User talk:Smhhalataei

Notification

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smhhalataei Edward321 (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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).

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

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

Edward321 and DeCausa are well-established editors within the community, so your assertion of sockpuppetry is ridiculous. Per WP:NOTTHEM and not addressing the reason for your block, I'm declining your unblock request. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 30 April 2015 (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.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

What is ridiculous in the response above is the usage of word "so"! Since Edward321 and DeCausa have been around for a long time, they must be free to perform any illegitimate action ?? Why does no one look at the evidences I put forth (Still available in the next section of this page) ? Now let's get back to my case. On what ground was I blocked at the first place ? I made a valid point in Talk page of the article Mahdi and tried to resolved the dispute with DeCausa. He didn't come up with any reasonable answer. I reverted the Historical Development section to the more accurate version of it. Edward321 kept reverting it for a couple of times. Peacemaker11 came along and took my side. Then I got blocked !!! Why ?!!

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= What is ridiculous in the response above is the usage of word "so"! Since Edward321 and DeCausa have been around for a long time, they must be free to perform any illegitimate action ?? Why does no one look at the evidences I put forth (Still available in the next section of this page) ? Now let's get back to my case. On what ground was I blocked at the first place ? I made a valid point in Talk page of the article Mahdi and tried to resolved the dispute with DeCausa. He didn't come up with any reasonable answer. I reverted the Historical Development section to the more accurate version of it. Edward321 kept reverting it for a couple of times. Peacemaker11 came along and took my side. Then I got blocked !!! Why ?!! |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= What is ridiculous in the response above is the usage of word "so"! Since Edward321 and DeCausa have been around for a long time, they must be free to perform any illegitimate action ?? Why does no one look at the evidences I put forth (Still available in the next section of this page) ? Now let's get back to my case. On what ground was I blocked at the first place ? I made a valid point in Talk page of the article Mahdi and tried to resolved the dispute with DeCausa. He didn't come up with any reasonable answer. I reverted the Historical Development section to the more accurate version of it. Edward321 kept reverting it for a couple of times. Peacemaker11 came along and took my side. Then I got blocked !!! Why ?!! |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= What is ridiculous in the response above is the usage of word "so"! Since Edward321 and DeCausa have been around for a long time, they must be free to perform any illegitimate action ?? Why does no one look at the evidences I put forth (Still available in the next section of this page) ? Now let's get back to my case. On what ground was I blocked at the first place ? I made a valid point in Talk page of the article Mahdi and tried to resolved the dispute with DeCausa. He didn't come up with any reasonable answer. I reverted the Historical Development section to the more accurate version of it. Edward321 kept reverting it for a couple of times. Peacemaker11 came along and took my side. Then I got blocked !!! Why ?!! |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

To be clear, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Smhhalataei/Archive this is why you were blocked; you engaged in obvious sockpuppetry. You should already know about our sockpuppetry policies, seeing that you were blocked for the same thing in June 2014. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

My statement was about the same verdict. I am asking why are you saying this is a sock puppetry? Why this decision is made ? I read the article of Duck and doesn't look my case. Note that the issue of June 2014 was different. That was about edit warring trap that DeCausa and Edward321 made for me. They collaborated together to revert my edits alternatively and since it was my first months of writing in Wikipedia, I wasn't familiar with the rules and was trapped in an edit warring. If they hadn't collaborated, they would have violated 3RR but always do so and circumvent 3RR. This is what I am seeing for a year in the Mahdi article page. I didn't sock puppet though. I just accidentally reverted a text while I wasn't logged in. Edward321 abused this fact and accused me with sock puppetry and Bbb23 vote in their favor (as always) and wrote this in the summary when s/he blocked me. I never disputed that verdict since I can't spend several hours everyday like Ed and DeCa in Wikipedia and I am not paid for this. But May be I should dispute that case if it's going to matter now.

Unblock request

Over the course of the year I was engaged in three cases with Edward321 and DeCausa. All of these cases have been handled by one admin : Bbb23. That chance that this happened by accident is zero. The judgments that I have received are quite unfair too. Edward321 and DeCausa are obviously collaborating on suppressing any other voice in the Mahdi article. I filed a case about their sock puppetry and submitted tons of evidences, Bbb23 took the case and simply wrote it has no "basis"!! I couldn't believe the judgement. Please just take a look at this collaboration by them to eliminate a different voice in the Mahdi article : [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Now please explain to me how could they be unconnected when they collaborate so well in eliminating a person and its edits ?

If the verdict is to block me for two weeks, they should be blocked indefinably if Wikipedia judiciary wants to be anything close to just. Here I request an unblock for myself and a permanent block for them.