User talk:Beh-nam - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beh-nam (talk | contribs) at 09:56, 8 December 2007 (→Banned). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 09:56, 8 December 2007 by Beh-nam (talk | contribs) (→Banned)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

Hissami

I do not know this individual, but I do know he/she supports the same demonym stance as me. Thegreyanomaly 05:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tajik

I don't know why you are sending around this banned user's edit from months ago to various admin talk pages. In the future, simply revert the edit and let him know that his ban will continue to be reset as long as he evades it. All appeals of ArbCom bans must go through ArbCom anyway, and none of the people you contacted could do anything about the matter even if they wanted. Dmcdevit·t 20:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

can you please stop removing official Afghan gov. websites from the external links section under Afghanistan article.--Hurooz 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

IP: 85.178.151.155

Please keep an eye on some articles, such as Timur, Timurid dynasty, or Great Seljuq Empire. The IP is a known vandal from the German Misplaced Pages who has a long history of vandalism and blocks. He is a typical Pan-Turkist who does not accept scholastic sources (that's why he has deleted the reference to the Encyclopaedia of Islam).

Put those articles on your watchlist and next time he starts to vandalize, report him to an admin! You can also ask User:Ali_doostzadeh for help.

Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along:

I think you are familiar with my previous two block were you were mistaken and ended up apologizing to me because the user that accused me was a sockpuppet of a previous banned user (user: NisarKand/user: Dilbar Jan/etc). I am very sure that once again this user: Hurooz is another one of his sockpuppets, again he edits the same articles and again he tries to get me banned. If you don't believe that, then atleast let me explain all of these edits and you'll see that whoever reported this is manipulating you.

1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

Conclusion, once again you banned me without proper investigation (this is the 3rd time). Now I have explained each of these edits and it's clear there is no reason for you to have banned me. Please unblock me or unblock my talk page so another admin can see my explanation.

--Haemo (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Block

Due to your continued disruptive behavior, making unsubstanited claims of people being a child molester, removing official links, etc, you have been blocked for a week. See , , , , , , , and more.Continued disruption will result in an indef block. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

CLAIMS!? Go read a book on him! He was what we call a "bachabaz" (boy player). In those times this was very common for a powerful king to have male concubines! And Abdali was born in Multan and it's REFERENCED in the aticle here. It's not vandalism! As for removing links... read the source! There is NOTHING linking "Pactyans" to Pashtuns! And I've EXPLAINED this on the talk page here! What the heck am I being banned for!? -- Behnam (talk) 22:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm afraid not. You have a healthy block log and evidently have yet to appreciate the rules by which we live here. You are not banned, but blocked for a period of time. Please use the time to review our rules of conduct and behavior. — JodyB_talk 22:36, 23 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.

Just a note, but none of the sources you provided at any time reference him being a "child molester"; I think that's the issue here. --Haemo (talk) 22:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

not to mention the sex slave edit. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I never said I did provide a source for that. I said it's ALREADY sourced and it's STILL in the article's infobox with citation that he was born in Multan!!! So I'm being blocked because of just one unreferenced edit (which is common knowledge that kings of that time had sex with young boys). What about the THOUSANDS of other unreferenced edits!? -- Behnam (talk) 22:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Behnam sent me this. I think it's prudent that I pass it along:

1) Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge that kings at that time had sex with young boys. Am I getting banned for just one unreferenced edit?
2) This is an RV of vandalism! It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan.
3) I explained that edit on the talk page here
4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish
5) This is an RV is very bad writing and vandalism!
6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai).
7) I listened to him and asked for a guide on external links, see here
8) I removed vandalism, someone removed REFERENCED content and there was concensus on this, see the talk page!

--Haemo (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I have only blocked you two times, not three. Any admin can see and read anything you've done--so yes they had every chance to see everything. I did not protect your talk page, someone else did. See my above entry of 23:25 too. You are not totally innocent in this or you wouldn't have the long block log that you do have nor have gotten your talk page protected; you even got indef blocked once and there are several admins who agree with me. What evidence you have that Hurooz is a sock? The whole root of this problem is that too many people who edit the articles you are interested in simply can't learn to get along with each other. Think about it. Finally, both sides of this topic you and Hurooz are in please go find another admin from now on. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, then

So, I'm willing to sit down, have a cup of tea, and listen to what you have to say about the circumstances surrounding your block. However, I know that I, and I'm sure everyone else who will be dealing with this, would appreciate it if you tried to keep it cool, and just generally keep the tone civil. I'll work hard to do the same. --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I had previously blocked user's IP for evading the block but have unblocked so that they may discuss this.--Sandahl 05:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Thank you very much. I do apologize for my previous frustration. It was as a result of the fact that recently the Admin User:Rlevse has been pushed by certain users to get me banned. Rlevse has blocked me twice recently, and in the end he ended up unblocking me after further investigation (it was determined that the users asking for a block on me were sockpuppets of a user that was banned long ago, user: NisarKand). Once again, a brand new user: Hurooz appears and is somehow familiar with me and all my past edits and block and tries to get me banned by misrepresenting my diffs to Rlevse. So it was very frustrating that this is happening for the 3rd time.

But enough about that, I don't want to complicate things for you guys.

Basically, if you take a look at all this edits that I am accused of breaking rules on, there is nothing wrong any of them and I have not broken any rules at all. Infact in several of these diffs I have RV'ed vandalism (removing of sourced material) or removed POVs. Here they all explained:

1)Although I did not reference it, the meaning of Durrani is common knowledge and it is also common knowledge to people with a backround in the history of the region that kings at that time had sex with young boys. I did not feel the need to reference at the time because I assumed it would be common knowledge for people interested in this topic.
2) This is an RV of vandalism. It is already sourced in the articles infobox that he was born in Multan. Please just take a look a the infobox on that version.
3) I explained that edit on the talk page here.
4) Putting Her Majesty sounds POVish, so I removed it to make it sound more neutral.
5) This is an RV of an edit where some just inserted a large chunk of new content. It was very poorly written as you can see, that's why I removed it.
6) The president's website is already on the president's article (Hamid Karzai) and I don't think it needs to be on Afghanistan's article.
7) I listened to him and asked for a guidance on external links, see here.
8) I RV'ed vandalism, someone removed referenced content. Not only did they remove well referenced content, there was consensus on this, please see the talk page here.

Please take a look at these one by one and then please make a decision on whether I broke any rules. Thanks. -- Behnam (talk) 09:28, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to start off I don't think anyone is trying to get you banned here; a ban is different from a block and much more serious. Admins can't ban people on their own — so, don't worry; you will be back editing within a week no matter what.

However, I think the problem people are having with your edits is that you're making some pretty inflammatory statements without providing sources, and then trying to keep them in without providing sources. For instance, in diffs 1 and 2 above, they both insert the "child molester/sex slave" comment without a source — I think that's the main source of umbrage here. Now, I'm not from the region, so I will take your word that it's common knowledge but since this is the English Misplaced Pages a statement like that really requires a citation, since most English speakers would have no idea what that word meant. There's also something distinct to be said about the term "child molester" in this context, since that term has a strong (modern) connotation which is probably not accurate given the historical context.

With respect to some of the other edits, like (3), you were aware they were contentious but did them anyways — you should try to get consensus first for your removal, when you expect them to be disputed. It's good to see that you're using the talk pages, but you've got the order backwards in the case of contentious material IMO. With 5, you should improve poorly written prose, not remove it solely because it's poorly worded.

Anyways, the kind of general impression that you get from these edits is that of someone with an agenda. I'm not saying that you have one, but that it's the kind of thing that a person would draw out of it. With your long block history for edit warring over this subject area, it's probably not totally off base — at the very least, this is a subject which you are very passionate about.

I'm willing to consider unblocking you, and I think Rlevse will go along since he's already commented that your comment have merit, but I'm interested in using this as an opportunity to try to calm down some of the edit warring that goes on around these topics — and try to set you on the right track, when you're unblocked. Now, what do you think would be a good kind of general agreement we could both live with about how you edit? I think a good start would be a commitment to discuss contentious edits before you make them and get consensus, to refrain from edit warring, and to source statements which a general reader would not know as common knowledge. These are all things which I think you will be doing anyways, so hopefully you won't think this too onerous — but I'm willing to listen to your suggestions as well. --Haemo (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes that is very reasonable. I will definitely use the Talk page for contentious edits before I edit. And come to think of it, you're right, we shouldn't assume that the reader has any background knowledge in these topics. Well another suggestion I would have for myself is to be more patient. I have a tendency to loose my patience and edit quickly. I think that's the main thing that might get me into edit wars sometimes. Overall, I totally understand you're reasoning also and I will make the utmost attempt to improve on these areas. Thank you for the guidance. -- Behnam (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. I will talk to Rlevse about unblocking you early. You might have to wait a little bit. --Haemo (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, there's no rush. Thank you. -- Behnam (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse has agreed, so I've unblocked you. Good luck, and happy editing. --Haemo (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Take care. -- Behnam (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

About a revert

Did you actually mean to restore vandalism as indicated by this edit summary or was it a mistake? When reverting we need to go back and look at the history in case we revert to a vandalized version. Thanks.--Sandahl 03:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your request for checkuser

Beh-nam, I have formatted your Request for CheckUser into it's own page, as it is normally done, and requested additional information from you. You can view the case here. --Deskana (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghani & Afghanistani

I am sorry, but I don't see that the extensive discussion of last July is passé. If you mean by new sources the ones listed by Carl.bunderson, I do not find them very convincing. Yes some English speakers do use Afghani, even fewer use Afghanistani, but by far and away the most common usage is Afghan, and by that as English speakers we do not mean Pashtun, even if Persian speakers do. When we say Afghan it includes Tajiks and Uzbeks and even Hazaras. --Bejnar (talk) 04:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This is an academic encyclepedia and we provide what is true and right. If English speakers use Afghan for non pashtuns then they are making a mistake and it should be corrected.Anoshirawan 04:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

Turko-Persian tradition

What's your dispute is about? The references were already cited. Copy-edit was already done. I even did a spell-check. You're just pushing Tajik's little disputes into Misplaced Pages by blindly reverting the articles. This is what is called meatpuppetry. Regards. E104421 (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, i realized that you did the same kind of revert for the Azerbaijani people article. You're always writing the same type of edit-summaries as "use the talk page or explain your edits" but you never comment on the talk/discussion pages but simply revert to Tajik's version. E104421 (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

E104421 & sockpuppets of vandal

Beh-nam, you may be interested in this: - E104421 is harassing you and he is working with sockpuppets of User:Moorudd (known as de:Benutzer:Westthrakientürke in the German Misplaced Pages). You should ask for a checkuser file:

The IPs have been vandalizing various articles, including Timur, Timurids, Babur, etc. E104421 is the meatpuppet of these IP socks. His edits are identical to those of the IP-socks. He also blindly reverted your edit here to the version of the IP, ignoring that you had reverted to the FA consensus. He was corrected by Pejman. But this clearly shows that E104421 does not assume good faith and that his (blind) edits are nationalistically and ethnically motivated. His latest revert in the Timurid dynasty page is exactly the same as those of the IP socks. It's always the same edit, always the same revert - their edits are identical. And it was the 5th time that E104421 has reverted to the same wrong version, removing authoritative sources:

Also, E104421 is on a 1RR parole in all Turkish-, Iranian-, Azeri-, and Armenian-related articles. If you see him revert more than one time, report him.

Good luck!

Checkuser shows that it is likely that the IPs were User:Moorudd. Remember that User:Tajik was also banned, although checkuser had only found out that it was likely that User:German-Orientalist was him. Until today, User:German-Orientalist is listed as a sockpuppet of User:Tajik. According to the same rules, User:Moorudd needs to be banned because of multiple IP sockpuppets and WP:PA. Good job, Beh-nam.

Edit warring block

You have both been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring in the Kunduz Province article. Please take this time to cool down, and discuss changes to the articles on the talk page before you resume editing; further escalation would not be productive. — Coren 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

— Coren 01:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please take a look at the edit summaries on that article by that user. They make no sense and can be considered vandalism. I provided several easy to understand explanations but this user was ignoring them. In my mind, I was reverting vandalism since this was a new user and making silly edits. -- Behnam (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block was converted to indefinite by Thatcher131 (talk · contribs) — Coren 03:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Banned

I have changed your block to an indefinite ban. You continue to advocate for a banned editor despite warnings. (In your advocacy you repeatedly misrepresent the situation and evidence against the banned user despite multiple corrections; it is difficult to believe that this is not deliberate at this point.) You have been taking advice and probably proxy-editing for the banned user . You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring with no sign that you will moderate your behavior. Should you wish to appeal your ban, you may email the Arbitration committee. Sockpuppet accounts used to evade the ban will be blocked and such actions will weigh against any appeal. Thatcher131 02:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was just asking question to User:Dmcdevit so that I understand the situation so that I can then go to ArbCom. How can go to ArbCom on Tajik's behalf if I don't even know why he was banned? Also, about blocking me for edit warring? I was reverting a very obvious vandal which has now been reverted again to my version, and I did not violate the 3RR. If I was asking question to User:Dmcdevit he should decide to block me or not, which I know he wouldn't block me just for asking questions. And I'm not proxy editing for anyone. I was at a dispute with that IP (85.......) and it was brought to my attention that he might be a sockpuppet and I reported it and it turned out to be Likely. What's wrong with that? Banning me so quickly for hardly good enough reasons makes no sense. This ban makes no sense and I'd like another neutral Admin to look at it, you should have atleast consulted another admin before banning or given a warning. I would like Admin 's input since it was him I was asking questions, not you. -- Behnam (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC) }}

The template is not to communicate with a specific admin, it is to request a review of your block. If you'd like to contact Dmcdevit, I'd suggest that you use Special:Emailuser/Dmcdevit. SQL 04:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I tried the unblock template, it's not working. Thatcher has disabled it and I coudln't ask for ArbCom either. -- Behnam (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No one has the technical capability to disable the unblock template, per user. You simply mis-posted it. You're more than welcome to contact Arbcom. There's a list here: WP:ARBCOM#Active, just use the links that say "Email" to use the on-wiki e-mail function (which I checked, is NOT disabled for you.). Also, several of the arbitors have listed e-mail addresses next to their names, if the e-mail user function is not working for you. SQL 04:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This ban was long in coming, based on Beh-nam's persistent edit warring, repeated disruptive campaigning to unban Tajik, and battleground tactics. The fact that he evaded his ban just now despite Thatcher's explicit warning not to is even more evidence that he'll never work within our community norms. Dmcdevit·t 05:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see below.

Decline reason:

Sorry, I have review you case and the situation, and Thatcher131 issuing of the indef. block is justified. The block and ban stands. — Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces. 11:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

What edit warring? I was removing vandalism on the Kunduz Province article by a user that was brand new and agreeing that Dari uses Persian script yet labelling the script as Dari script (which there is no such ting). His edits made no sense and can be considered vandalism and removing vandalism is not edit warring. And I did discuss it with that new user on his talk page (see here). Even if I was edit warring, that is not a good enough reason to indefinitely ban someone. People have been blocked for a week or month for edit warring, no has been banned. Thatcher is taking a 24-hour block into a indef ban, that makes no sense. I could understand a few weeks or even a month, I do not understand how anyone can get banned for this.
- There is an Admin that is familiar with the Persian language and she can tell you that the edits that I reverted on the Kunduz Province article were reverting vandalism. She is User:Persian Poet Gal, please ask for her input on this.
I was asking questions about user: Tajik's ban because you banned him and I wanted to know the details of why he was banned so I can have all the facts straight before I was going to do an ArbCom for him. I am doing this because user: Tajik contrubted greatly on Afghanistan related articles and I've noticed the articles aren't going anywhere with out him. Also, user: Thatcher131 claims he has given me multiple warnings... he has not given me a single warning (and I'm not sure what the warning is for since I'm just asking questions).
I did not evade my ban, check my IP's contribs, I did not edit a single article. {{unblock}} wasn't working for me (see above) so I came on with my laptop onto your talk page since you're an Admin to ask for an unblock on your talk page.

Finally, I'd like another Admin other than user: Thatcher131 and User talk:Dmcdevit to continue this disucussion with because user: Thatcher131 has biased because I did a checkuser on one of his friends (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/E104421 see here) As you can see there, his friend user: Moorudd was actually edit warring and also using puppet IPs, and he didn't even block him and intervened and asked that he be not blocked for sockpuppettry. Whereas I'm reverting vandalism and he bans me indef. And User talk:Dmcdevit also appears to work closely with Thatcher. So please, I'd like a few other Admins to continue with this. Thanks. -- Behnam (talk) 05:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not replying here for your benefit but for the benefit of any future review of your ban. Your filing of Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/E104421 was inappropriate and the conclusions not as you claim they are. The request was clearly made by Tajik here on your talk page; by filing it on his behalf, you acted as a proxy for a banned user, and not for the first time. Regarding the findings, frankly the checkuser involved should have stopped at the finding that the Moorudd and the IP addresses were unrelated to E104421. Only if they were related would their be a rules violation by E104421. Since they are not related, a closer examination of the IP edits is in order. Editing as an IP is not prohibited unless it is to avoid scrutiny or to game the 3RR system. There is no requirement that users must log in. Looking at the IP edits, each IP only edits for a given day, and there is no overlap with the edits of the Moorudd account. Therefore there is no 3RR or other rules violation by the IPs or by Moorudd. In my opinion, the checkuser should not have confirmed that part of the request without specific evidence of wrongdoing (diffs) which you did not provide, and she certainly should not have used the term "IP Vandal" without checking the contributions, as this is clearly a content dispute. But she is new and will learn. Basically, we have a content dispute here between E104421 and Tajik. E104421 may or may not be using Moorudd as a proxy but there is no evidence of that, while there is clear evidence that you are proxying for Tajik. Thatcher131 20:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not acting as a proxy for Tajik. He gave me a hint that the IPs and Morrud were related so I checked it since I was at odds with that IP in a few articles. In my mind, I was not acting as a proxy and I definitely did not even know there was such a violation and as such I do not think I deserve to be indef banned. I would like the penalty dropped to a week or month or whatever you feel necessary for me to learn what proxying is, or if not then I'd like another admin to look at this since this is a case of judgment. In my judgement I did not proxy, and even if in your judgement I did, I was not aware of such a violation and I think I deserve a warning. -- Behnam (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Disruptive advocacy for a banned user is not the kind of characteristic I would expect from a good faith contributor. I have seen no evidence that unblocking you will be a net benefit to the project - quite the reverse. Arbcom looks like your only option now. By the way, you have more then exceeded your quota of unblock requests for today. — Spartaz 22:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You were given plenty of chances. Even if you're not proxying, you have demonstrated an inability to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, despite many warnings. And even after being blocked/baneed you evaded it with a sockpuppet. We're willing to give second chances to users, but eventually we have to draw the line somewhere. Maser 22:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not given any chances. I have contributed constructively to Afghanistan related articles. I did not evade my ban with a sockpuppet, unblock template wasn't working so I came on with my other computer so I could ask an admin for an unblock, I did not edit a single article with my IP, I only asked a few admins about my unblock because the unblock template wasn't working. -- Behnam (talk) 01:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is indefinite and user is banned, please refer to contributions.--Sandahl 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't place any more unblock templates on this page. To do so may result in the page being protected. At this point Arbcom may be your only option. --Sandahl 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't edit the ArbCom page, it says I'm blocked from editing there also. -- Behnam (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You will need to email them. — Coren 02:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

How can I do that? -- Behnam (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — that list is received by all the arbitrators. — Coren 03:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I sent an email, where can I see if it's listed or not? -- Behnam 08:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

A member of the committee will reply to you with a response, possibly lifting the block so that you may file an appeal. Alternately, they may look directly at the evidence and "rule from the bench" as it were, then notify you of the result. It may take a day or two before you get a response. — Coren 16:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Good luck to me. -- Behnam 16:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I still have not received any response. What should I do? -- Behnam (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am placing this unblock here just to get attention of an admin with the above. I've asked for the ArbCom. I sent them emails. What should I do now?--Behnam 13:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You e-mailed arbcom already, regarding this. There is nothing the administrators can do to speed this process up any. Some arbitors have their e-mail addresses listed at WP:ARBCOM as well, that you may wish to try. Please do not post another unblock request, unless you have a really good reason that we should unblock you, or, this page may end up protected.— SQL 13:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I just wanted attention of an Admin. I've tried that too and I've received no response. I've been waiting a week now. Can you look into this for me? Behnam 14:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

For help with this template, please post a comment on the template talk page with a {{reply to}} one or more of the previous editors.

Additional documentation

First off, a stroll through Behnam's contribs to user talk namespace is quite informative. He has periods of activity and inactivity, but every period of activity ends up with him posting to his own user talk page about some block or other. As far as Tajik is concerned, Beh-nam has been pursuing Tajik's block for 6 months despite repeated advice to contact ArbCom and repeated warnings to stop.

27 May asks me about my block of Tajik , replied to contact ArbCom , checkuser findings explained
8 Sep asks Deskana about the block of Tajik
15 Nov, spams Dmcdevit and Penwhale , my reply . "I am not Tajik, I just use his IP" jumps in
23 Nov, resends same post to Dmcdevit , reply
23 Nov Behnam on User talk:Thatcher131 , warned about proxy editing for a banned user
26 Nov, to Dmcdevit , reply with warning
29 Nov Behnam complains about block of Tajik on Dmcdevit's talk page, including misrepresentation of the previous checkuser findings and awareness of warnings to cut it out . Dmcdevit's reply . Argument

Thatcher131 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

- I've been asking about his block because since he was banned the Afghanistan related articles have not been improving. I don't see how this is a violation? -- Behnam (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Other evidence of meatpuppetry

Close connection
Tajik requests a checkuser , comments on the response
Tajik requests that Beh-nam watch an article he has editing (in violation of his ban)

Thatcher131 00:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

- I was also at odds with that IP that's why I did a checkuser on him. Yes, Tajik pointed it to me. Bu I was not aware in any why that this would be considered meatpuppetry and I was not even aware of that term. Thus, out my ignorance of this policy, I don't think me doing a checkuser on someone should be used against me. -- Behnam (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)