Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:01, 30 November 2007

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:Thatcher131/Piggybank

user: Aynabend

Hi, Could you please have a look at this: ] Thank you in advance. --Aynabend (talk) 08:24, 29 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 Misplaced Pages - 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/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: ,,,. 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:,,. In addition, Beh-nam posted Misplaced Pages: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)

• Hi Thatcher. I have just declined to unblock Beh-nam. I think it would be useful for future review if you could document on his talk page the previous warnings you referred to. I sense some sockpuppetry. Was that Tajik or Beh-nam? Its difficult as an outside admin making valid reviews of complex cases like this so if there is a summary hanging around somewhere you can link to, it would be really helpful. Something tells me that we haven't heard the last from this editor. Spartaz 22:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to provide some information on the latest warnings. I warned User:Beh-nam several times in my talk page , in Beh-nam's talk page , and posted two warning messages to the talk pages of the articles as a reminder , for both Beh-nam and Tajik (anonymous ips). Thatcher131 warned him . Dmcdevit also warned him (i do not know how many times, i'm adding the recent ones) ,,,, . There is a discussion on Dmcdevit's talk page , too. It's difficult to document all of the discussions on Tajik-related issues but i think the recent ones (from November 2007) provide enough information on the case. Regards. E104421 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I did leave a note on Beh-nam's talk page with some diffs. Thatcher131 01:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My last block

Thank you from un blocking me. But anyway I do not consider valid my 2 days block, because I actually did NOTHING, and I do not understand the reasons for it. I am not guilty if Steel trusted to some users acting in bad faith adopting a biased behaviour !Giovanni Giove 16:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)