User talk:Hatchens/Archive 7

Revisiting Dr. Vin Gupta contribution
Good evening,

I was hoping you'd revisit this AfC and consider approving it. This Doctor is one of the most prominent physician experts brought out on US national media regarding COVID-19 on a daily basis; he's NBC News' primary medical analyst. Viewers should know his background; other contributors to NBC have their own wikipedia page (Dr. Nahid Bhadelia as an example).

Thank you in advance for your reconsideration given the times,

Caroline

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vin_Gupta

nano-x article
Hi - you rejected an article under consideration on a company (nano-x) as reading like an ad - I'm not sure how you reached that conclusion given the significant amount of material referenced claiming the company is a fraud, and the imho rather neutral, fact-based and meticulously referenced history of the company I have labored to include. A parallel article exists in the hebrew wikipedia and I believe since this is a nasdaq-listed company that people would be well-served to have a serious article on it in the english version of wikipedia. Perhaps you can point out specific elements in the article that disturbed you.

Thank You Liz
Dear, Thank you for cleaning up my talk page. I sincerely appreciate your help. -Hatchens (talk) 10:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Durham movement
Hello, Hatchens. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Durham movement, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Formal request
More than 6 months have passed since my AfC reviews have been under investigation, and still 21 articles yet to be reviewed. Therefore, I'm submitting a formal request for helping my case to reach to a conclusion. If the result are satisfactory (as per the auditors), then only I would prefer to proceed to ArbCom. Pinging for the assessment and closure. Thank you in advance. -Hatchens (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hatchens I have flagged up the request at AfC here. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Hatchens, AfC did check some your acceptances when you were blocked and now more have been checked with no noted concerns. However, you were also an NPP reviewer along with being autopatrolled. It is not clear if NPP checks were done at the time so I suggest asking similar from them.  Granted, they cannot check everything but perhaps a sampling.  S0091 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @S0091 I'm open for it and it's indeed a great idea. My NPP approval rate was fairly low, so I'm guessing that if I request to go for a full check rather than just a sample check, it wouldn't be that difficult to do so. Pinging for raising a formal request (as suggested by S0091). - Hatchens (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm known at AfC and I knew that many other viewers knew you so I was happy to pass on the request for just 21 reviews. However, I'm not involved much at NPP and the number of patrols you have looks to be over 700 so I don't see it as a practical request, so I'm not happy with passing on the request as I can see it just getting a negative response. If or another editor thinks otherwise I'll leave it to them. I do think you should at this point either go to ArbCom or not. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 10:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for being so helpful. - Hatchens (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we need to be clear here that nobody has asked for every one of your AfC or NPP reviews to be rechecked. Nobody is saying you have to wait until that happens to appeal. This is coming from you, and I have to wonder about the motive. Either you're acknowledging that they need to be checked, and hence the reason for the block, in which case it would be a hell of a lot easier if you just told us which articles you were paid to review; or you are still contesting the block, in which case you're asking other editors to waste their time re-reviewing articles purely to bolster your block appeal. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe thank you for reaching out. Allow me to be very clear once again - "I've not been paid for any edit." Since last 6 months my AfCs were under the scanner and I was waiting for it to be over. Out of 96 of them, 21 were still pending. So, I simply raised a request (as per the advise) to get a closure. My motive is crystal - I will not proceed to ARBCOM till I get a clean chit on AfCs and if any other editor suggests my NPP to be reviewed (please note: this was not my idea in the first place). Then also I'm OK with it... even if it takes 6 or 12 more months. Now as far as other editors are concerned in wasting their time in re-reviewing my work, then allow me to be little more specific - I'm not forcing anybody to review. I'm simply requesting for a closure because here your action is not in question but mine are. I hope you do understand my point. - Hatchens (talk) 06:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, it is only you who is asking or waiting for a full re-review. Your AfC activity have not been "under the scanner" for six months; they were looked over six months ago, and then the community moved on. Whether or not you've been paid for reviews is a point of fact that is not going to change in 6 months, 12 months, or depending on how many ticks there are in the table above. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe you're right. Whatever may be the fact... it is not going to change in 6 months, 12 months or on number check ticks. At AfC, only few checks are pending and if they agree and accept my NPPs to be re-reviewed (as now I cannot backtrack because I accepted S0091's suggestion) - then all I can do now... is to wait (if other editors are kind enough to support my voluntarily request). I waited for more than 6 months, and I can wait for more. - Hatchens (talk) 07:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are not bound to my suggestion. It was just a thought and I certainly did not intend for @KylieTastic to make any more effort than they already have.  Like them, I am not involved with NPP but took a look around to see if they did checks as well but could not tell if they did or not.  I agree with @Joe Roe, there is no need for you wait any further to proceed with your Arbcom appeal.  S0091 (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hatchens, I am going to ask you to stop using this talk page to communicate with other editors about your AfC/NPP reviewing - you are blocked, the only valid use of this talk page is to request unblock. Your block is based on private evidence that these other editors are not privy to - it speaks well of them that they have been willing to give you the benefit of their doubt, but you should not be getting them involved. You may approach Arbcom now, or in the future, or you can request unblock here - but you may not continue asking editors to do stuff on your behalf. Any more of that, and your ability to edit this page may be revoked. Can I also say that if you do request unblock or approach Arbcom, your best approach would be honesty. Editors who have acted inappropriately, but who own up to it and commit to do better are often given another chance; editors who continue to deny their inappropriate activity in the face of all the evidence do not get unblocked. I know there are things you have not been honest about; your best chance is to make a clean breast of the whole thing. Girth Summit  (blether)  16:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Girth Summit Affirmative and Wilco. - Hatchens (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

IP socking
If Hatchens appeals again, please consider this edit (ostensibly from him). –&#8239;Joe (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)