User talk:PK4JAGGU

Welcome!

Hello, PK4JAGGU! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Dcirovic (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Your submission at Articles for creation: WittyFeed has been accepted[edit]

WittyFeed, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:57, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Nscharan007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. —SpacemanSpiff 00:34, 4 July 2017 (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).

PK4JAGGU (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm surprised to see myself blocked on Wikipedia. I really did not get Wikipedia's system on what basis they suspect sock puppets. I'm not sock of any listed account. Can you please show me where your system says so. I'm not sock. Please unblock me.

Coming to the WittyFeed's issue, I was aware about its history that is why i did not create the article directly. I submitted the draft for creation through AFC. I wanted it to be created with neutral manner. I believe, SDCG5 does not apply. It would be quite unfair to block someone just because the person has created article that was previously created by banned user. It would certainly discourage users to contribute over Wikipedia.

I am ready to cooperate with investigation process, but request to make sure investigation process must be neutral. It should not be on the basis of suspection. Being culprit and suspected is two different thing.

Talking about my Conflict of Interest, Yes, I do have COI, I have good relation with one of the co-founders. But have not benefited financially. I just read Conflict of Interest guideline carefully, I understand it better. If still I had any COI, I would have declare.

PK4JAGGU (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

After reviewing the case, it looks to me like you are the part of a group of undisclosed paid editors who create promotional pages for companies and persons. Such practice is not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 18 July 2017 (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.

Hi, Can you please look into the issue @CambridgeBayWeather, Meters, Eddie891, GeneralizationsAreBad, and DGG:, I am not sock of any account. I did not get on what basis Wikipedia has listed me in sock puppet accounts. I was aware about the WittyFeed history, this was the reason I submitted the draft to AFC. Otherwise I could have create the article directly. I wanted it to be created in neutral manner. Because of block I am unable to contest for WittyFeed, article nominated for deletion under SDC G5. One more article which was created by me has been deleted. Can you help me to resolve the issue. And is there any way to prove that my account is not sock puppet. Wikipedia has suspected me wrong. --PK4JAGGU (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: Hi, Do i need to apply here https://utrs.wmflabs.org/index.php for investigation ? I want to know how and on what basis Wikipedia decide who is sock-puppet, who is not. Because I know I am not sock-puppet. Still Wikipedia took me wrong. I'm ready to cooperate with investigation process. I have trust on Wikimedia Foundation. Let me know what do i need to do. --PK4JAGGU (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SOCK carefully, there's a clear behavioral match between this account and the others in the archive. In addition, meatpuppetry is also not allowed. —SpacemanSpiff 14:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand. It is possible that my account behavior might looked like sock, i have not been active user since months, but if there were any set rule how your account should behave or looked like, I could have followed that. I read WP:SOCK carefully and came to conclusion that my case does not match with the given guidelines at WP:SOCK. I have not been involved in any improper use or mislead to Wikipedia. I'm very transparent regarding COI and open for investigation. I think, Not me, if anyone could have created the same article which previously created by banned user, would have face the same accusation of sock-puppetry. I understand.

Coming to the metapuppetry, no one persuaded me to create account and promote their causes. If you see i am registered on Wikipedia since April 2016, and WittyFeed's case started from June 2016, see deletion log of WittyFeed. First time article was deleted on 30 June 2016 by User:Randykitty under G11 and second time deleted by you (User:SpacemanSpiff) under G11, G5. If I was a sock-puppet or meta-puppet i could have involved in the case earlier to support their cause. So, I believe, you understand, It's clear not case of metapuppetry.

Now I'm waiting for checkusers to perform investigation and let me know if they have any solid evidence which proves accusation of sock puppetry. If need, would request to Wikimedia Foundation to intervene into the case to reach any conclusion. --PK4JAGGU (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the SPI case at all so I won't second guess this. I will just say that proving innocence is not one of the allowed reasons for doing a CU, so that won't happen. And having a close relationship with one of the company founders is certainly a big COI issue. Meters (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, why is another IP sockpuppet asking to undelete an article created by you? There's obviously something you're not forthcoming about in your note(s) above. —SpacemanSpiff 11:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just mention about relation, didn't specify any close relation as you mentioned it. I had the COI this was the reason i disclosed it, wrote the article in neutral point of view and submitted to AFC. While I was submitting the article through AFC i got to know that anyone can submit the article without even logged in by using IP address. But i did not choose to hide my identity, because i know the Wikipedia policy. I believe, for COI, using IP would be somehow violation of Wikipedia's policy. When coming to any conclusion, we should consider the fact that Wikipedia allows users to disclose COI as per WP:COI. We should appreciate the users to disclose it if they have, otherwise i believe they would afraid to disclose it.

Hey, @SpacemanSpiff:, I really do not know about this, who is asking and who is behind this IP. It seems, s/he is someone who concerned with deleted article and the way person communicating shows s/he is not aware about how Wikipedia works. If still you've doubts that if it is me or someone else, I would say, performing investigation by check-user would be ultimate solution. Even if you have deleted all articles created by me i would have not objected. Because I understand and i know that no article can be deleted if it meets Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. --PK4JAGGU (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Block review[edit]

@SpacemanSpiff: A Checkuser checks were run on 22 September 2016 and 16 October 2016. Both times several sockpuppets were found, but this account was not listed. This makes me believe this account is certainly technically unrelated to this master. The only link is the recreation of WittyFeed. The articles as created by this user is not identical to the previously deleted version, although it is similar. I guess they are both employees of that company. What's your thought? Vanjagenije (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Vanjagenije, it is a case of meatpuppetry per the note above, which is possible, but as for the history of this particular article, every single sock had different versions, it wasn't the same thing that was created again and again. In addition via another article, there's overlap with another set -- HannuMannu / Imtrinity94 and a known IP sock of that group has asked me to restore an article created by this account. There's an overlap with two different groups here (the second one came up only after the block). Also, there's a lot of similarity in article content/language with the deleted contributions of 1900toni. The Nscharan group has Wittyfeed as one client, but they have a wider clientele, especially around film/fashion etc and extends internationally. —SpacemanSpiff 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WittyFeed for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WittyFeed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WittyFeed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. StarM 19:24, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of WittyFeed for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article WittyFeed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WittyFeed (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]