vs. Pakistan vs. India vs. all the rest" wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.141.78 (talk) 11:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Arbcom banned user and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to

Since you're an Arbitration Committee clerk, I thought I'd let you know about the above templates.... I have converted these to use the new ambox format. Feel free to revert me if you want. I made these changes so the templates would look better.

Thanks, --Solumeiras ^talk 16:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

For you good sir

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for the following links:

recycling and bigfoot. Kwsn (Ni!) 05:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Foundation resolution

Hi. Following up here on your question on the Signpost article talkpage (since as Ral315 indicates that's probably not a sensible place for this). I was working off what appears to be the current version of the Foundation resolution, updated in June. This one has a slightly different wording of paragraph 2. In particular, note how the word "including" age verification is changed to "which may include." Then in paragraph 4, the resolution specifically applies to checkusers, oversighters, and stewards, but does not expressly mention arbitration committees (even though one of the Board members is a former arbitrator herself and served on the committee with an underage member, so the issue must have crossed her mind). The inference I drew was that the Board had decided to leave the issue of whether arbitrators must meet the age requirement as a local decision, or at a minimum, that the policy was ambiguous and could reasonably be construed in this way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you should bug Anthere about the change to #2, which removed one of the two main purposes of the resolution when narrowly parsed as you have done. Regarding the rest, I stand by my conclusion that since the policy bars minors from access to data disclosed through checkuser, ArbCom had the choice of adopting an age limit or of creating a two-tiered system in which minors would not be able to participate in discussion of any case involving such information. Thatcher131 16:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think an intermediate interpretation is also quite possible under which minors could not themselves be checkusers (and thus in a position to decide unilaterally which checks to run), but I see no issue with an editor who is legally a minor, but is sufficiently trusted by the community to be elected to the committee, having access to the information supplied by an adult checkuser as one member of a 15-member committee or a 40-member mailing list. As a matter of principle, I still think that a minimum age for arbitrators is unnecessary and derogates from our ethos of equal rights and opportunities for every editor. However ... I seem to be the only one who feels strongly about this (even the two younger editors who were forced to drop out of the election when the ruling was announced seem to have adjusted and moved on with their lives :) ), so I don't expect to press the issue further at this time. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Deecee voice

Please note this - it is my intention to unban/unblock Deeceevoice from editing on Afrocentrism and other topical articles, as her most recent edits seem to me to be constructive, and she seems to be making an effort to engage others constructively (and effort, I note, that in my opinion has not been reciprocated by one or two other editors). I hope this is sufficient. I will be travelling for a few days and will not have access to Wikipedia - if any technical changes must be made I hope another sysop can help out. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Durova_and_Jehochman/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:_Songgarden

I believe you are mistaken about the events surrounding the block of Songgarden and the reasons for same. No big deal, but Flonight was not a checkuser when Durova claimed that she was??? Sorry to bust the bubble. Once...was blocked by JzG for ? 200.107.53.253 (talk) 18:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Songgarden (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked by Durova as a sock of Amorrow. The reason was changed to sock of Once and Forever by FloNight. Although FloNight did not have checkuser access at that time, she is a member of the Arbitration committee and has access to privileged communication between checkusers, or could have contacted a checkuser privately. I myself have placed "Checkuser" blocks, although I usually list the name of the checkuser whom I contacted. You are essentially accusing FloNight of lying, which I do not accept. For the present, Songgarden is banned and his/her contributions may be reverted and his/her IPs may be blocked. Songgarden may appeal by sending email directly to the Arbitration Committee. Thatcher131 19:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thatcher131, with all repect that is now good and due to you, I would like you to read the record offered to you as to when Flonight gained her access to the checkuser status. It is available right above in the Songgarden evidence page. Good faith and common sense tell us that Durova was the one not being truthful. If Songgarden is forced to take his block to the Arbcom., there will be plenty of verifiable attempts at getting the issue resolved prior to same. This is my final communication with you. Save it to archive, please. Thank you. In re: Songgarden November 27, 2007 From U.S, IP. Public...Tandem/link off...ab. Cc. SM. 75.53.133.150 (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You are very clever. Your behavior indicates that no matter who you are, banning as someone more interested in stirring up trouble than in contributing to the encyclopedia is probably a good idea. Good luck with Arbcom. Thatcher131 01:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

Hi, Thatcher131. I noticed that User:Tajik is posting several messages to your talk page as well as mine under anonymous ips. Now, he is causing disruption more than ever, since he's trying provoke other users. As he did here: [4],[5],[6],[7]. Tajik was banned by ArbCom, after anonymous ip and User:German-Orientalist issues. Unfortunately, User:Beh-nam is colloborating with him and spamming messages to other users, too. As he did here:[8],[9],[10]. In addition, Beh-nam posted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/E104421 but in his comments used the same style of Tajik, misrepresented my parole, and accused me of sock/meat-puppetry. How can i get rid of Tajik's disruption? User:Picaroon advised me to apply WP:AIV, and quote this diffs. What do you recommend me to do? Regards. E104421 (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I just banned Beh-nam. For article edits you can revert them and then request at AIV for the IP to be blocked. Since he acquires new IPs rapidly, a 24 hour block is all that is really needed. If he is focusing on a few articles, you can go to Requests for page protection and ask that the article be semi-protected to block IP editors. Thatcher131 12:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)