User talk:Intchar*

Your submission at Articles for creation

Thank you for submitting an article to Wikipedia. Your submission has been reviewed and has been put on hold pending clarification or improvements from you or other editors. Please take a look and respond if possible. You can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir. If there is no response within twenty-four hours the request may be declined; if this happens feel free to continue to work on the article. You can resubmit it (by adding the text {{subst:AFC submission/submit}} to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Shaygan Kheradpir

Hello Intchar*. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Shaygan Kheradpir.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. CorporateM (Talk) 22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was quite surprised to discover today that my account had been blocked earlier this week. I respectfully ask @Berean Hunter: to consider following points, and remove the block as you see fit. 1. I wrote the first version of this article back in Jan 2011, because I wanted to learn how Wikipedia works and I found a worthy topic that was lacking an article. I researched the subject, and put forth my best effort. I consider myself a relative newcomer to Wikipedia – still fascinated by it, and still learning how the ecosystem works. 2. I would like to refute the following claims of CorporateM in the strongest possible terms: First, I am not a SPA (single purpose author). I have made contributions to several other pages on completely different topics, and I hope to tackle more. Second, I am in no way a PR person (although I see from CorporateM's article list that this is an area of interest for him). Third, I am not the same person as Pauloperry (who I have since discovered also appears not to be a SPA, with prior contributions to another article). And finally, I am most definitely not a sock puppet, nor a paid editor. I am doing this work on my own, and to the best of my knowledge I have never violated any Wikipedia rules or principles. As I wrote on this page, I take the integrity of my work very seriously. 3. I would further ask you and others to take a close look at CorporateM’s behavior in this case. He has declared an affiliation with Juniper Networks. But note that his first recorded interest in this page was on 12/1/14, just after Kheradpir was released as CEO of Juniper Networks on 11/10/14. Since then, CorporateM has been very active on this subject. And although he declared a COI (conflict of interest), he’s made more than 20 direct edits to the page. 4. More significantly, although CorporateM has declared COI in this case, he has persistently asked others to make changes on his behalf. In my view, this creates the appearance of pursuing an agenda to change the page, while still claiming the high ground/protection of COI. I am not an expert on the Wikipedia COI policy, but surely it’s not appropriate for a declared COI editor to be lobbying others to make specific changes – especially ones that ring of a conflict of interest. 5. Probably most important, CorporateM has sought to change or remove verifiable and neutral facts from the article. Please read through CorporateM’s comments + my responses on the Talk page, and you’ll see numerous examples. For instance, CorporateM made several attempts to deemphasize Kheradpir’s contribution to Verizon's FiOS service, asking for it to be written as “Kheradpir’s group also supported expansion of FiOS.” In fact, there are plentiful references indicating that he had a leadership role on the project from the beginning (e.g., he is "credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public," in IT World). FiOS is a major consumer product, and this info is a key part of Kheradpir’s story. Finally note that I agreed to, and actually made, several changes on CorporateM's behalf—mostly strengthening references—but I did not agree to changes that were inappropriate for the article. Having said all this, I believe the current version of the article is a pretty good version, accurate and well written. I certainly did not expect to find myself in the situation of defending my Wikipedia contributions and my personal integrity. But I understand there are a lot of interests at work all across Wikipedia, and the community needs to be careful. Please consider the above points, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you! Intchar* (talk) 22:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Fortunately, I don't have to wade through the whole wall of text you have posted, because only a small minority of it is related to the reason for the block,which was sockpuppetry. (Did you take the advice to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting this unblock request?) I don't know whether you are or are not the same person as Pauloperry: there are features of the editing of the two accounts which are strikingly similar, but there are differences too. However, it is perfectly clear that you are not two independent editors: if you are two different people then one of you has been here to support the other, by giving the impression that there is independent support for that editor's views. That, known as meatpuppetry, is treated in exactly the same way as "sockpuppetry" in the sense of one person abusively using multiple accounts. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2015 (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.

Of course you are an single purpose account and any characterization to the contrary is misleading. You have precisely three diffs that constitute the entirety of your contributions outside of Kheradpir in four and a half years. Who are you trying to kid? And yes, Pauloperry is also an SPA. It is interesting that The timing of both accounts' activities run so closely together. Each make a handful of contribs in 2011. One account then makes a single edit in 2012 while the other makes none. In 2013, within just weeks of each other you both reemerge to make another handful of edits before both dropping out again. In 2014, one account makes two edits and the other makes none. Then both of you reappear in 2015, one showing up to defend the other. Particularly interesting is that Pauloperry puts forth language "Again, more references to sourced content were removed regarding his tenure at Barclay's." despite the fact that this account has never edited the article or participated on the talk page before. Strange that someone is continuing a conversation that they never took part in. As for the rest of your points above, please read why pointing fingers at others isn't going to work.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I got the ping. If you really are a disinterested volunteer that just happened to write a very promotional article and for some reason thought it was a good edit to remove the word "conduct" (while small, that edit is very telling), then I am deeply apologetic for your treatment here. However, the circumstances are such that this is extremely unlikely to be the case. About six months ago, when Kheradpir still worked at Juniper, I provided an assessment that the article and its history gave me the impression of covert paid editing, before I even began working on it; the removal of sourced content about out-sourcing, lay-offs or unsuccessful products and similar edits, as well as the presence of other SPAs arguing similar points, only re-enforced this.

This is especially frustrating that so much effort is made to covertly manipulate the page into being sterile and promotional, when a neutral article does reflect generally positively on him. The argument that you are a brand new editor, who happens to know wiki-code very well and have other SPAs support them, etc. is also not a credible argument. Nor is the claim to not being an SPA per Hunter. Although I haven't checked, I don't believe the point of implementing my suggestions is true either.

Of course anyone who wants to look at my behavior may also do so. As a prolific COI contributor, I'm certainly use to the scrutiny. I've created several dozen GA articles with a COI, but have been unable to do so here, because Intchar*'s edits tend to make the page not GA-ready by adding unsourced content, removing sourced content and general tendentious editing/socking. Very frustrating. CorporateM (Talk) 00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Berean Hunter:

My bottom line is that everything I’ve done on Wikipedia has been in total good faith. I can see why you might think I'm the same person as User:Pauloperry, but it's not true. It is deeply troubling to be accused of something that is not true, and then be required to convince others who will not believe you. It makes me feel like Roger Thornhill in Hitchcock’s North by Northwest.

Still, I will do my best to respond to your points. Please imagine these comments as coming from an earnest person telling the truth.

1. Precisely three diffs. I'm interested enough in Wikipedia to want to know how it works and learn by doing, but I’m not as prolific or experienced or prolific as others. I don’t think this requires an apology. I spent a lot more time on the Kheradpir article because I felt the the changes under discussion were making the article materially worse.

2. Timing of comments. I have no idea what User:Pauloperry writes about, when, or why, and I don’t care. All I can say is it’s not me. It’s kind of maddening to be told I’m wrong about that.

3. Reappearing in 2015. I got active on the article again after I noticed Kheradpir in the news for leaving Juniper.

4. Two users defending each other. I can only assume that user User:Pauloperry was interested in the topic, read the Talk page, and agreed with me. Making us the same person is not the only conclusion.

5. Pointing fingers at others. I'm still learning Wikipedia ropes so I wasn’t aware of this advice/etiquette. I wasn’t trying to deflect, just giving context for how the argument took shape.

Dear @CorporateM:

Here are my thoughts on your points. Please also read with an open mind.

1. Promotional article. The example you gave happens to be the very first article I wrote on Wikipedia. It may not be the best debut article, but all the points are verifiable with references. It was not meant to be promotional. In any case, it's water under the bridge now as the current version is much better.

2. Edits on outsourcing, and unsuccessful products. I think I gave a pretty good explanation for these edits on the Talk page. To recap on outsourcing: As far as I can tell, the published record doesn't indicate that this is a major part of Kheradpir’s story (I think there were only one or two references on outsourcing/layoffs, compared with a great many more that talk about innovation and development). And per WP:VER, just because something has been published doesn't mean it belongs in an article. To recap on unsuccessful products: as CIO/CTO at Verizon, Kheradpir was responsible for the $20B rollout of the FiOS data and TV product, as well as a vast number of smaller, less important products. Verizon One and iobi were interesting innovations, but don’t merit calling out – certainly not in the lead section.

3. Covert manipulation. I am not being paid to manipulate anything. I am not a number, I am a free man!

4. Knowing wiki code. I taught myself. The markup language is simple and well documented. You can see here that I messed around with the sandbox when I first started in 2011.

5. Hunter. Sorry, I don’t know what this is.

6. Closing point on frustration. At least we agree on something!

Intchar* (talk) 04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• If you were not blocked for sockpuppetry, there would be a good case for blocking you as an editor who is here only for promotion. Although you have learnt over time, and your recent editing has not been such crude and blatant marketing-speak as your earlier editing, your editing remains essentially single-purpose promotion of one person. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: To answer your earlier question: yes, I read the guide to appealing blocks before making my request. I just read it over again, and would like to reiterate my request more clearly in terms of the policy. I am requesting to be unblocked on the grounds that an indefinite block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. Although the Talk page discussion was spirited at times, it was always respectful; more important, I think my edits have made a positive contribution to the article in question. I also want to reiterate that I am not a sockpuppet, nor a meatpuppet, nor any other kind of puppet. I would like to continue as a member of the Wikipedia community in good standing. Thanks for your consideration. Intchar* (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'd appreciate a reply, even if you don't unblock my account. Thanks. Intchar* (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)