Sufur Xam
Speedy deletion nomination of Faiz Imran
editHello, Sufur Xam,
Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username John B123 and I thank you for your contributions.
I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged an article that you started, Faiz Imran, for deletion, because [consensus decision] previously decided that it wasn't suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. If you wish to restore a page deleted via a deletion discussion, please use the deletion review process instead, rather than reposting the content of the page.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.
For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|John B123}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!
Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page Faiz Imran has been deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. As the page met any of these strictly-defined criteria, it was deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been deleted are:
- It seemed to be unambiguous advertising which only promoted a company, product, group, service, person, or point of view and would need to have been fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, or you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for the feedback.
To avoid running into the same or similar problems in future, could you pls pinpoint what portion or feature of the article "seemed to be unambiguous advertising"?
Thank you. Sufur Xam (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Sufur Xam (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
I do not have and I never had a separate account that was banned. You could have attempted verifying this separately before stating G5 as one of the reasons for deleting the page.
Pls verify and let me know how else I may have done wrong so I can avoid such in my subsequent contributions.
Thank you. Sufur Xam (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC) Sufur Xam (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Sufur Xam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not guilty of the accusations. I do not have, and I NEVER HAD, another account aside this, and I have NEVER attempted creating another account. This can be verified using any appropriate means. Sufur Xam (talk) 09:43, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A simple denial is not sufficient in sockpuppetry cases, as every sockpuppeteer denies doing so. If you are not a sock, then you will need to give a plausible explanation as to why the evidence might indicate otherwise. In this case, it seems that you might be a meatpuppet more than a sockpuppet. If you are working with others off wiki to edit about the topic you have edited about, you will need to go into that. I am declining your request.331dot (talk) 09:56, 17 August 2020 (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.
Sufur Xam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not working with others off wiki. A simple denial is all I can do here. I think it is the accuser who should make a convincing explanation as to why I was blocked. The page I created does not contain any "promotion" that I am aware of. I have since asked the accuser to point out what portion of it violates wiki rules or is promotional so I could improve on it. I got blocked in response.
Working on a topic whose contents are publicly verifiable and are in line with wiki rules automatically means I should be blocked because someone else has created the same page with "promotional" contents in the past? I really would like to know how.
Decline reason:
Your only meaningful contributions were to Faiz Imran, who has pretty clearly asked/paid numerous people to try to write an article for him. So you are either a sock, a meat puppet, or editing for pay without disclosing it, all of which are blockable offenses. I suggest you be more forthcoming. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:32, 17 August 2020 (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.
Sufur Xam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
NONE of these accusations is true. Yet again, I can only refute these with my words. My "only meaningful contribution"? How could I have contributed further when the first page I created was deleted same day? I asked for explanation so I could avoid any breach of rules in my subsequent contributions (as can be seen on this page), but got blocked in response. I couldn't have made any more contributions obviously. I have NOT broken any rule that I know of. Once again, I ask that you explain what I did wrong with the article. I created the topic only after checking all rules to be sure my content fits in. I am being blocked from making further contributions or even improvement to the page if I missed anything, solely based on assumptions and suspicion? Pls make me understand this. Everything I have written could be verified independently. This is tiring. Sufur Xam (talk) 3:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
Based on the edit history, the history of the subject, and the flimsy, evasive answers throughout, this appears to fit the pattern of undisclosed paid editing and I see no reason to unblock. only (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2020 (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.
How did you come to write about Faiz Imran? As noted, we are aware that he has asked others to do what you did. Can you at least concede that it isn't unreasonable for us to think what we think? Someone else will review your request. 331dot (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Definitely, it is not unreasonable to think so.
I however think it is unfair to block me on the basis of such "thoughts", especially when I asked to know if I breached any rule, so I could avoid such in my subsequent contributions. Thank you.
Sufur Xam (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- You didn't answer 331dot's first question: how'd you wind up writing about Imran? only (talk) 20:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I have intentionally avoided that for the sake of my privacy. For a hint, I got to know about him as a follower of one of his business partners on social media, who also has a page on this platform. I checked to find further information about him with a Google search and realized he currently has no page here unlike his other partners and thought to create one from the information I could glean from internet sources. Thank you.
Sufur Xam (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Sufur Xam (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have provided answers to all questions asked, to clear the suspicion and assumptions upon which the decision to block my account was based. If there are any more issues, I would like to know and answer to them. In the absence of any, it is unfair to decline my request for this account to be unblocked so I can make further "meaningful contributions on this platform." I look forward to a review of this block. Thank you. Sufur Xam (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
It is your right to choose privacy over editing Wikipedia. However, since you have made that choice, I'm removing your ability make further appeals on this page. You can use more privacy-enabled methods if you so choose, such as WP:UTRS. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:23, 18 August 2020 (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.
(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.