569:
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
905:
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
Knowledge community in good standing. Thanks for your consideration.
238:
823:, 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.
396:
103:
636:
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
25:
171:
273:
72:, 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
674:
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.
503:(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 Knowledge rules or principles. As I wrote on
635:
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
532:
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
872:
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
818:
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
751:
I'm interested enough in
Knowledge 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
545:
is a pretty good version, accurate and well written. I certainly did not expect to find myself in the situation of defending my
Knowledge contributions and my personal integrity. But I understand there are a lot of interests at work all across Knowledge, and the community needs to be careful. Please
519:
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
Knowledge COI policy, but surely it’s not
701:
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
489:
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 Knowledge works and I found a worthy topic that was lacking an article. I researched the subject, and put forth my best effort. I consider
904:
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
687:
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
673:
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
568:
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
810:
The example you gave happens to be the very first article I wrote on Knowledge. 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.
494:
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
640:
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
200:
511:’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,
31:
Thank you for submitting an article to Knowledge. 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
206:
737:, 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
213:
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.
688:
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.
36:. 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
515:
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
175:
520:
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,
788:
I'm still learning Knowledge 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.
490:
myself a relative newcomer to Knowledge – still fascinated by it, and still learning how the ecosystem works. 2. I would like to refute the following claims of
613:
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.
537:). 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
242:
134:
code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
541:'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
534:
354:
Knowledge; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
76:
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
524:
has sought to change or remove verifiable and neutral facts from the article. Please read through CorporateM’s comments + my responses on the
733:
My bottom line is that everything I’ve done on Knowledge has been in total good faith. I can see why you might think I'm the same person as
436:
116:
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
110:
96:
69:
57:
33:
598:
367:
744:
Still, I will do my best to respond to your points. Please imagine these comments as coming from an earnest person telling the truth.
763:
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.
303:
205:
199:
321:
431:
246:
781:
was interested in the topic, read the Talk page, and agreed with me. Making us the same person is not the only conclusion.
350:. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are
355:
315:
573:, is treated in exactly the same way as "sockpuppetry" in the sense of one person abusively using multiple accounts.
137:
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:
408:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
409:
281:
507:, I take the integrity of my work very seriously. 3. I would further ask you and others to take a close look at
504:
481:
I was quite surprised to discover today that my account had been blocked earlier this week. I respectfully ask
403:
653:
533:"credited with leading the team that brought Verizon’s FiOS Internet/voice/cable network to the public," in
378:
337:
333:
288:
884:
584:
450:
309:
707:
297:
254:
183:
155:
85:
77:
109:
Hello Intchar*. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled
182:
and Knowledge pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to
179:
725:
648:
484:
373:
927:
899:
880:
642:
580:
222:
770:
I got active on the article again after I noticed Kheradpir in the news for leaving Juniper.
702:
content, removing sourced content and general tendentious editing/socking. Very frustrating.
607:
361:
73:
47:
638:"Again, more references to sourced content were removed regarding his tenure at Barclay's."
795:
778:
760:
734:
703:
538:
529:
521:
516:
512:
508:
500:
491:
292:
250:
151:
81:
65:
42:
to the top of the article) when you believe the concerns have been addressed. Thank you.
669:
I got the ping. If you really are a disinterested volunteer that just happened to write
570:
838:
197:
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (
933:
906:
858:
622:
547:
414:
347:
18:
218:
117:
837:
I taught myself. The markup language is simple and well documented. You can see
830:
I am not being paid to manipulate anything. I am not a number, I am a free man!
546:
consider the above points, and let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
241:
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at
147:, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
43:
499:
that this is an area of interest for him). Third, I am not the same person as
332:
that was created to violate Knowledge policy. Note that multiple accounts are
820:
525:
139:{{subst:Refund/G13|Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir}}
24:
803:
Here are my thoughts on your points. Please also read with an open mind.
932:
I'd appreciate a reply, even if you don't unblock my account. Thanks.
170:
272:
941:
914:
888:
866:
738:
711:
658:
588:
555:
383:
258:
226:
159:
89:
51:
841:
that I messed around with the sandbox when I first started in 2011.
496:
191:
625:
and any characterization to the contrary is misleading. You have
819:
many more that talk about innovation and development). And per
267:
150:
Thanks for your submission to Knowledge, and happy editing.
394:
101:
23:
595:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
615:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
670:
637:
632:
629:
626:
542:
464:
460:
454:
445:
441:
427:
423:
419:
346:, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
327:
143:
118:
249:
incident in which you may be involved. Thank you.
70:
Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir
58:
Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir
34:
Knowledge talk:Articles for creation/Shaygan Kheradpir
232:
Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
402:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
528:, and you’ll see numerous examples. For instance,
816:Edits on outsourcing, and unsuccessful products.
8:
243:Knowledge:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
186:. There are two ways to do this. Either:
873:single-purpose promotion of one person.
194:( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
68:. I just wanted to let you know that
7:
366:below. However, you should read the
848:Sorry, I don’t know what this is.
14:
876:The editor who uses the pseudonym
576:The editor who uses the pseudonym
855:At least we agree on something!
271:
236:
209:) located above the edit window.
204:
198:
169:
80:. Thank you for your attention.
775:Two users defending each other.
39:{{subst:AFC submission/submit}}
543:current version of the article
141:, paste it in the edit box at
1:
853:Closing point on frustration.
259:22:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
160:16:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
777:I can only assume that user
227:03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
786:Pointing fingers at others.
406:, who declined the request.
90:14:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
52:23:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
960:
942:14:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
915:21:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
889:14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
867:04:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
752:article materially worse.
712:00:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
671:a very promotional article
659:23:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
643:pointing fingers at others
589:14:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
556:22:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
384:14:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
348:may be reverted or deleted
178:. When you add content to
599:guide to appealing blocks
497:CorporateM's article list
368:guide to appealing blocks
937:
910:
862:
551:
364:|Your reason here ~~~~}}
95:Your article submission
264:Blocked as a sockpuppet
749:Precisely three diffs.
623:single purpose account
399:
280:This account has been
106:
28:
621:Of course you are an
451:change block settings
398:
336:, but using them for
245:regarding a possible
105:
27:
19:Articles for creation
828:Covert manipulation.
808:Promotional article.
768:Reappearing in 2015.
759:I have no idea what
645:isn't going to work.
247:conflict of interest
176:welcome to Knowledge
757:Timing of comments.
358:by adding the text
352:not allowed to edit
119:edit the submission
17:Your submission at
835:Knowing wiki code.
739:North by Northwest
400:
107:
29:
878:
578:
389:
388:
356:appeal this block
165:Your recent edits
111:Shaygan Kheradpir
97:Shaygan Kheradpir
951:
931:
903:
874:
799:
729:
656:
651:
612:
606:
574:
488:
470:
468:
457:
439:
437:deleted contribs
397:
381:
376:
365:
331:
275:
268:
240:
239:
208:
202:
173:
146:
140:
133:
132:
127:
126:
121:
104:
44:Kevin Rutherford
41:
40:
959:
958:
954:
953:
952:
950:
949:
948:
925:
897:
793:
779:User:Pauloperry
761:User:Pauloperry
735:User:Pauloperry
723:
654:
649:
618:
610:
604:
603:, then use the
592:
559:
482:
458:
448:
434:
417:
410:blocking policy
395:
379:
374:
359:
310:global contribs
295:
287:as a suspected
266:
237:
234:
184:sign your posts
167:
142:
138:
130:
129:
124:
123:
122:and remove the
102:
100:
62:
38:
37:
22:
12:
11:
5:
957:
955:
947:
946:
945:
944:
920:
919:
918:
917:
892:
891:
719:
718:
717:
716:
715:
714:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
675:
662:
661:
646:
593:
566:
562:Decline reason
479:
475:Request reason
472:
393:
391:
387:
386:
371:
276:
265:
262:
233:
230:
211:
210:
195:
166:
163:
99:
93:
64:Hi there, I'm
61:
55:
21:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
956:
943:
939:
935:
929:
924:
923:
922:
921:
916:
912:
908:
901:
896:
895:
894:
893:
890:
886:
882:
877:
871:
870:
869:
868:
864:
860:
856:
854:
849:
847:
842:
840:
836:
831:
829:
824:
822:
817:
812:
809:
804:
801:
800:
797:
789:
787:
782:
780:
776:
771:
769:
764:
762:
758:
753:
750:
745:
742:
740:
736:
731:
730:
727:
726:Berean Hunter
713:
709:
705:
700:
699:
698:
697:
696:
695:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
672:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
660:
657:
652:
650:Berean Hunter
644:
639:
634:
631:
628:
624:
620:
619:
617:
616:
609:
602:
600:
591:
590:
586:
582:
577:
572:
565:
563:
558:
557:
553:
549:
544:
540:
536:
531:
527:
523:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
486:
485:Berean Hunter
478:
476:
471:
466:
462:
456:
452:
447:
443:
438:
433:
429:
428:global blocks
425:
424:active blocks
421:
416:
411:
407:
405:
404:administrator
392:
385:
382:
377:
375:Berean Hunter
369:
363:
357:
353:
349:
345:
341:
340:
335:
329:
326:
323:
322:user creation
320:
317:
314:
311:
308:
305:
302:
299:
294:
290:
286:
285:
283:
277:
274:
270:
269:
263:
261:
260:
256:
252:
248:
244:
231:
229:
228:
224:
220:
217:Thank you. --
215:
207:
201:
196:
193:
189:
188:
187:
185:
181:
177:
172:
164:
162:
161:
157:
153:
148:
145:
135:
120:
114:
112:
98:
94:
92:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:WP:REFUND/G13
75:
71:
67:
59:
56:
54:
53:
49:
45:
35:
26:
20:
16:
928:JamesBWatson
900:JamesBWatson
881:JamesBWatson
875:
857:
852:
850:
845:
843:
834:
832:
827:
825:
815:
813:
807:
805:
802:
791:
790:
785:
783:
774:
772:
767:
765:
756:
754:
748:
746:
743:
732:
721:
720:
614:
596:
594:
581:JamesBWatson
575:
571:meatpuppetry
567:
561:
560:
480:
474:
473:
446:creation log
413:
401:
390:
351:
343:
339:illegitimate
338:
324:
318:
312:
306:
300:
284:indefinitely
279:
278:
235:
216:
212:
168:
149:
136:
115:
108:
74:Userfication
63:
30:
289:sock puppet
796:CorporateM
704:CorporateM
539:CorporateM
530:CorporateM
522:CorporateM
517:CorporateM
513:CorporateM
509:CorporateM
501:Pauloperry
492:CorporateM
442:filter log
316:page moves
293:Pauloperry
251:CorporateM
180:talk pages
174:Hello and
152:HasteurBot
131:{{db-g13}}
125:{{db-afc}}
82:HasteurBot
66:HasteurBot
627:precisely
597:read the
526:Talk page
505:this page
461:checkuser
420:block log
328:block log
190:Add four
144:this link
934:Intchar*
907:Intchar*
859:Intchar*
548:Intchar*
535:IT World
432:contribs
415:Intchar*
342:reasons
304:contribs
846:Hunter.
608:unblock
455:unblock
370:first.
362:unblock
334:allowed
282:blocked
219:SineBot
60:concern
821:WP:VER
655:(talk)
380:(talk)
344:is not
192:tildes
792:Dear
722:Dear
633:diffs
630:three
601:first
938:talk
911:talk
885:talk
863:talk
839:here
741:.
708:Talk
585:talk
552:talk
298:talk
255:Talk
223:talk
156:talk
86:talk
48:talk
883:" (
851:6.
844:5.
833:4.
826:3.
814:2.
806:1.
784:5.
773:4.
766:3.
755:2.
747:1.
583:" (
465:log
412:).
291:of
203:or
128:or
113:.
940:)
913:)
887:)
865:)
710:)
647:—
611:}}
605:{{
587:)
564::
554:)
477::
459:•
453:•
449:•
444:•
440:•
435:•
430:•
426:•
422:•
372:—
360:{{
257:)
225:)
158:)
88:)
50:)
936:(
930::
926:@
909:(
902::
898:@
879:"
861:(
798::
794:@
728::
724:@
706:(
579:"
550:(
487::
483:@
469:)
467:)
463:(
418:(
330:)
325:·
319:·
313:·
307:·
301:·
296:(
253:(
221:(
154:(
84:(
46:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
