User talk:MinaretDk

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of the user Bhaisaab. A Usercheck revealed a "likely" finding, which really only means I live in the same city as Bhaisaab and also use the same DSL service (which happens to be the most popular DSL service in the US). Editors I have previously been in conflict with know for a fact that I'm a Bangladeshi editor, whereas Bhaisaab is Pakistani/Iranian.

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=I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of the user Bhaisaab. A Usercheck revealed a "likely" finding, which really only means I live in the same city as Bhaisaab and also use the same DSL service (which happens to be the most popular DSL service in the US). Editors I have previously been in conflict with know for a fact that I'm a Bangladeshi editor, whereas Bhaisaab is Pakistani/Iranian. |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=I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of the user Bhaisaab. A Usercheck revealed a "likely" finding, which really only means I live in the same city as Bhaisaab and also use the same DSL service (which happens to be the most popular DSL service in the US). Editors I have previously been in conflict with know for a fact that I'm a Bangladeshi editor, whereas Bhaisaab is Pakistani/Iranian. |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=I have been falsely accused of being a sockpuppet of the user Bhaisaab. A Usercheck revealed a "likely" finding, which really only means I live in the same city as Bhaisaab and also use the same DSL service (which happens to be the most popular DSL service in the US). Editors I have previously been in conflict with know for a fact that I'm a Bangladeshi editor, whereas Bhaisaab is Pakistani/Iranian. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

My account has been blocked as a 'sockpuppet' of "Bhaisaab". The Usercheck to justify this block suggests that I'm "likely" him, when actually all it proves is that I live in the same area as he does, and use the same DSL provider. The conclusion that I am a 'confirmed' sockpuppet of Bhaisaab is one that would require a considerable leap of 'bad faith', particularly given the editors I have been long in conflict against all know that I'm of a different ethnicity than Bhaisaab, and edit from a perspective altogether different from him. The admin "Rama's Arrow" has long been using his administrative powers to selectively block editors in a dispute by what side they argue from. He alleges my edits are "anti-Hindu" and "Pro-Islam", when nothing I've said or done has amounted to criticism of Hinduism as a religion, or promotion of Islam. I am not into theology, my interest in both articles was limited to history and the issue of human rights. He alleges my edits constitute 'disruption', when I am the only editor in those articles who follows WP policy in respect to WP:NPOV and WP:RS. He has used such differences of opinion as justification for blocks before. He's selectively silenced apparently Pakistani/Muslim editors, and placed exceptionally harsh extentions to their blocks when they strayed from his narrow road. His Hindutva activist friends however are inert, and in the very worst of cases he will restrict himself to advising them.

If an arbcom proceeding is needed for me to prove I'm not Bhaisaab, I'm willing to participate. Bhaisaab is supposedly a Pakistani or Iranian editor (I gather that from his talk page, etc), I'm a Bangladeshi. I can prove that, and my 'rivals' here are all aware of that. I have not edited articles on Pakistani history, which is Bhaisaab's forte. My involvment in editing Hindu-related articles stems entirely from my observing an extreme bias in the article Hinduism in Bangladesh. Any editor interested enough to dig deep and observe the conflict will see that the articles Persecution of Hindus and 2002 Gujarat Violence contain terribly biased content intentionally disfigured to present a skewed account of history.

Diffs pending.

MinaretDk 19:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)