User talk:Baluperoth

Welcome!

Hello, Baluperoth, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as V S Vijayan, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of V S Vijayan

If this is the first article that you have 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.

A tag has been placed on V S Vijayan requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. BoxOfChickens (talk · contribs · CSD/ProD log) 18:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 15:54, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ashique Kuruniyan

The article Ashique Kuruniyan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ashique Kuruniyan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashique Kuruniyan 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/Ashique Kuruniyan until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Baluperoth. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baluperoth. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I am really surprised to see this block. I am using only one user account (Baluperoth) in wiki and no way connected to the user name: Arshaque1993. Therefore, the suspected sock puppetry is error. The page "Ashique Kuruniyan" was created by me. But as per the notability criterion the same was deleted on 29th Oct 2016 upon advice by ArsenalFan700. There after I did not tried to recreate or edit the above page

I suspect that these recreations of a deleted page by a USER UNKNOWN / un-related to me is the reason for the block? Therefore I request the editors to unblock my account.

Decline reason:

Sockpuppetry was confired by CheckUser; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Baluperoth. –Grondemar 22:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have been blocked since 22.12.2016 for suspected sockpuppetry (recurrent creation of Ashique Kuruniyan, a non-notable 19yo 3rd team footballer by two unrelated users, of which one user is found unrelated by the editors) The page created by me was deleted on 29th Oct 2016 up on advice by ArsenalFan700, (and later once he become a notable player a new page was created by the above user in Dec 2017). I have no connection with the recreation of the above page on 6th Nov, 19th Dec and 22 Dec in 2016. Though a football fan, I have no special interest on the above player and have no intention to break any rules of wiki. I am a practising wildlife biologist and majority of my contributions in Wikipedia and Wikimedia are related to my area of expertise. I have been editing/contributing to wiki through an institutional server used by more than 500 people and a public free connectivity provided in a railway station, which may be used by thousands of people and might have led to the similarity in the IP addresses of other users involved in this case. Further to the blocking also, I continued my contributions in MlWiki and wikimedia and wish to make productive contributions to wiki by following the rules and regulations. In this context, I request the editors to unblock me. Thanks. Baluperoth (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Thank you for admitting your violations of WP:SOCK. However, you'll need to explain further. Why did you violate WP:MEAT to create an inappropriate article? What is your exact relationship to Arshaque1993 (talk · contribs) and ArsenalFan700 (talk · contribs)? If unblocked, would you stay away from articles about footballers? What other articles would you edit? How can we be sure you won't violate WP:SOCK again? Yamla (talk) 12:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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, it seems you didn't understand Baluperoth's comment above. ArsenalFan700 (talk · contribs) seems a very different person (who also recreated the article recently). Drmies and Shyamal, could you look on this as both of you commented on the SPI page in archive. This is a block happened in one year ago for a single incident and Baluperoth's area of interest is biology. This is a checkuser block; so may be handled by a check user. Ronhjones, HJ_Mitchell, Julia W, could you check and advise Baluperoth's on how to appeal if this request is not the right method? I was asked for help as I too from Kerala. I checked Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Sockpuppetry_blocks; but didn't understand the exact procedure. I think the user is eligible for a Wikipedia:Standard offer. J e e 15:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think I'd be fine with that, but I have to make a correction. Baluperoth: "of which one user is found unrelated by the editors"? No, the IP of one user was found to be unrelated to the others, by Checkusers. That is a big difference. Checkuser still confirmed Baluperoth and Arshaque1993 as identical. So if someone wants to unblock, that is fine with me, but it should be as a consequence of OFFER, not because the SPI was somehow faulty. Drmies (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Drmies. I think he can be unblocked per OFFER as 14 months had passed. J e e 16:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the SPI, Drmies placed a note of reference that "the "likely" outcome is borne out by considerable behavioral evidence". While searching the exact string that mentioned as all three users repeated in all re-creations of the article, I got a single result, http://deletionpedia.org/en/Ashique_Kuruniyan. That site seems a replica of our AfDs created by Guaka. I don't know whether the acting checkuser Bbb23 and other checkusers were aware of it. Anyway this gives the possibility that anyone can re-create a deleted article with the same mistakes without the help of original author. J e e 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have some questions. First of Baluperoth:

What kind of "institution" do you edit from?
Do you know the IPs used by the institution?
If not, do you know the ISP of the institution?
You came back on March 2 and made two edits. Were they from that institution? Were they from the railway station?
Do you have Internet access at home? If so, who is your ISP?

I also have questions for Jkadavoor. You said you were asked to help because you are also from Kerala. Who asked you to help? Kerala has 33M people. Do you know Baluperoth personally?--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answers to the questions by Bbb23.

1&2: I work in a research institution namely, Jawaharlal Nehru Tropical Botanic Garden and Research Institute (http://jntbgri.res.in/) as a scientist and did some edits in the past from here. I am not sure about the IP (66.147.242.172?)
3.The internet connection in the institute is currently provided by national knowledge network of India with 1651 institutions connected to it (http://nkn.gov.in/connected-institutions). Previously, the ISP was BSNL.
4&5. The edits made yesterday (March 2) and now is from my home (not from institution or railway station) IP: 117.203.25.97 (BSNL). In past, I also did some wiki edits from my wife's home (ISP is BSNL) and my place of stay near the institution (ISP is Asianet Broadband Services). The railway station from which I did some edits is Thiruvananthapuram Central, where google provide free internet connection through https://www.railwire.co.in/.

An additional point for your consideration: The original content of the page (Ashique Kuruniyan) I created was deleted based on WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Unfortunately, the same exact content is still available in a website: http://deletionpedia.org/en/Ashique_Kuruniyan. Suspected sock puppets might have copy, pasted and recreated the page, therefore, behavioural evidence mentioned in the note by Drmies is expected. Once again, may I request you to unblock me as I am not related to the sock puppets and not involved in the recreation of the deleted page? I wish to make productive contributions to wiki by following the rules and regulations.

The website http://deletionpedia.org is keeping copies of more than 57,000 deleted wiki pages. So, in future anyone can be trapped in a sock puppetry like my case. Thanks for listening. Baluperoth (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bbb23. I am Jeevan Jose from Kerala, who represented the community along with others in the Princess of Asturias Award ceremony. I'm an active member of biodiversity related edits from Kerala and actively involved in bringing more scientists and naturalists to wiki. As part of this mission I know Baluperoth and talked to him through phone. Not yet met him personally though. J e e 03:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your answers to my questions. I can now see why Jee acted as an advocate. Based on Peroth's answers, I believe it more likely than not that he is not a sock. I have therefore unblocked him. Best of luck.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bbb23. I hope this is very beneficial to over biodiversity mission in Wikipedia. J e e 16:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support Bbb23 and Jkadavoor. Baluperoth (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Baluperoth. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]