User talk:Smhhalataei

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smhhalataei. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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'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:

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 reason:

I agree with Ohnoitsjamie; your sockpuppetry is pretty obvious. Yours is a single-purpose account which is interested in only one article. For both DeCausa and Edward321 this article isn't even on the list of top 15 most-edited articles, and there's no overlap between their most-edited articles. To claim that two accounts with widely disparate interests must be one and the same merely because they both happen to disagree with you on a single page is unconvincing. Huon (talk) 23:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Ok. This is an unfair court. Here I am giving up my right to exist but I am making two requests

1. Delete my account (for these sever false accusations that Berean made or rename it to FalselyAccused. (I can't make this request directly at its proper location due to the block.)

2. Unblock 700ali and Peaceful100 and N.mashoof as Berean blocked them below. They are not me at all!!! Please check the IPs. This is really a terrible mistake. 700ali and I share views as Edward321 and DeCausa do when it comes to the Mahdi article, but are not the same person. As far as I know 700ali, he is in a different country. I haven't seen Peaceful100 and N.mashoof in my life and have never been in contact with them.

I haven't recruited these people. They don't work for me nor I work for them. This is a terrible false accusation. They are presumably from the same religious sect that I am from. So we have common views and common inclinations. We are genuine different people.

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= Ok. This is an unfair court. Here I am giving up my right to exist but I am making two requests 

1. Delete my account (for these sever false accusations that Berean made or rename it to FalselyAccused. (I can't make this request directly at its proper location due to the block.) 
  
2. Unblock 700ali and Peaceful100 and N.mashoof as Berean blocked them below. They are not me at all!!! Please check the IPs. This is really a terrible mistake. 700ali and I share views as Edward321 and DeCausa do when it comes to the Mahdi article, but are not the same person. As far as I know 700ali, he is in a different country. I haven't seen Peaceful100 and N.mashoof in my life and have never been in contact with them. 

I haven't recruited these people. They don't work for me nor I work for them. This is a terrible false accusation. They are presumably from the same religious sect that I am from. So we have common views and common inclinations. We are genuine different people. |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= Ok. This is an unfair court. Here I am giving up my right to exist but I am making two requests 

1. Delete my account (for these sever false accusations that Berean made or rename it to FalselyAccused. (I can't make this request directly at its proper location due to the block.) 
  
2. Unblock 700ali and Peaceful100 and N.mashoof as Berean blocked them below. They are not me at all!!! Please check the IPs. This is really a terrible mistake. 700ali and I share views as Edward321 and DeCausa do when it comes to the Mahdi article, but are not the same person. As far as I know 700ali, he is in a different country. I haven't seen Peaceful100 and N.mashoof in my life and have never been in contact with them. 

I haven't recruited these people. They don't work for me nor I work for them. This is a terrible false accusation. They are presumably from the same religious sect that I am from. So we have common views and common inclinations. We are genuine different people. |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= Ok. This is an unfair court. Here I am giving up my right to exist but I am making two requests 

1. Delete my account (for these sever false accusations that Berean made or rename it to FalselyAccused. (I can't make this request directly at its proper location due to the block.) 
  
2. Unblock 700ali and Peaceful100 and N.mashoof as Berean blocked them below. They are not me at all!!! Please check the IPs. This is really a terrible mistake. 700ali and I share views as Edward321 and DeCausa do when it comes to the Mahdi article, but are not the same person. As far as I know 700ali, he is in a different country. I haven't seen Peaceful100 and N.mashoof in my life and have never been in contact with them. 

I haven't recruited these people. They don't work for me nor I work for them. This is a terrible false accusation. They are presumably from the same religious sect that I am from. So we have common views and common inclinations. We are genuine different people. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

(1) You don't get to remove previously declined unblock requests. Do so again and your talk page access will be revoked. (2) Wikipedia is a community, not a court.(3) I highly suggest that you retract your threat to sue, per WP:NLT. That will also get your talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to quench this dispute I remove it from here and take it to dispute resolution. But yes these accusations along with holding my username on this page is the legal definition of defamation. Smhhalataei (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Indeffed

...for continued socking. This account and this, too.
— [:Berean Hunter|Berean Hunter]] (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter,

This is huge mistake. 700ali and Peaceful100 are not me. Please check the IPs. If it happens to be in a totally different locations you owe me an apology.

This one, too. As for different IPs, there are logical reasons why that may still be the case with a given sock...just one of those reasons is that they may be meatpuppets. I won't be explaining the other reasons.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Berean,

I haven't recruited these people. They don't work for me. This is a big accusation. They are presumably from the same religolious sect that I am from. So we probably have common views. I don't even know what this new account have posted. We are genuine different people. What if you make a video conference with us to see we are different people ? If this is your reasoning you should have blocked Edward321 and DeCausa for Meatpuppetry at the first place. Go ahead and block all Shias and make wikipedia religious pages a singled-voice place. You will be judged in this and the next for this false accusation. Smhhalataei (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]