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.[1] [2] 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 [3] 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)

What the heck?How is it the evidence is clear that Rumps is Hkelkar,but no tag for him.This is so silly.No evidence.So everyone who edit wars with Rumps/Hkelkar is automatically a sock of Bhaisaab.So we have about half a dozen Muslim editors edit warring with Rumps/Hkelkar are they socks of Bhaisaab?--Nadirali نادرالی

No, a technical report, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/MinaretDk. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. Rumplestiltskin and Bakasuprman have violated every policy of Wikipedia, they've attacked editors and committed obvious acts of vandalism, but because the involved admins are sympathetic to their biases (ie fellow Indians/Wikiproject Hinduism members), those people are inert to administrative sanction. They get warnings after a career of attacks, Muslim editors get blocked without explicit reasons (eg Rama's Arrow THINKS your edits are disruptive or POV). Rama himself alleges I'm anti-Hindu/pro-Islam. Diffs please? Just because I don't take to Rumplystiltskin/Bakasuprman's rewriting of history to frame Muslims as deserving of the Gujarat Massacre, or I consider the treatment of untouchables in India as a form of persecution (the UN and HRW agree with me on that) as opposed to people who CHOSE their plight (the view Baka/Rumple are promoting) doesn't mean I'm anti-Hindu, and I've done nothing to suggest I'm pro-Islam. Does thinking that figures acknowleged by the US govt and human rights organizations deserves mention in the 2002 Gujarat Violence article constitute anti-Hindu bias? What's the definition of neutral then? Every admin I consulted on this ridiculous block against me has responded, most saying they're helpless to do anything and that it's up to the blocking admin. The blocking admin,User:Blnguyen, however chooses to ignore my e-mails and requests. Oh,he just happens to be another member of Project India.Is it a miracle that in a dispute involving content regarding recent Indian history, all the admins using force happen to be Indian, and a disproportionate degree of that force (all as far as I can see) is applied on those editors not promoting pro-Hindutva revisionism? Tell me again how Wikipedia is not supposed to be a battleground. MinaretDk 22:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser happens to show very close geographic proximity (within 8km), same company, same IP stats, etc, and "likely" is merely statistical and not dependent on perceptions due to editing patterns. This is in addition to the editing patterns of having the same interest in Indian religious articles. BS self-identified as half Iranian-Pakistani, but he edited Indian stuff (hindu-muslim) and Middle East stuff (Islam-Israel, Ahmadinejad stuff). You were suspected because for a new user you show an extremely good command of all the wiki-legal procedures and how arbitration and checkuser works. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As for the other stuff, being part of a WikiProject does not say anything about race or religion, so there's no need to brandish that here. Depite what a few people may think, I am neither Hindu nor Indian. A quick look at my userpage will show that my Indian article editing pertains to Indian cricketers and Buddhists. I have blocked you because it appears you are evading blocks, and have not made any content judgments or taken them into account. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to seek further opinions. I am not the person who could verify if you have Bengali ability, and if so, what to make of this, as I do not know how common it is amongst aubcontinental people to speak many languages. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is full of retarded people. The least of those retards seem to get positions as administrators. If any one of them can understand Wikipedia policy in a month, I can do so in a week. I've been reading this website for a while now, long enough to know the basic ropes. I know about CheckUser because "Rama's Arrow" filed that request against me, and you subsequently posted that block template directing me to it on my user page. I know of Rumplestiltskin being Hkelkar's puppet from a comment left on my talk page, and then subsequent comments by a crowd of other editors. That Rumplestiltskin is the banned Hkelkar is Wikipedia's worst kept secret. How long does it take to read a page and figure out what "CheckUser" might mean? Someone else did the check, how do you verify that the person is within 8 miles of my location? Do you know how many Muslims live in New York city? How many of them use Verizon DSL? If your block is grounded on statistics alone, the "Likely" result of CheckUser doesn't CONFIRM anything, merely indicates closeness of two IP users. To draw the conclusion that two people geographically located in the roughly the same area are the same person, you'd need to use their editing habits as evidence. Bhaisaab is Iranian (not Pakistani as I thought) and his edit history shows interests in Islam-related and Iranian-related articles. I'm a Bangladeshi, and my edit history shows that too, along with some sympathy for the 2000 or so Muslims killed by Hindu fanatics in Gujarat, and criticism for Hindutva-fanaticism saturated revisionist history. As for the relevance of ethnicity on Wikipedia, Rama's Arrow has been using his bigotries against Pakistanis/Muslims as justification for his blocks against myself, and other users including NadirAli and User:unre4L. It's a bit late to lecture on leaving our personal identities at the door. Editors edit based on their personal biases, and admins administer on them. All this is obvious to anyone who compares Rama's treatment of Muslim Wikipedians with his treatment of Hindus where there's a conflict on the same articles and editors are guilty of the same violations. MinaretDk 04:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me atleast post on WP:ANI tommorrow and see what they say.--Nadirali نادرالی

Evidence that this block is a sham is on Blnguyen's talk page. The person I'm supposedly a sock puppet of in conversing with him over my block. How many people use two distinctly different Verizon accounts in apparently two different geographic location. There's absolutely nothing left to justify this block. MinaretDk 06:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, they're dynamic ones in the same region. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

His is dynamic, as far as I can tell, mine is not. Are you sure they're of the same region? His IP looks considerably different from mine. I don't know much about deciphering IPs, but you need some evidence to support your assertion that his IP show's he's "within 8 miles" of me. MinaretDk 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any data. That's what the checkuser official told me. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken to Dmcdevit through e-mail, he basically said it was your call (ie the blocking admin) and all he was doing was giving information. Now you're dismissing your own judgement. You're the blocking admin, you made the call that I live within 8 miles of the location he's in. You made that presumption without ever seeing the actual numbers? You made the call that I am him. You can't back down now and put it on the guy who compared numbers. You took the opportunity to block me without reviewing whether the evidence against me was solid or not. You "assumed bad faith" and connected imaginary dots to conclude I am Bhaisaab. CheckUser said "Likely", in your mind you converted "Likely" into "Confirmed" and then blocked me. Go ahead and contact the CheckUser-capable admin and have him compare whether my ID's changed since I opened my account or since this block was put in place. Have him look at the IP on your talk page now. Don't pretend you're just some cog in the machinery, you're the blocking admin. Take responsibility for your fuck-ups. MinaretDk 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's how Blnguyen operates. After he blocked me for saying Ahmadinejad is awesome to a "Jew" and later realized that Hkelkar is, in fact, Hindu he tried to make up other excuses and justifications for his block. 72.88.143.139 07:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Post your IP address. 72.88.144.96 06:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a fixed IP, I can e-mail it to an admin. I'm not sure I'd want to share it here...I've asked Dmcdevit to do an IP check right now. We're editing at the same time, so he can verify that all my edits have been from a distinctly different IP than yours. MinaretDk 06:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok well good luck with that. Be careful with Bakaman. He goes on long rants about "Hkelkar sockpuppet fantasies." He did the same thing during the arbcom case and ended up embarassed as usual. 72.88.144.96 06:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

While I am not at liberty to reveal the specific IP evidence, I will say that MinaretDk's claims are false and "likely" indeed the correct result of the check. I'm protecting this page to prevent this abuse. Dmcdevit·t 08:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)