Jump to content

User talk:Idrisaloma147

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This account has been blocked indefinitely as one of three accounts almost certainly operated by the same person:

All three are single-purpose accounts whose sole focus is Neo Black Movement of Africa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), in particular adding [{WP:REFSPAM|content sourced from blogs apparently operated by the same person]].

This behaviour is problematic on numerous levels: abuse of multiple accounts, polemical content, unreliable sources, promotion of your own websites. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Blocking me is one thing, but taking down the entire article seems very exaggerated. I would have appreciated a discussion first, and you could have still taken any steps you felt were necessary after that. It seems rather radical that an an article can go down because of only ONE person's opinion without previous discussion. Others have contributed before and apparently didn't share your opinion. Anyway, here is what I have to say about it:

1) the "spam references" you criticized have been talked about and criticized before. What would have been wrong with addressing the issue again rather than just destroying the work of months? They could have easily been taken out if necessary. 2) I added about 60 OTHER REFERENCES to back up the article, too. I am unable to see what made the whole article "polemical" when most content was backed up with newspaper articles and scientific papers, and not only with "spam". You certainly wouldn't accuse me of having written all of them too, would you?! By the way I have nothing to gain by "promoting" those websites. I quoted them because the content is not available elsewhere - see earlier discussion on article talk page. I was always willing to discuss this and would have been willing to discuss it again and take any necessary action. 3) is it mandatory to edit various topics? Is anything wrong about joining to edit just one you happen to know something about? 4) Yes, I had the Assopre account earlier. This second one was created because I forgot the password and lost access to the email that goes with it temporarily. If this is "abuse" I apologize - my only intention was to keep the work going, and certainly not to disrupt anything. I did NOT have the Omelele777 account though, and if you had taken time to check this properly you would have seen that Omelele777 was actually BLANKING the site repeatedly while I was trying to improve it.

I feel this action was not based on a thorough investigation. While I agree that the "spam references" are problematic (and I have willingly discussed this earlier) I don't feel that the whole rest has been looked into properly. Please do take the time to examine the huge amount of "non-spam" information that was quoted in the article and then if possible reconsider this action. The contents may be hard to believe if you have never been to Nigeria and are not familiar with the topic, but that doesn't make them polemical - they are backed up solidly! Thank you Idrisaloma147 (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2014 (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).

Idrisaloma147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

have two accounts but not for abuse - see explanation above on talk page

Decline reason:

If you had simply started a new account because you lost the password to the other, that would be okay. However, you registered this account in August 2013. But then you started editing again with Omelele777 in October. On the same day you were editing with the Omelele777 account in October, you were also editing from this account. That seems to contradict your explanation below. Additionally, you appear to be a single-purpose account who has edited nothing but this one article with possible spam intents. only (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2014 (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.

Can you say which two accounts are yours? Also, you say that they are "not for abuse", but I can't see any explanation why you have two: can you explain that? (Maybe you have already explained it somewhere, but I can't see where.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. Please allow me to just copy-paste the message I put on my talk page yesterday below. My accounts are Idrisaloma147 and Assopre. Here is the explanations from yesterday, sorry if it was in the wrong place or not visible for whatever reason.

"Blocking me is one thing, but taking down the entire article seems very exaggerated. I would have appreciated a discussion first, and you could have still taken any steps you felt were necessary after that. It seems rather radical that an an article can go down because of only ONE person's opinion without previous discussion. Others have contributed before and apparently didn't share your opinion. Anyway, here is what I have to say about it: 1) the "spam references" you criticized have been talked about and criticized before. What would have been wrong with addressing the issue again rather than just destroying the work of months? They could have easily been taken out if necessary. 2) I added about 60 OTHER REFERENCES to back up the article, too. I am unable to see what made the whole article "polemical" when most content was backed up with newspaper articles and scientific papers, and not only with "spam". You certainly wouldn't accuse me of having written all of them too, would you?! By the way I have nothing to gain by "promoting" those websites. I quoted them because the content is not available elsewhere - see earlier discussion on article talk page. I was always willing to discuss this and would have been willing to discuss it again and take any necessary action. 3) is it mandatory to edit various topics? Is anything wrong about joining to edit just one you happen to know something about? 4) Yes, I had the Assopre account earlier. This second one was created because I forgot the password and lost access to the email that goes with it temporarily. If this is "abuse" I apologize - my only intention was to keep the work going, and certainly not to disrupt anything. I did NOT have the Omelele777 account though, and if you had taken time to check this properly you would have seen that Omelele777 was actually BLANKING the site repeatedly while I was trying to improve it.

I feel this action was not based on a thorough investigation. While I agree that the "spam references" are problematic (and I have willingly discussed this earlier) I don't feel that the whole rest has been looked into properly. Please do take the time to examine the huge amount of "non-spam" information that was quoted in the article and then if possible reconsider this action. The contents may be hard to believe if you have never been to Nigeria and are not familiar with the topic, but that doesn't make them polemical - they are backed up solidly!" Idrisaloma147 (talk) 23:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for saying which two accounts you were referring to. However, you still have not given any answer to my other question, which is why you have two accounts. (Incidentally, I am also not at all clear why you have copied and repeated the post you made before. Is it perhaps supposed to make some point such as that somewhere buried in amongst all the text about how right you were and how unreasonably you had been treated, you did mention the name of the other account? If so, it wasn't really unnecessary, as you could have just said that it was in there.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In brief now: I was accused (among other things which I referred to in the post above too - sorry for that) of having the following accounts: Assopre, Idrisaloma147, Omelele777. As mentioned before two of these really are mine, and the second one was created because I forgot the password and at some point also lost access to the email that goes with the first one temporarily. The second account had no other purpose than to keep the work going, there was certainly no evil intention. While I did get the first one back at some point I stopped using it. I did NOT have the Omelele777 account though. Omelele777 was actually BLANKING the site repeatedly. So that point of the accusation was not correct.Idrisaloma147 (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My unblock request was denied because I edited with Omelele777?! I have pointed out several times that Omelele777 is not my account and never was. Idrisaloma147 (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a typo on my part. You were editing under Assopre in October well after the creation of this account. (Regardless, I don't really buy that you are separate from that account based on the editing patterns). only (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please check the IP if you can. I said above that I got Assopre back at some point (must have been October then), and yes, I did use it once (?) when I got it back, but I abandoned it then because it didn't seem all that right.Idrisaloma147 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Idrisaloma147&oldid=598755366"