User talk:Submitra

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/Submitra, 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.

-- RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #27181 was submitted on Oct 17, 2019 11:18:35. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 11:18, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I, Shubhojoy Mitra (user Submitra) understand the reason for the block as sockpuppetry. It has been noted that there are four different users including me editing one article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cisternostomy) from the same IP. The IP belongs to the internet connection of the premises of Techart Trekkies Pvt. Ltd. All users are part of the content development team who had been developing the article since it was initially written and submitted by me. The assisting content writer Anjan Sharma (user AnjanFMSharma) also declared being in our team working for the client. Subsequently, various edits have been made by two other team members who were tasked mainly to verify and format citations on the highly technical medical article on a new procedure of neurosurgery which has been gaining wide acceptance in many parts of the world. We have been working as a team to keep the article neutral, without COIs and precisely compliant of the rules of Wikipedia.

Overlooking the declaration of paid content writing of two other contributors was not intentional, just a mistake: the fact that we declared for myself and Anjan Sharma might explain our clear intention of following COI rules. In fact, the last edits were by Pratik Ratna Shakya (user the Protik) after a thorough check of copy-paste matches with provided citations and corrections. Technical phraseology tends to be similar in case of medical/surgical procedures which might have produced such concerns. While user Rachhita went for maternity leave, user the Protik recently joined to fill in for her. Any mails to rachhita@techarttrekkies.com will receive an automated notice about this and a copy forwarded to Pratik.

I and the rest of the team can confirm that we are separate individuals collaborating to create content according to general guidelines and policies. Request to unblock the account seems to have been rejected because there is "no private information associated with your appeal". We need help to sort out the issue: what kind of private information may be provided so as to prove we are separate individuals working as a team and how? Once unblocked, the two other members will definitely add the declaration of doing paid work on behalf of the company for the client in their talk pages.

The members of our team are:

Shubhojoy Mitra (user Submitra, email id: shubhojoy@gmail.com), official email id: shubhojoy@techarttrekkies.com
Anjan Sharma (user AnjanFMSharma), email id: anjan.halla@gmail.com)
Rachhita Dhungel (user Rachhita, email: rachhita.dhungel@gmail.com), official email id: rachhita@techarttrekkies.com
Pratik Ratna Shakya (user the Protik, email: itsmepratik111@gmail.com), official email id: pratik@techarttrekkies.com

As noted in investigations page, it is true I have been active as an editor/contributor back in 2014/2015 in my personal capacity. After a long gap for personal reasons and other engagements, it is only with this new assignment that I have authored the first article and we are working in a team doing appropriate research, etc. for maintaining high-quality and neutrality standards of the community as well the expectations of our client. On the other hand, the other three members are new to the Wikipedia community and created their accounts recently to collaborate on the project.

How can we verify we are separate individuals, and will this suffice for requesting unblocking so we may resume completing the draft article? @RoySmith:

Submitra (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock request was declined because you sent it thru the OTRS system. That should be only used when personal info is included. Since your unblock requested did not include any personal information, you was instructed to make an ordinary unblock request on your talk page (here). See WP:GAB for more info. We've been totally aware that the four of you are four different persons editing the same article. That is what we call WP:MEATPUPPETRY. As per WP:COWORKER, you should have declared your connection to each other, but you did not. So, your editing was against Wikipedia policies and you got blocked. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response Vanjagenije.

I understand technically it is meatpuppetry and not adding WP:COWORKER was a mistake albeit unintentional. I do take responsibility for asking some of our team members to edit page without proper declarations although there is no intention of using duplicate accounts to contest any disputes because the content has not been even been accepted or disputed.

How may I appeal for block removal? I can guarantee that we can take the following measures:

Posting edits and developing the content only using one account (Submitra)
Asking all other editors to declare themselves as co-workers working on the particular content and/or refrain from using their accounts for editing and publishing

Please do understand I am keen to follow all instructions and rules so as to complete this article we have been working on for months. Whether it may be accepted is, of course, the discretion of the Wikipedia community, especially experts of the field. I will make sure we carefully go through all rules and regulations and respect it to the letter. I request help in this matter.

@Vanjagenije:

Submitra (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I already wrote, guide for appealing blocks is here: WP:GAB. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cisternostomy, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as C-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. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting 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!

Theroadislong (talk) 14:28, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Cisternostomy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cisternostomy 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/Cisternostomy 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. --Pontificalibus 16:04, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]