User talk:KartikeyaS343/Archives/2020/December

Sockpuppet investigations/KartikeyaS343 Comment
, and, please check my edits thoroughly because I am being framed here. is not my account and please think for a moment, if I have to create a sock, I would have used something different username, not similar sounding username. This username was created similar to my username to frame me and made similar edits because I have deleted several UPE articles by tagging them or moving them to draftspace (please do check my whole contributions over the years). Also, I checked this similar group also created these same pages in Simple English Wikipedia by this sock-farm for the same reason. Please have a detailed look before you blame me as a sock. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging as well. I am open to any questions because I am being framed here. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi KartikeyaS343. Thanks, I do have some questions. I'm aware framing is a real possibility here. Interestingly enough, I've never seen UPEs hound the people who hunt them – I have seen them hound the competition. Anyhow, let's leave the socking aside for a moment and talk about some other concerns of mine.


 * 1) Why did you create Luma Health and XOR (company)? Reading them, they look like pretty run of the mill covert ads to me, including the obligatory buzzwords, veiled testimonials and dodgy sourcing. I'll leave the assessment of the third page to others.
 * 2) As someone interested in combatting UPE, why did you mark Victor Begg as patrolled while only tagging it for notability? The page introduces him as is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism, which is hallmark COI phrasing if I've ever seen it.
 * 3) Why did you accept Pat Burt at AfC, despite it being a pretty obvious campaign ad created by an SPA? E.g:
 * "While on the council, Burt led on fiscal management, environmental and climate protection, emergency preparedness, transportation, infrastructure investment, and regional collaboration."
 * "Burt’s community contributions include support of public/private partnerships to modernize and expand civic facilities including the Palo Alto Art Center, Jr Museum and Zoo, Children’s Library, park improvements, Avenidas senior center, Magical Bridge Playground, and Ada’s Café.."
 * "Burt has been an environmental policy leader at regional, state, and national levels"
 * 1) Why did you mark Sefa (musician), a page that has 9 references in total, of which 4 are to Youtube and one is to Instagram, as reviewed without tagging it in any way?
 * 2) Why did you accept Cara Spencer, a thinly veiled campaign ad about someone who fails NPOL with a half-baked controversy section to make it appear less like one?
 * 3) When you reviewed OneConnect Financial Technology, did you notice that the creator shows most of the hallmark signs of UPE and pretty clearly gamed autoconfirmed status?
 * 4) Why did you accept Cultivate Entertainment, yet another SPA creation that's mostly a massive namedrop? The sourcing is not great for establishing notability (to say the least), and includes at least one SEO spamsite.
 * Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that the OneConnect and Cultivate articles have since been draftified by (thanks); see Draft:OneConnect Financial Technology and Draft:Cultivate Entertainment. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for asking the questions. From my experience, I've often seen UPEs vandalising editors who tag their articles for deletion. Specially, in my case, I believe this is a long-term abuser who knows how the Wikipedia community works. Specially, note the timing of 's edits. They started similar editing when I was tagging several UPE articles. Now to your questions:


 * 1)  Luma Health: I personally heard about this company from one of my acquittances who resides in the US. I still believe the AfD was incorrect. Both  and 's rationale were to the point inline with the guidelines but anyway, it was deleted and I did not bother to re-create it.
 * 2) XOR (company) this is similar case and when it went to AfD, I didn't put any efforts to rescue it becuase from my past experience I have seen a biased against pages on companies. It is easy to tag them as promotional or advertising even if one mention the business in details.
 * 3) Victor Begg: I still do not find is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism as a hallmark of COI. I might have very less experience than you but this is a straightforward statement of what this person does or am I missing something here?
 * 4) Pat Burt: SPA has never been a concern for me at AfC because most new users who submit articles can be termed as SPA easily. I only concerned about them when they make a !vote in AfD. I made a Google news search before accepting this article and I found enough coverage to conclude that it met GNG and NPOL. I tagged it for more citations so that the creator or any other editor can add those easily available sources to the article.
 * 5) The sentences you listed for Pat Burt also looks fine to me. It could have been phrased better but this doesn't look like spam to me.
 * 6) Sefa (musician): I marked it as reviewed because it has been covered in non-English sources with articles present in other Wikipedia projects. I accept it was a mistake on my part for not thoroughly checking the cited references.
 * 7) I accepted Cara Spencer because it meets NPOL. And I am not sure, why this is a concern because if I had a connection with this page, I would have marked it as reviewed later. Many articles accepted through AfC ended up in AfD! AfC is not full-proof.
 * 8) OneConnect Financial Technology: I did not check the editor's contributions. I only check their talk pages when a page looks advertising. To me, this page looks ok.
 * 9) Cultivate Entertainment this has been covered in several reputed sources! How do you conclude its sources are not enough? This could be put in AfD instead of draftifying it. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to that, why did you accept Inspur Servers, which looked like this when you accepted it? Did you even read below the fold? MER-C 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is a subsidiary of a notable company. The references were good. AfC is not final. It was not blatant spam so AfD is the process here. If I had any connection with this then I would have accepted the other submission by this user or have marked that page as reviewed. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please also disclose your connection with user because I have multiple reasons to believe that you are might be connected to this sockfarm per off-wiki details. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not even heard of this editor before. I really do not have any connection with this user. If you have any off-wiki details, then please share with the other admins involved here. If there is a particular thing you cannot mention here then you can email me your question. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what prompted you to create this on 12/7/19? Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have no explanation in regards to this or the date. As far as I can remember, I came accross that article when it was PRODed. I do not remember exactly. I am not sure what to explain here but I can say I created The South African butI have no explanation if you ask me why I created it. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you were honest here since there is evidence that contradicts every statement you've made. But that's up to you, obviously. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks and I did to the best of my knowledge. If you still think it is contradictory then it might be a coincidence or some misconfusion. I think I can clarify better if you point me to your exact concern. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My exact concern is that you are engaging in paid editing without disclosure. Less so about the socking. Can you comment on that? Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but I am not engaged in paid editing. If you have any questions, do ask me. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry to bother you but could you please manage some time to take a look at my answers above and note that this same group tried to create the exact same pages in Simple English Wikipedia as well. I think they somehow copied the source code and kept it for re-creation. If I had to make UPE then I would have made several pages or have accepted spam submissions. I already mentioned my reasons. Please think for a moment before indefing me.-- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

KartikeyaS343, your block has (rightly, I think – I jumped the gun there) converted into a UPE block. So the relevant part here is that. Some thoughts on your assertions: Blablubbs | talk 12:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * UPE is not inherently the same thing as spam
 * Not every contribution someone makes needs to be directly aimed at promoting or publicising some entity in order for the editor in question to be engaged in UPE.
 * UPE doesn't necessarily mean that there is sock- or meatpuppetry involved
 * Someone not showing up in a CU sweep doesn't mean there isn't sockpuppetry involved.
 * Not trying to rescue an article doesn't mean it wasn't created for pay in the first place.
 * You did create some questionable articles and pushed some others through AfC or NPP. See my list above, as well as the article mentioned. I assume we'd find more if we were to dig deeper.
 * It would have been more helpful if you could point out the traits/editing patterns of UPE instead of making these general statements that could mean every editor volunteering here could be a UPE or involved in sockpuppetry, contrary to the WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.


 * The list you mentioned consists of article creation of Luma Health, XOR (company), AfC acceptance of Pat Burt, Cultivate Entertainment, Cara Spencer and reviewing of Victor Begg, OneConnect Financial Technology and Sefa (musician). I have already responded to each of these. If you think I am paid to create, to accept at AfC and to review these pages then you are clearly mistaken. Not even sure if these pages were created for money but I wonder why didn't you take these articles to AfD yet or at least marked these as UPE? I can bet every reviewer at AfC will have some pages accepted by them that were later deleted in AfD. This doesn't mean they have a COI.


 * I already mentioned that acceptance at AfC is not a guarantee because the article remains unreviewed and I mostly did review at AfC based on the notability guidelines. Submission by new editors are likely to be seen as SPA but that doesn't mean these are UPE. Could you please bring solid evidences that these articles are all work of UPE? I also suggest you to dig deeper because all my actions have been logged (Afd stats, CSD stats and NPP stats) so at least that might make it clear that over a span of 3 years I have been editing purely volunteerily basis and not being paid for my contributions. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/KartikeyaS343 Comment
, and, please check my edits thoroughly because I am being framed here. is not my account and please think for a moment, if I have to create a sock, I would have used something different username, not similar sounding username. This username was created similar to my username to frame me and made similar edits because I have deleted several UPE articles by tagging them or moving them to draftspace (please do check my whole contributions over the years). Also, I checked this similar group also created these same pages in Simple English Wikipedia by this sock-farm for the same reason. Please have a detailed look before you blame me as a sock. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging as well. I am open to any questions because I am being framed here. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi KartikeyaS343. Thanks, I do have some questions. I'm aware framing is a real possibility here. Interestingly enough, I've never seen UPEs hound the people who hunt them – I have seen them hound the competition. Anyhow, let's leave the socking aside for a moment and talk about some other concerns of mine.


 * 1) Why did you create Luma Health and XOR (company)? Reading them, they look like pretty run of the mill covert ads to me, including the obligatory buzzwords, veiled testimonials and dodgy sourcing. I'll leave the assessment of the third page to others.
 * 2) As someone interested in combatting UPE, why did you mark Victor Begg as patrolled while only tagging it for notability? The page introduces him as is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism, which is hallmark COI phrasing if I've ever seen it.
 * 3) Why did you accept Pat Burt at AfC, despite it being a pretty obvious campaign ad created by an SPA? E.g:
 * "While on the council, Burt led on fiscal management, environmental and climate protection, emergency preparedness, transportation, infrastructure investment, and regional collaboration."
 * "Burt’s community contributions include support of public/private partnerships to modernize and expand civic facilities including the Palo Alto Art Center, Jr Museum and Zoo, Children’s Library, park improvements, Avenidas senior center, Magical Bridge Playground, and Ada’s Café.."
 * "Burt has been an environmental policy leader at regional, state, and national levels"
 * 1) Why did you mark Sefa (musician), a page that has 9 references in total, of which 4 are to Youtube and one is to Instagram, as reviewed without tagging it in any way?
 * 2) Why did you accept Cara Spencer, a thinly veiled campaign ad about someone who fails NPOL with a half-baked controversy section to make it appear less like one?
 * 3) When you reviewed OneConnect Financial Technology, did you notice that the creator shows most of the hallmark signs of UPE and pretty clearly gamed autoconfirmed status?
 * 4) Why did you accept Cultivate Entertainment, yet another SPA creation that's mostly a massive namedrop? The sourcing is not great for establishing notability (to say the least), and includes at least one SEO spamsite.
 * Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that the OneConnect and Cultivate articles have since been draftified by (thanks); see Draft:OneConnect Financial Technology and Draft:Cultivate Entertainment. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for asking the questions. From my experience, I've often seen UPEs vandalising editors who tag their articles for deletion. Specially, in my case, I believe this is a long-term abuser who knows how the Wikipedia community works. Specially, note the timing of 's edits. They started similar editing when I was tagging several UPE articles. Now to your questions:


 * 1)  Luma Health: I personally heard about this company from one of my acquittances who resides in the US. I still believe the AfD was incorrect. Both  and 's rationale were to the point inline with the guidelines but anyway, it was deleted and I did not bother to re-create it.
 * 2) XOR (company) this is similar case and when it went to AfD, I didn't put any efforts to rescue it becuase from my past experience I have seen a biased against pages on companies. It is easy to tag them as promotional or advertising even if one mention the business in details.
 * 3) Victor Begg: I still do not find is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism as a hallmark of COI. I might have very less experience than you but this is a straightforward statement of what this person does or am I missing something here?
 * 4) Pat Burt: SPA has never been a concern for me at AfC because most new users who submit articles can be termed as SPA easily. I only concerned about them when they make a !vote in AfD. I made a Google news search before accepting this article and I found enough coverage to conclude that it met GNG and NPOL. I tagged it for more citations so that the creator or any other editor can add those easily available sources to the article.
 * 5) The sentences you listed for Pat Burt also looks fine to me. It could have been phrased better but this doesn't look like spam to me.
 * 6) Sefa (musician): I marked it as reviewed because it has been covered in non-English sources with articles present in other Wikipedia projects. I accept it was a mistake on my part for not thoroughly checking the cited references.
 * 7) I accepted Cara Spencer because it meets NPOL. And I am not sure, why this is a concern because if I had a connection with this page, I would have marked it as reviewed later. Many articles accepted through AfC ended up in AfD! AfC is not full-proof.
 * 8) OneConnect Financial Technology: I did not check the editor's contributions. I only check their talk pages when a page looks advertising. To me, this page looks ok.
 * 9) Cultivate Entertainment this has been covered in several reputed sources! How do you conclude its sources are not enough? This could be put in AfD instead of draftifying it. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to that, why did you accept Inspur Servers, which looked like this when you accepted it? Did you even read below the fold? MER-C 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is a subsidiary of a notable company. The references were good. AfC is not final. It was not blatant spam so AfD is the process here. If I had any connection with this then I would have accepted the other submission by this user or have marked that page as reviewed. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please also disclose your connection with user because I have multiple reasons to believe that you are might be connected to this sockfarm per off-wiki details. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not even heard of this editor before. I really do not have any connection with this user. If you have any off-wiki details, then please share with the other admins involved here. If there is a particular thing you cannot mention here then you can email me your question. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what prompted you to create this on 12/7/19? Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have no explanation in regards to this or the date. As far as I can remember, I came accross that article when it was PRODed. I do not remember exactly. I am not sure what to explain here but I can say I created The South African butI have no explanation if you ask me why I created it. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you were honest here since there is evidence that contradicts every statement you've made. But that's up to you, obviously. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks and I did to the best of my knowledge. If you still think it is contradictory then it might be a coincidence or some misconfusion. I think I can clarify better if you point me to your exact concern. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My exact concern is that you are engaging in paid editing without disclosure. Less so about the socking. Can you comment on that? Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but I am not engaged in paid editing. If you have any questions, do ask me. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry to bother you but could you please manage some time to take a look at my answers above and note that this same group tried to create the exact same pages in Simple English Wikipedia as well. I think they somehow copied the source code and kept it for re-creation. If I had to make UPE then I would have made several pages or have accepted spam submissions. I already mentioned my reasons. Please think for a moment before indefing me.-- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

KartikeyaS343, your block has (rightly, I think – I jumped the gun there) converted into a UPE block. So the relevant part here is that. Some thoughts on your assertions: Blablubbs | talk 12:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * UPE is not inherently the same thing as spam
 * Not every contribution someone makes needs to be directly aimed at promoting or publicising some entity in order for the editor in question to be engaged in UPE.
 * UPE doesn't necessarily mean that there is sock- or meatpuppetry involved
 * Someone not showing up in a CU sweep doesn't mean there isn't sockpuppetry involved.
 * Not trying to rescue an article doesn't mean it wasn't created for pay in the first place.
 * You did create some questionable articles and pushed some others through AfC or NPP. See my list above, as well as the article mentioned. I assume we'd find more if we were to dig deeper.
 * It would have been more helpful if you could point out the traits/editing patterns of UPE instead of making these general statements that could mean every editor volunteering here could be a UPE or involved in sockpuppetry, contrary to the WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.


 * The list you mentioned consists of article creation of Luma Health, XOR (company), AfC acceptance of Pat Burt, Cultivate Entertainment, Cara Spencer and reviewing of Victor Begg, OneConnect Financial Technology and Sefa (musician). I have already responded to each of these. If you think I am paid to create, to accept at AfC and to review these pages then you are clearly mistaken. Not even sure if these pages were created for money but I wonder why didn't you take these articles to AfD yet or at least marked these as UPE? I can bet every reviewer at AfC will have some pages accepted by them that were later deleted in AfD. This doesn't mean they have a COI.


 * I already mentioned that acceptance at AfC is not a guarantee because the article remains unreviewed and I mostly did review at AfC based on the notability guidelines. Submission by new editors are likely to be seen as SPA but that doesn't mean these are UPE. Could you please bring solid evidences that these articles are all work of UPE? I also suggest you to dig deeper because all my actions have been logged (Afd stats, CSD stats and NPP stats) so at least that might make it clear that over a span of 3 years I have been editing purely volunteerily basis and not being paid for my contributions. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/KartikeyaS343 Comment
, and, please check my edits thoroughly because I am being framed here. is not my account and please think for a moment, if I have to create a sock, I would have used something different username, not similar sounding username. This username was created similar to my username to frame me and made similar edits because I have deleted several UPE articles by tagging them or moving them to draftspace (please do check my whole contributions over the years). Also, I checked this similar group also created these same pages in Simple English Wikipedia by this sock-farm for the same reason. Please have a detailed look before you blame me as a sock. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging as well. I am open to any questions because I am being framed here. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 10:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi KartikeyaS343. Thanks, I do have some questions. I'm aware framing is a real possibility here. Interestingly enough, I've never seen UPEs hound the people who hunt them – I have seen them hound the competition. Anyhow, let's leave the socking aside for a moment and talk about some other concerns of mine.


 * 1) Why did you create Luma Health and XOR (company)? Reading them, they look like pretty run of the mill covert ads to me, including the obligatory buzzwords, veiled testimonials and dodgy sourcing. I'll leave the assessment of the third page to others.
 * 2) As someone interested in combatting UPE, why did you mark Victor Begg as patrolled while only tagging it for notability? The page introduces him as is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism, which is hallmark COI phrasing if I've ever seen it.
 * 3) Why did you accept Pat Burt at AfC, despite it being a pretty obvious campaign ad created by an SPA? E.g:
 * "While on the council, Burt led on fiscal management, environmental and climate protection, emergency preparedness, transportation, infrastructure investment, and regional collaboration."
 * "Burt’s community contributions include support of public/private partnerships to modernize and expand civic facilities including the Palo Alto Art Center, Jr Museum and Zoo, Children’s Library, park improvements, Avenidas senior center, Magical Bridge Playground, and Ada’s Café.."
 * "Burt has been an environmental policy leader at regional, state, and national levels"
 * 1) Why did you mark Sefa (musician), a page that has 9 references in total, of which 4 are to Youtube and one is to Instagram, as reviewed without tagging it in any way?
 * 2) Why did you accept Cara Spencer, a thinly veiled campaign ad about someone who fails NPOL with a half-baked controversy section to make it appear less like one?
 * 3) When you reviewed OneConnect Financial Technology, did you notice that the creator shows most of the hallmark signs of UPE and pretty clearly gamed autoconfirmed status?
 * 4) Why did you accept Cultivate Entertainment, yet another SPA creation that's mostly a massive namedrop? The sourcing is not great for establishing notability (to say the least), and includes at least one SEO spamsite.
 * Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Noting that the OneConnect and Cultivate articles have since been draftified by (thanks); see Draft:OneConnect Financial Technology and Draft:Cultivate Entertainment. Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 15:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * thank you for asking the questions. From my experience, I've often seen UPEs vandalising editors who tag their articles for deletion. Specially, in my case, I believe this is a long-term abuser who knows how the Wikipedia community works. Specially, note the timing of 's edits. They started similar editing when I was tagging several UPE articles. Now to your questions:


 * 1)  Luma Health: I personally heard about this company from one of my acquittances who resides in the US. I still believe the AfD was incorrect. Both  and 's rationale were to the point inline with the guidelines but anyway, it was deleted and I did not bother to re-create it.
 * 2) XOR (company) this is similar case and when it went to AfD, I didn't put any efforts to rescue it becuase from my past experience I have seen a biased against pages on companies. It is easy to tag them as promotional or advertising even if one mention the business in details.
 * 3) Victor Begg: I still do not find is an Indian-born Muslim American author, philanthropist and community leader. Alongside his column-writing and community activism as a hallmark of COI. I might have very less experience than you but this is a straightforward statement of what this person does or am I missing something here?
 * 4) Pat Burt: SPA has never been a concern for me at AfC because most new users who submit articles can be termed as SPA easily. I only concerned about them when they make a !vote in AfD. I made a Google news search before accepting this article and I found enough coverage to conclude that it met GNG and NPOL. I tagged it for more citations so that the creator or any other editor can add those easily available sources to the article.
 * 5) The sentences you listed for Pat Burt also looks fine to me. It could have been phrased better but this doesn't look like spam to me.
 * 6) Sefa (musician): I marked it as reviewed because it has been covered in non-English sources with articles present in other Wikipedia projects. I accept it was a mistake on my part for not thoroughly checking the cited references.
 * 7) I accepted Cara Spencer because it meets NPOL. And I am not sure, why this is a concern because if I had a connection with this page, I would have marked it as reviewed later. Many articles accepted through AfC ended up in AfD! AfC is not full-proof.
 * 8) OneConnect Financial Technology: I did not check the editor's contributions. I only check their talk pages when a page looks advertising. To me, this page looks ok.
 * 9) Cultivate Entertainment this has been covered in several reputed sources! How do you conclude its sources are not enough? This could be put in AfD instead of draftifying it. -- KartikeyaS  (talk) 17:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To add to that, why did you accept Inspur Servers, which looked like this when you accepted it? Did you even read below the fold? MER-C 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , it is a subsidiary of a notable company. The references were good. AfC is not final. It was not blatant spam so AfD is the process here. If I had any connection with this then I would have accepted the other submission by this user or have marked that page as reviewed. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please also disclose your connection with user because I have multiple reasons to believe that you are might be connected to this sockfarm per off-wiki details. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 14:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I do not even heard of this editor before. I really do not have any connection with this user. If you have any off-wiki details, then please share with the other admins involved here. If there is a particular thing you cannot mention here then you can email me your question. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what prompted you to create this on 12/7/19? Praxidicae (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I have no explanation in regards to this or the date. As far as I can remember, I came accross that article when it was PRODed. I do not remember exactly. I am not sure what to explain here but I can say I created The South African butI have no explanation if you ask me why I created it. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it would be best if you were honest here since there is evidence that contradicts every statement you've made. But that's up to you, obviously. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks and I did to the best of my knowledge. If you still think it is contradictory then it might be a coincidence or some misconfusion. I think I can clarify better if you point me to your exact concern. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My exact concern is that you are engaging in paid editing without disclosure. Less so about the socking. Can you comment on that? Praxidicae (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern but I am not engaged in paid editing. If you have any questions, do ask me. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)


 * sorry to bother you but could you please manage some time to take a look at my answers above and note that this same group tried to create the exact same pages in Simple English Wikipedia as well. I think they somehow copied the source code and kept it for re-creation. If I had to make UPE then I would have made several pages or have accepted spam submissions. I already mentioned my reasons. Please think for a moment before indefing me.-- KartikeyaS (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

KartikeyaS343, your block has (rightly, I think – I jumped the gun there) converted into a UPE block. So the relevant part here is that. Some thoughts on your assertions: Blablubbs | talk 12:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * UPE is not inherently the same thing as spam
 * Not every contribution someone makes needs to be directly aimed at promoting or publicising some entity in order for the editor in question to be engaged in UPE.
 * UPE doesn't necessarily mean that there is sock- or meatpuppetry involved
 * Someone not showing up in a CU sweep doesn't mean there isn't sockpuppetry involved.
 * Not trying to rescue an article doesn't mean it wasn't created for pay in the first place.
 * You did create some questionable articles and pushed some others through AfC or NPP. See my list above, as well as the article mentioned. I assume we'd find more if we were to dig deeper.
 * It would have been more helpful if you could point out the traits/editing patterns of UPE instead of making these general statements that could mean every editor volunteering here could be a UPE or involved in sockpuppetry, contrary to the WP:AGF which is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia.


 * The list you mentioned consists of article creation of Luma Health, XOR (company), AfC acceptance of Pat Burt, Cultivate Entertainment, Cara Spencer and reviewing of Victor Begg, OneConnect Financial Technology and Sefa (musician). I have already responded to each of these. If you think I am paid to create, to accept at AfC and to review these pages then you are clearly mistaken. Not even sure if these pages were created for money but I wonder why didn't you take these articles to AfD yet or at least marked these as UPE? I can bet every reviewer at AfC will have some pages accepted by them that were later deleted in AfD. This doesn't mean they have a COI.


 * I already mentioned that acceptance at AfC is not a guarantee because the article remains unreviewed and I mostly did review at AfC based on the notability guidelines. Submission by new editors are likely to be seen as SPA but that doesn't mean these are UPE. Could you please bring solid evidences that these articles are all work of UPE? I also suggest you to dig deeper because all my actions have been logged (Afd stats, CSD stats and NPP stats) so at least that might make it clear that over a span of 3 years I have been editing purely volunteerily basis and not being paid for my contributions. -- KartikeyaS (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)