User talk:SUPERGTOR
SUPERGTOR, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi SUPERGTOR! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 17 May 2021 (UTC) |
File source problem with File:Public institution for social security.jpeg[edit]
Thank you for uploading File:Public institution for social security.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Solomartel for deletion[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solomartel 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.
Bbarmadillo (talk) 08:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SUPERGTOR, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
MrOllie (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- TNT (talk • she/they) 04:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
SUPERGTOR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, Recently, a vote regarding a nomination for deletion took place. During that vote and in order to prevent me and a lot of other people from discussing the topic, my account as well as the account of 7-9 other people were blocked WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. Instead a pseudo-investigation was lead to determine an alleged sockpuppetry but no actual investigation ever took place. I think this fake investigation was orchestrated in order to prevent users from participating in the discussion and simply to silence them given how badly it has been conducted (it breaks almost every single wikipedia guideline of how sockpuppetry investigations should be conducted).
There are multiple reasons as to why the page I edited should've been kept but that is not the point of my request, in fact, it can be deleted, it can be adjusted, I personally think that it should be improved and kept but that is not the point of my inquiry.
At this point my account has been blocked and my entire passion for editing wikipedia has been erased from my life purely because someone charged of making the investigation decided to assume smth based on lies and ban my account (as well as 7 other users who I presume were also not sockpuppets).
The issue took place around 2 weeks ago during Christmas, I contacted an admin regarding this which said they would look into it but didn't follow up as they were busy at that moment, either way, at this point, I am now asking for an investigation officially so that justice be made to me and whoever else faced the same injustice as I did.
First, I want to introduce myself, I am a 14 year old teenager who loves wikipedia, specifically I am interest in finance (I am the best of my class at economics), I also edit pages about eastern Europe, the ex soviet union and the Balkans specifically. I can show show you my ID for verificarion purposes (I will just do so privately and hide the serial number with my finger or a paper so it cannot be used to buy anything online) but I am ready to go to such lengths and even speak to you to prove my point.
As I said earlier, this account from which I am contacting you from has been blocked, I was accused of smth known as "sockpuppetry" which is totally fine to suspect me or anyone on wikipedia and then launch an investigation into it but the investigation would have shown my innocence whereas here, me and 6-9 more people were blocked WITHOUT any investigation. Had an actual REAL investigation been conducted, it would have been directly verified that me (and probably the other users) were not sockpuppets.
It is easy to see and it would have been easy to determine that me and the 6-9 other people are not sockpuppets, for example, because the other people can make edits at the exact same time (exact hour/minute/second), be awaken at different hours and many other ways of verifying. Also and most importantly, Administrators have tools to verify that I am not the other user using tools which are very easy to run and using those, admins will see my location. I am sure that even my 11 year old sister could've run such tools but here nobody did it.
Had anyone run that tool, they would've seen that all the time my location will be traced to the country of Belgium as this is where I live and I have never left in the country in the past 2 years whereas most of the other users are Indians and Pakistanis and other people around the world, I do not totally understand where they are all from tbh.
One thing I do want to mention also is that I am a person living in Belgium and I speak french, English, Russian and Serbian (Slavic languages are somewhat similar) whereas most people interested and having commented on that page are from India and Pakistan where this company seems to be particularly known in. Another user is a user who said he translates the encyclopedia from english to Italian and vice versa, even if we were to consider this, how is it possible that the same user who is a sockpupetteer could speak both french, english, Russian, Serbian, English, Indian, Pakistani and Italian at the same time.
This is just impossible and had the administrators actually investigated it, they would've right away seen that the likelyhood of such a person existing is close to 0.
Moreover, prior to that, some of these other users were harassed on the talk page because they were new users and someone told them that their votes will not be counted which totally breaks the wikipedia rules !
Had someone actually done their job properly and actually looked into it, they would've seen all of this, instead they believed the lies of one user (idk why he lied btw) and based on that, a bunch of people were all blocked at the same time.
The actual issue (which led to the harassment and blocking) arose because I made a page which for some reason a lot of users found triggering in some way (maybe they had a conflict of interest) but it was just about a company offering financial services and investments which did not go against wikipedia policies in any way, I previously made and edited pages about other financial institutions, as I said earlier, it is one of my passions, just check my edits. In fact, to make sure that I followed all guidelines and in order to do the best job possible, I made use of WP:NOTE and WP:FIND during my development.
When making the page, which was 4 weeks ago now, everything seemed alright, I made sure to write in the most grammatically correct way and I followed all the rules and guidelines as I said before but then all of a sudden the page got raided by a few people all having a big problem with this page.
This happened after about 2 weeks of the page being live when a bunch of users raided it. Mainly, it was Mr Kuru who attacked the page and the other users just repeated after him (Mr Kuru mainly attacked the references because he said they were paid and a lot of other users kept on repeating after him that "it was paid" without adding any information as though Mr Kuru was a cult leader and the few other users were his cult).
Mr Kuru was also saying very unreasonable things like all sources are incorrect which is not true. All sources could not have been incorrect and not valid at the same time as I was following guidelines. For example he said that a financial article on the official website of the University of British Columbia was paid propaganda but that is not correct. He also mentionned that on that website of the University of British Columbia he saw a lot of other articles and they were all promotional but if you check the website yourself, you will see that there will be no promotional content at all, I mean I have looked around and I see nothing there.
Here is the link, they have even moved the link for some reason but this is the link, I see that the website is being maintained:
Also, the same article was published on the official website of the cybersecurity department of the University of Harvard but the problem was that this specific website was made in the form of an open wiki and so any user could edit it and because of this, a lot of people hid their own links and advertising articles on the Harvard cybersecurity website. I was silly enough to think that content from Harvard university will always be reliable but I did not consider that a freely editable wiki page could be used for evil.
But nonetheless I should not be blocked for committing a mistake of inattention and not even attacked for this. University websites always publish reliable information and they make sure to verify it. I double checked that those were the exact domains for both the university of British Columbia and the University of Harvard (and not fraudulent imitations like with scams) and it was indeed the case, it is just that the website on Harvard reposted the article from british Columbia and because their website was freely editable, it was used for advertisement.
Mr Kuru mentionned many unreasonable things such as those, he also said that all the sources I used was paid propaganda but this is not true given that only about 30% of sources were paid releases by companies non related to the company which I wrote the article about. It only so happened that the company which I was covering was mentioned in those articles and I thought that I should use those references because they were not paid by the company I covered but by a third party.
The other references I used were totally relevant as per wikipedia policies and I see them constantly being used on the platform, I mean really regardless of the level of relevance, I see all sorts of sources being used all across wikipedia and I think it is good and needed to use various sources of various opinions (left wing websites and right wing websites) to make a valid article, it is for the wikipedia editor to judge the sources and what is being said in order to write the best possible content and not just blindly copy data from there.
Moreover, during the week when the actual voting took place (which lasted about less than a week), I did not check into wikipedia very much, maybe once during the whole week because I had a lot of problems and things to do for school (I had exams at school). I even forgot to reply to Mr Kuru and I did not really even think much about it, I kinda forgot. Then, by the end of that week, I saw that my account has been blocked for this sockpuppetry thing which meakes me sad and depressed and makes me suffer, I really think it is unfair.
If Mr Kuru did not like the sources I used, it would have been ok, I could have looked for more sources or someone else could have done it but this is not a reason to attack the page (and then block me), I actually think that I did a really good job at making that page, at least in what concerns my work I did because I said everything in the most grammatically correct way and I see all the time badly worded articles being written on wikipedia. I was also editing many things as well as Solomartel before I was blocked and I think I was bringing lots of value to the project.
Then, after Mr Kuru, other users were attacked on that talk page because they were new and were threatened, they were told that their point of view will not be taken into consideration. It is a certain MrOllie who threatened users but Idk specifically which ones. He also opened an investigation of sockpuppetry in which I was included but I did not care and I did not check my account very much that week as I said (I had school exams).
It is perfectly understandable that someone may suspect other users of sockpuppetry but what is strange is that it is the person who attacks other users and threatens them who opens this investigation.
Normally once such a sockpupperty complaint is made, (just like a complaint at the police), it is meant to be invedtigated by administrators but it was not investigated at all ! Instead based on lies smth was assumed and we were blocked !
Instead of the investigation, a user who seemed to be very interested in attacking one user named Murgh Krahi (who commented on the page which I created) lied so that Mr Murgh Krahi was condemned without investigation.
I really tried assuming good faith but I really do not see any legitimate reason for lying or any other reason other than lying in this case.
For example, he said that one of the users, Murgh Krahi was a sockpuppeteer and that an investigation against him was conducted many years ago and proved the sockpuppetry. The problem is that if this was indeed the case and Mr Murgh Krahi was found guilty of sockpuppetry back in the days, then he would have directly been blocked and banned then and he would not be able to edit wikipedia and comment on the page I have created like he did but because Murgh Krahi was able to post his comments on my page, it means that Mr Murgh Krahi was found innocent of the sockpuppetry complaint of many years ago.
He used the investigation led about Murgh Krahi of his alleged sockpuppeteerness to deceived and convince someone of blocking Murgh Krahi and the other people (including me) but had this investigation he refered to yielded the result proving that he was a sockpupeteer, Mr Murgh Krahi would already not be part of wikipedia (or any other project of meta wiki) so this means that the result of the investigation was negative yet Spicy used it as an argument to get me and multiple other users blocked so clearly his actions were deceitful and machevelian. I do not know about the history of the Murgh Krahi account and did not double check it. It may be a crucial part of this investigation.
Either way, I think all of this evidence is enough to prove my point but if any further evidence is needed, I will make sure to clarify and explain what I saw and what I did. I really beg any admin to look into this matter and help me as I have lost my passion and my account and cannot edit wikipedia no more, this makes me really depressed. Plz investigate the matter. I am willing to cooperate in this investigation to the extent needed and to prove my innocence. I thank you enormously in advance
Decline reason:
This is too long to read. Please make a request that is not more than a short paragraph or two. I will say that you should not provide identity documents to anyone, it only proves that you possess the document, not that you are the depicted person. 331dot (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2022 (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.
- @331dot: Ok, got it, will write a shorter version of this and if needed, I will make sure to clarify with additional details once the time comes for it.
SUPERGTOR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello, Recently, a vote regarding a nomination for deletion took place. During that vote and in order to prevent me and many other people from discussing the topic, my account as well as the account of 7-9 other people were blocked WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. Instead, a pseudo-investigation was lead to determine an alleged sockpuppetry but no actual investigation ever took place. I think this fake investigation was orchestrated in order to prevent users from participating in the discussion and simply to silence them given how badly it has been conducted (it breaks almost every single Wikipedia guideline of how sockpuppetry investigations should be conducted WP:SOCK). It is perfectly fine to suspect me or anyone on Wikipedia of sockpuppetry and then launch an investigation into it but the investigation would have shown my innocence whereas here, me and 6-9 more people were blocked WITHOUT any proper investigation. At this point my account has been blocked and my entire passion for editing Wikipedia has been erased from my life purely because someone charged of making the investigation decided to assume smth based on lies (without properly verifying anything) and ban my account (as well as 7 other users who I presume were also not sockpuppets). The issue took place around 2 weeks ago during Christmas 2021, I contacted an admin regarding this which said they would look into it but didn't follow up as they were busy at that moment. Either way, at this point, I am now asking for an investigation officially so that justice be made to me and whoever else faced the same injustice as I did. First, I want to introduce myself, I am a 14 year old teenager who loves Wikipedia, specifically I am interested in finance (I am the best of my class at economics), I also edit pages about eastern Europe, the ex soviet union and the Balkans specifically. I can show show you my ID for verification purposes (I will just do so privately and hide the serial number with my finger or a paper so it cannot be used to buy anything online) but I am ready to go to such lengths and even talk to anyone required to prove my point. It would have been easy to determine that me and the 6-9 other people are not sockpuppets. For example, because the other people can make edits at the exact same time (exact hour/minute/second), be awaken at different hours and many other ways of verifying. Also and most importantly, Administrators have tools to verify that I am not the other user using tools which are very easy to run and using those, admins will see my location. I am sure that even my 11 year old sister could've run such tools but here nobody did it. Had anyone run that tool, they would've seen that all the time my location will be traced to the country of Belgium as this is where I live and I have never left in the country in the past 2 years whereas most of the other users are Indians and Pakistanis and other people around the world. One thing I do want to mention also is that I am a person living in Belgium and I speak french, English, Russian and Serbian (Slavic languages are somewhat similar) whereas most people interested and having commented on that page are from India and Pakistan where this company seems to be particularly known in. Another user is a user who said he translates the encyclopedia from English to Italian and vice versa, even if we were to consider this, how is it possible that the same user who is a sockpupetteer could speak both french, English, Russian, Serbian, English, Indian, Pakistani and Italian at the same time. This is just impossible and had the administrators actually investigated it, they would've right away seen that the likelihood of such a person existing is close to 0. All of this would’ve been easy to determine but instead, an admin was trumped into believing lies of one user (or a very inexact testimonial to say the least) and then banned me without further verification. The specific user who lied or influenced the investigation in an incorrect direction was a certain Mr Spicy, he presented evidence in a way that was simply incorrect and deceiving to make my account and the accounts of other users banned not based on facts but based on suppositions and I would say almost superstitions. Namely, he used the investigation led about another user named Murgh Krahi, of his alleged sockpuppeteerness as evidence to actually block Murgh Krahi as well as 5-8 other users (which included me none of which were investigated, something was assumed right away). Either way, what he did was deceitful as he presented smth as evidence (which was not actual evidence) so that the actual investigation did not take place. One of the reasons why this evidence was totally false is that IF IT WAS indeed the case that Mr Murgh Krahi was found guilty of sockpuppetry back in the days on Simple Wiki as Mr Spicy said, then he would have directly been blocked and banned then and he would not be able to edit simple wiki or wikipedia and comment on the page I have created like he did but because Murgh Krahi was able to post his comments on my page, it means that Mr Murgh Krahi was found innocent of the sockpuppetry complaint of many years ago. I do not know who Murgh Krahi is but I want to demonstrate my point using wikipedia guidelines. I really am unsure as to why Mr Spicy acted this way, I do not know if they took a side and lied on purpose or if they had good intentions and really acted in integrity and it so happened that they were not saying the truth, but either way, the set of events surrounding this matter are strange. What is even more strange are the circumstances in which me and the other users have been blocked. The actual issue (which led to the harassment and blocking) arose because I made a page which for some reason a lot of users found triggering in some way (maybe they had a conflict of interest with it) but it was just about a company offering financial services and investments which did not go against Wikipedia policies in any way, and fit notability guidelines. I previously made and edited pages about other financial institutions, as I said earlier, it is one of my passions, just check my edits. In fact, to make sure that I followed all guidelines and in order to do the best job possible, I made use of WP:NOTE and WP:FIND during my development. Everything seemed alright when I made the page and then after about 1 week, all of a sudden the page got raided. The page was raided by a few different people who kept on attacking it, almost like they had personal reasons against this page and what is surprising is that they were all saying the exact same thing. Mainly, Mr Kuru attacked the page while the other users kept on saying the exact same things without adding any further content to what Mr Kuru said as though there were a cult, all saying the exact same thing (again I am only describing what I saw, I think this needs to be looked into). The arguments they gave in favor of the deletion barely made any sense and looked quite black and white. Below this request as a reply, I will provide some examples of the unreasonable things which were said on that page to remove it (I do not want to make this request too long). Also, as this conversation unfolded, some of the other users were harassed on the talk page because they were new users and another user, MrOllie told them that their votes will not be counted which totally breaks the Wikipedia rules ! I really don’t understand how this kind of unfairness can happen on what is meant to be a fair and free project. This really makes me anxious and depressed as I made sure to follow all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, to improve the project and not offend anyone yet I have been blocked without any proper investigation. I really beg you, plz may someone investigate this matter and conduct and actual investigation. It is easy to prove my innocence. Plz help !SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:WALLOFTEXT. You've been warned about this, come on. This was just short of 1500 words. Try again, using no more than 150 words. That would already put you on the far end of acceptable. So, one tenth this length. Yamla (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2022 (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.
@Yamla: I understand your request and I value your feedback. Given the complexity of the issue; making this any shorter than what I wrote or say any shorter than 500 words would simply make the request irrelevant. If I write a shorter message, it will simply lack all the required information for it to be understandable (even if I remove all possible repetitions, it would still be much longer). If I were an administrator reading a shorter version of this request in 200 words, I think I would simply not understand the actual value of the arguments and not accept the request. The context here is very important and needs to be set. I could shorten this request as much as possible but then add further arguments outside of the actual request as an attachment/a response. Would that be a good way of proceeding ? And would those arguments be taken into consideration or would they be considered as outside the request ? (because without those details, the appeal won't really worth anything). Thanks in advance ! SUPERGTOR (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- As an attachment to my request, I am adding some of the things said to justify the deletion which are clearly unreasonable:
- A financial paper from the University of British Columbia was according to the position, paid PR which it clearly was not, it was said that there were advertisements on that website which I checked, there were none.
- Moreover, I checked the link and it was indeed an official domain of the university of British Columbia, it was not an imitation.
- That article from the University of British Columbia has indeed been copied to the website of the department of cybersecurity of the University of Harvard which is a free editable wiki that can be edited by anyone (even us) and was thus vandalized. I agreed to removing it once I saw the vandalism, I did not see that right away. Nonetheless, that one reference does not invalidate the other references.
- The reference of the University of British Columbia was totally valid.
- Most sources used were major news outlets in India, most of which are being used constantly as references for pages on Wikipedia, I mean most of these companies are part of the top 10 largest journals in India.
- Also, a few press releases were used to cover this company, none of which referred to [[Solomartel], the company which we were covering. The articles were paid releases from the wealth fund of Saudi Arabia mentioning Solomartel as one of their partners. The Sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest wealth fund can be considered as a reliable source in and of itself.]
- Other users found references for this page which I did not have the time to check but they appeared valid to me. I would’ve double check had the page not been vandalized and my account blocked..
- I could continue but I think this already draws a somewhat clear picture.SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
SUPERGTOR (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
First of all I want to specify that this case is particularly complicated and given this fact, I have shortened as much as possible the request. Shorter than this length, the request is simply too short to be relevant and make any sense and even like this, the request still lacks essential information which is needed to investigate this so I have added it as a reply to this request below. Recently, a vote regarding a nomination for deletion took place. During that vote and in order to prevent me and many other people from discussing the topic, my account as well as the account of 7-9 other people (who I presume were also not sockpuppets) were blocked WITHOUT INVESTIGATION. Instead, a pseudo-investigation was lead to determine an alleged sockpuppetry but no actual investigation ever took place. I think this fake investigation was orchestrated in order to prevent users from participating in the discussion and simply to silence them given how badly it has been conducted (it breaks almost every single Wikipedia guideline of how sockpuppetry investigations should be conducted WP:SOCK). It is perfectly fine to suspect me or anyone on Wikipedia of sockpuppetry and then launch an investigation into it but the investigation would have shown my innocence whereas here, me and 6-9 more people were blocked WITHOUT any proper investigation. At this point my account has been blocked and my entire passion for editing Wikipedia has been erased from my life purely because someone charged of making the investigation decided to assume smth based on lies (without properly verifying them) and ban us. The issue took place around 2 weeks ago during Christmas 2021, I also contacted an admin regarding this who said they would look into it but didn't follow up likely due to Christmas. Either way, at this point, I am now asking for an investigation officially so that justice be made to me and whoever else faced the same injustice as I did. I am a 14 year old teenager who loves Wikipedia, specifically I am interested in finance (I am the best of my class at economics), I also edit pages about eastern Europe, the ex soviet union and the Balkans specifically. It would have been easy to determine that me and the other people are not sockpuppets. For example, because the other people can make edits at the exact same time (exact hour/minute/second), be awaken at different hours and many other means of verification. Also and most importantly, Administrators have tools to verify that I am not the other user using tools which are very easy to run and using those, admins will see my location. I am sure that even my 11 year old sister could've run such tools but here nobody did it. The best solution though would be performing a Checkuser, why hadn’t Checkuser been used ? It is the easiest way to verify my innocence. Had anyone used these kinds of tools, they would've seen that all the time my location will be traced to the country of Belgium as this is where I live and I have never left in the country in the past 2 years whereas most of the other users are Indians and Pakistanis and other people around the world. One thing I do want to mention also is that I am a person living in Belgium and I speak french, English, Russian and Serbian (Slavic languages are somewhat similar) whereas most people interested and having commented on that page are from India and Pakistan where this company seems to be particularly known in. Another user is a user who said he translates the encyclopedia from English to Italian and vice versa, even if we were to consider this, how is it possible that the same user who is a sockpupetteer could speak both french, English, Russian, Serbian, English, Indian, Pakistani and Italian at the same time. This is just impossible and had the administrators actually investigated it, they would've right away seen that the likelihood of such a person existing is close to 0. This is the request itself, the arguments and full story line is given below, a ton of very essential other information is necessary which I am adding as a response to this request. I understand that it may be additional content for someone to process but the request does not make sense without it, not checking it would be the same as leading a flawed investigation as crucial data could be missing, plz refer to it at least later on in the investigation when it will be needed. I really beg you, plz may someone investigate this matter and conduct and actual investigation. It is easy to prove my innocence. Performing a Checkuser will be the easiest thing to do and will be the solution to this problem. I thank you very much in advance SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Talk page access has been revoked due to continued posting of unbroken walls of text, therefore there is no point in leaving this open. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2022 (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.
In order to add all the required information, I will provide the rest of the story line and proof here:
To be clear, all of this would’ve been easy to determine but instead of making any verifications, an admin was trumped into believing lies of one user (or a very inexact testimonial to say the least) and then banned me without further verification. The specific user who lied or influenced the investigation in an incorrect direction was a certain Mr Spicy, he presented evidence in a way that was simply incorrect and deceiving to make my account and the accounts of other users banned not based on facts but based on suppositions and I would say almost superstitions. Namely, he used the investigation led about another user named Murgh Krahi, of his alleged sockpuppeteerness as evidence to actually block Murgh Krahi as well as 5-8 other users (which included me and none of which were investigated, something was assumed right away). Either way, what he did was deceitful as he presented smth as evidence (which was not actual evidence) so that the actual investigation did not take place. One of the reasons why this evidence was totally false is that IF IT WAS indeed the case that Mr Murgh Krahi was found guilty of sockpuppetry back in the days on Simple Wiki as Mr Spicy said, then he would have directly been blocked and banned then and he would not be able to edit simple wiki or wikipedia and comment on the page I have created like he did but because Murgh Krahi was able to post his comments on my page, it means that Mr Murgh Krahi was found innocent of the sockpuppetry complaint of many years ago. I do not know who Murgh Krahi is but I want to demonstrate my point using wikipedia guidelines.
I really am unsure as to why Mr Spicy acted this way, I do not know if they took a side and lied on purpose or if they had good intentions and really acted in integrity and it so happened that they were not saying the truth, but either way, the set of events surrounding this matter are strange.
What is even more strange are the circumstances in which me and the other users have been blocked. The actual issue (which led to the harassment and blocking) arose because I made a page which for some reason a lot of users found triggering in some way (maybe they had a conflict of interest with it) but it was just about a company offering financial services and investments which did not go against Wikipedia policies in any way, and fit notability guidelines. I previously made and edited pages about other financial institutions, as I said earlier, it is one of my passions, just check my edits. In fact, to make sure that I followed all guidelines and in order to do the best job possible, I made use of WP:NOTE and WP:FIND during my development.
Everything seemed alright when I made the page and then after about 1 week, all of a sudden the page got raided.
The page was raided by a few different people who kept on attacking it, almost like they had personal reasons against this page and what is surprising is that they were all saying the exact same thing. Mainly, Mr Kuru attacked the page while the other users kept on saying the exact same things without adding any further content to what Mr Kuru said as though there were a cult, all saying the exact same thing (again I am only describing what I saw, I think this needs to be looked into).
The arguments they gave in favor of the deletion barely made any sense and looked quite black and white. Below this request as a reply, I will provide some examples of the unreasonable things which were said on that page to remove it (I do not want to make this request too long).
Also, as this conversation unfolded, some of the other users were harassed on the talk page because they were new users and another user, MrOllie told them that their votes will not be counted which totally breaks the Wikipedia rules !
I really don’t understand how this kind of unfairness can happen on what is meant to be a fair and free project. This really makes me anxious and depressed as I made sure to follow all Wikipedia guidelines and policies, to improve the project and not offend anyone yet I have been blocked without any proper investigation. I really beg anyone for help, plz may someone investigate this matter and conduct and actual investigation. It is easy to prove my innocence.
Additionally, I am adding some of the things said to justify the deletion which are clearly unreasonable: A financial paper from the University of British Columbia was according to the position, paid PR which it clearly was not, it was said that there were advertisements on that website which I checked, there were none. Moreover, I checked the link and it was indeed an official domain of the university of British Columbia, it was not an imitation. That article from the University of British Columbia has indeed been copied to the website of the department of cybersecurity of the University of Harvard which is a free editable wiki that can be edited by anyone (even us) and was thus vandalized. I agreed to removing it once I saw the vandalism, I did not see that right away. Nonetheless, that one reference does not invalidate the other references. The reference of the University of British Columbia was totally valid. Most sources used were major news outlets in India, most of which are being used constantly as references for pages on Wikipedia, I mean most of these companies are part of the top 10 largest journals in India. Also, a few press releases were used to cover this company, none of which referred to [[Solomartel], the company which we were covering. The articles were paid releases from the wealth fund of Saudi Arabia mentioning Solomartel as one of their partners. The Sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest wealth fund can be considered as a reliable source in and of itself.] Other users found references for this page which I did not have the time to check but they appeared valid to me. I would’ve double check had the page not been vandalized and my account blocked.. I could continue but I think this already draws a somewhat clear picture. SUPERGTOR (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have decided to remove your talk page access as you continue to put up walls of text after requests to be concise. Someone else will review your request; if they see good reason to, they may restore your access without asking me. If your request is declined without restoring access, that will leave you with WP:UTRS for further appeals. 331dot (talk) 23:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)