User talk:LegallyWiki87

Conflict of interest

Hello. It's clear that you have a WP:Conflict of interest with the Eniola Aluko article. If you have any suggested changes to the content of the article, please raise them on the article talk page.

Also, please stop creating new accounts to edit the article. This appears to be the third one after Apokaradokia (talk · contribs) and Dokiakara1964 (talk · contribs). Thanks, Number 5 7 17:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is clear that you have a conflict of interest in deleting reliable sources and public facts that give negative, diminished facts to the Eniola Aluko article. The fact that you are guarding this page so fiercely says everything about your interest. There are significant suggested changes to the article with sources that continue to be deleted by you.

I have no conflict of interest and am simply trying to get you to follow Wikipedia guidelines; I do not believe I ever edited this article prior to protecting it based on the request from another user after you made your first set of edits in May.

Please also familiarise yourself with our WP:No legal threats policy. Your comments have been raised at WP:ANI. Number 5 7 17:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked your account for issuing legal threats. It is possible that I have misintepreted your words. In this case, you will have, after reading the policy, post an unblock request and state clearly that you never meant to issue legal threats. This unblock request will be reviewed by another administrator.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look into the conflict of interests of the user requesting the page is blocked because the editing of this page is clearly riddled with negativity and bias. Some of the edits are defamatory which is why there is now a legal review of how to deal with this.

It is grossly unfair for all additional edits with reliable sources to be continuously deleted whilst you protect the user requesting for the page to be blocked.

I request for the page to be opened for further edits to be made with reliable sources provided and then protected.

I am sorry but you need yo read carefully what I have written above. This is the only way for you to get unblocked. Before legal threats get retracted, you are not going to be allowed to edit Wikipedia.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 11 July 2020 (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).

LegallyWiki87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here LegallyWiki87 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Our pages are only subject to legal review if editors like you threaten as such. You saying a page was "subject for legal review" is a clear threat to take legal action, which we don't allow. Either clarify that you have zero intention to involve a lawyer, legal review, etc., or you will not be unblocked until the issue is resolved. Also, you will need to declare a conflict of interest to get unblocked. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:13, 11 July 2020 (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.

I request for an unblock on the basis that no legal threat was made. I simply mentioned that the page was subject for legal review because clearly there are editors who are contributing to negative bias, defamation and inaccurate facts on the page whilst deleting further additions with reliable sources. Please review this unblock request to allow for further editing with reliable sources that give accuracy and balance to the page.

Even if you are unblocked, you are still not going to be allowed to edit the article because you have a conflict of interest. If you have issues with the content, you have to raise them on the talk page, specifically pointing out what the problem is, rather than making general comments as you did in your last post on the talk page. While you are blocked you will not be able to edit the talk page, but this page may also be of use. Number 5 7 18:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Conflict of interest

Why is there an assumption that I have a conflict of interest? My interest in editing this page is no different to yours.

When I made the edits, I explained the edits in the relevant section and raised the issues. They have been deleted.

Unblock

I request to be unblocked so that I can make the relevant edits with reliable sources and explain why the current edits demonstrate clear negative bias, inaccurate facts.

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

LegallyWiki87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here LegallyWiki87 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have not yet retracted your legal threat and you have not yet declared your conflict of interest. Yamla (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2020 (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.

 I request to be unblocked again after being blocked repeatedly without any justification or reason. I am being accused of conflict of interest despite editing this page as others have done with reliable sources. I do not understand how users can indiscriminately block other users.

My "legal threat" has now been retracted. I look forward to being able to edit with reliable sources as other users have the power to do. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

I am being told I need to retract a legal threat that I never made! I simply stated that the edits on this page such as those relating to the Football Association are inaccurate and defamatory and therefore reviewed legally. That is not a threat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LegallyWiki87 (talk • contribs)

It very clearly is. Please reread WP:NLT. --Yamla (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yamla, the legal "threat" has now been retracted, all the changes I requested are in the Talk page with reliable supporting sources. Please can you unblock this account. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. You know I can't. You need to address the abuse of multiple accounts. WP:GAB explains how. Note that this is more complicated given that it is a checkuserblock. --Yamla (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note when I declined your unblock request, you were only blocked for your legal threat. Your block was upgraded once the technical evidence was discovered. --Yamla (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged legal threat

I am happy to retract any reference to legal or the word legal in order to be unblocked so that I can edit, as others have done, with facts, context and reliable sources. I am surprised that the process effectively means appealing to administrators to unblock despite said administrators having the power and ability to edit themselves- that does not seem like an independent process. But I respect it and kindly ask that I am unblocked.

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

I do not have any conflict of interest to declare other than the desire to edit as every other Wikipedia editor does.

I take issue with the questioning of my interest despite wanting to do what every other Wikipedia editor does.

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

As I noted in when I updated the block and when I placed this notification, this is now a checkuser block. Simply withdrawing the legal threat will not allow for an unblock as there is technical evidence confirming abuse of multiple accounts.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so I was asked the withdraw a legal threat, I did that and now I am told there is "technical evidence" confirming multiple accounts. Can you share this technical evidence? I have one account as you do. And would simply like to edit the page as others have done but it seems administrators are hell bent on preventing that. I ask again that you unblock the account, it is unfair you are not allowing users to do so after following the guidance to retreact the alleged legal threat.

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All requested Edits with reliable sources

Please include the requested edits below. I have included reasons for all edits and reliable sources.

Thank you

Thank you for making the changes you have made and providing the edit explanations. I want to come back on a few of the declined edits that you did not make. I have explained under the relevant edit requests below where I suggest for the sentence to be added to be clear and have explained why the sentences you state are "promotional" are merely factual. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{request edit}

Edit: English football executive Change to: "British Nigerian" Reason: To describe a black woman as English, when she is born in Nigeria and raised in UK is inaccurate and denies the specific identity to which Eni Aluko herself identifies. Black-British would also suffice as an updated description of racial identity. Source: https://gaffer.online/features/football/eni-aluko-standing-out-standing-up/

Done However, footballers are typically described as having the nationality of the national team they played for (in this case England).

{request edit} WPS 2009-2011 DELETE: Aluko claimed to have been "one of the best players in America" Reason: The source provided does not include any quote by Aluko claiming to be one of the best players in America. This is therefore false and inaccurate. Suggested edit: Aluko was voted into the All Star Team of the WPS league in two consecutive seasons. Edit source: https://www.goal.com/en-us/news/66/united-states/2009/08/05/1422753/meet-the-wps-all-star-first-xi

Partly done I have removed the sentence requested (even though in the BBC source she states "I had an opportunity to become one of the best players in America"). I have not added the requested text as the Goal.com source does not back up the claim being made (it only gives details of being voted into the All Star Team in one season, and the article is completely undated, meaning it is not possible to verify which season).

{request edit} Juventus 2018-2019 Sentence addition: "Aluko spoke of the difficulty she had in leaving Juventus after a successful 18 month period of "great success and lots of learning" with positive travel experiences in Italy" Reason: This section has clearly been edited by someone who wants the central focus of Aluko's experience in Italy to be negative. The section has no factual balance or context and should be revised to include more quotes about what Aluko said about her time in Italy, both positive and negative (See source) Edit source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/nov/28/the-end-of-my-italian-chapter-means-trading-turin-for-fresh-adventures

Partly done Have added the text "stating her time at the club had been one of "great success and lots of learning.""

{request edit} Juventus 2018-2019 DELETE: "She hoped to find a new club in England" Reason: In the relevant source to this sentence, Aluko does not say she hoped to find a new club. This is inaccurate quoting. Suggested Edit: Aluko returned to England for "exciting opportunities in 2020" Edit source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/22/eni-aluko-leave-juventus-early

Done However, the source does state Aluko said "I’m excited to be moving back to London, and back into women’s football in England at a time when there are a lot of exciting opportunities." which could be read as the same thing.

{request edit} Juventus 2018 - 2019 Sentence addition: A week after Aluko's retirement she was announced as the Sporting director of Aston Villa Women FC. Reason: Provides factual timeline and important context to why Aluko retired and corrects previous sentence stating Aluko was looking for another club. Edit source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/22/eni-aluko-takes-job-as-aston-villa-womens-director-of-football

Done

{request edit} International Career Note: THIS SECTION CONTAINS SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE BIAS BY AN EDITOR THAT HAS DELIBERATELY OMITTED FACTS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN, INCLUDED INACCURACIES WITHOUT SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE WITHOUT SOURCES AND BORDERS ON LIBEL. I LIST SEVERAL CHANGES TO THIS SECTION.

1. DELETE: "Earlier in 2016 she was paid £80,000 by the Football Association" Reason: It is a matter of public record that Aluko's payment by the FA was not made until March 2017 with a second tranche payment made in October 2017. It is factually incorrect to state the payment was made in early 2016 before Aluko was not selected for England. It is also a matter of public record that the compensation payment amount was confidential and the £80,000 payment was alleged. The editor has provided no source to rely upon to state the fact of £80,000 so the word "allegedly paid" must be added if the sentence is not entirely deleted.

Partly done Changed to simply "She was paid around £80,000" as per the Guardian source.

{request edit} 1. Changed to simply "She was paid around £80,000" Edit: "Allegedly" must be added to this sentence. This payment was confidential and not accessible to any media outlet so would have been an assumption based on hearsay. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2. Add sentence: Aluko was not called up to the England team after May 2016, twelve days after she submitted a confidential report to the Football Association with allegations of racism against the England manager Mark Sampson. This confidential report was later leaked and reported in the media. Reason: This provides very important facts and context to the timing of Aluko being dropped from the England team and has been widely reported yet miraculously is not included in Wikipedia due to clear bias editing. Editing source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/22/eni-aluko-interview-10-questions-the-fa-must-answer

Not done It's not clear where this needs to be added.

{request edit} International Career 2. After the sentence "Aluko was not called up to the national team after May 2016" please ADD ",twelve days after she submitted a confidential report to the Football Association with allegations of racism against the England manager Mark Sampson. This confidential report was later leaked and reported in the media. Reason: This provides very important facts and legal context to the timing of Aluko being dropped from the England team and has been widely reported yet miraculously is not included in Wikipedia due to clear bias editing. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. DELETE: Aluko worked as a pundit whilst her replacement Lioness forward Jodie Taylor won the Golden boot shoe as a tournament top scorer. Reason: Bias editing to show comparison and negative inferiority of Aluko.

Partly done Removed the second half, just leaving "At Euro 2017, Aluko worked as a pundit for Channel 4"

4. Add facts to sentence: The Football Association later publicly apologised to Aluko {at the select committee hearing of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport with some DCMS MPs calling for relevant FA officials to resign over their handling of the Aluko case. Reason: Gives further factual context to the timing of the FA apology and the response to it. Edit source: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/18/fa-apologises-eni-aluko-drew-spence-mark-sampson-racial-remarks

Done

5. Add sentence: Nikita Parris later apologised to Aluko in an open letter in June 2020 admitting that the celebration with coach Sampson was a "thoughtless action" that showed a lack of empathy, understanding and ignorance. Reason: Updated facts in relation to celebration of Nikita Parris Edit source:

Done

6. Add word: "alleged" to assault on unnamed teammate. Reason: This was an allegation that was never made public, never publicly stated by any of the England players and never evidenced or proven.

Done

Delete: "substantial" evidence Reason: The evidence and report was never released publicly so there cannot be any factual basis for an editor to state it was substantial evidence especially if not corroborated or evidenced.

Done

Add sentence: No England players gave any public interviews in support of the alleged assault by Aluko and the player who was allegedly assaulted remains unnamed.

Not done No source provided

7. Add sentence after quote by Phil Neville: At the time of Phil Neville's quotes, Aluko had 102 caps for England and was one of the all time leading goal scorers in the FA WSL. Reason: Negative bias editing to include a quote suggesting Aluko was not good enough for Phil Neville despite facts that would balance such a quote. Edit Source: https://womenscompetitions.thefa.com/en/Article/20181115-Top-scorers

Partly done The suggested text is not appropriate, as provides no context of the player's form at the time. However, I have deleted the lengthly quote from Neville.

8. Add sentence and quote: However Fara Williams, the most experienced and most capped England player of all time stated that Aluko would be "welcomed back to the England team by the rest of the squad" Reason: Adds balance again and contextual quote to negative editing of this section. Edit source: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/international/eni-aluko-england-womens-football-mark-sampson-sacked-racism-bullying-a8014041.html#:~:text=Eni%20Aluko%20would%20be%20welcomed%20back%20into%20the,accusations%20of%20discriminatory%20racial%20remarks%20towards%20her%20

Not done As the quote from Neville has been deleted, this balance is not required.

{request edit} Personal Life section Delete: "short" traineeships Reason: Both traineeships were 18 months, these are not short traineeships in the context of Law.

Done

Add sentence: The Football Association launched the investigation by the integrity unit at the same time Aluko raised allegations of racism against the England manager Mark Sampson. Aluko claimed that this was victimisation by the Football association which is a breach of the Equality Act because Aluko did a protected act of making a grievance against racism. The Football Association never proved that Aluko breached any integrity rules despite Aluko forfeiting the consultancy role.

Reason: Provides additional facts and context to the FA integrity unit, which if omitted leaves Aluko perceived as breaching rules that were never proven to be breached and no context to the ulterior motive of the FA in raising the investigation.

Edit sources: https://www.bing.com/search?q=victimisation+in+the+equality+act&form=WNSGPH&qs=AS&cvid=86b607adf2ad417996ab64a129b74f32&pq=victimisation+in+the+Equality+Act&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB&PC=LCTS&nclid=1B00E762A5A15CC49B0E9D9D0D14C901&ts=1594575926033&wsso=Moderate https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/aug/22/eni-aluko-interview-10-questions-the-fa-must-answer

Not done Not clear where exactly this is meant to be added

{request edit} Personal Life After the words "by the Association's integrity unit" ADD SENTENCE "The Football Association launched the investigation by the integrity unit at the same time Aluko raised allegations of racism against the England manager Mark Sampson. Aluko claimed that this was victimisation by the Football association which is a breach of the Equality Act because Aluko did a protected act of making a grievance against racism. The Football Association never proved that Aluko breached any integrity rules despite Aluko forfeiting the consultancy role. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "Junior lawyer" Add: Associate consultant Reason: More accurate description of Aluko's role at Slaughter and May. Editor again seeks to diminish Aluko's reputation. Edit Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=eni+aluko+associate+consultant+slaughter+and+may&form=WNSGPH&qs=SW&cvid=8721449c594a4e248316011f24a17de9&pq=eni+aluko+associate+consultant+slaughter+and+may&cc=GB&setlang=en-GB&PC=LCTS&nclid=1B00E762A5A15CC49B0E9D9D0D14C901&ts=1594576261639&wsso=Moderate

Done However, the source used does describe her as a "Junior lawyer"

Delete: Despite being an active player herself, Aluko provided legal advice to her brother on his exit from the liquidated Glasgow Rangers. Reason: This is factually incorrect. Source provided does not state Aluko provided legal advice to her brother regarding liquidation. Editors attempt again to suggest Aluko breached integrity rules as a registered player without any source to corroborate.

Partly done It doesn't look like the text is meant to suggest a breach of integrity rules and in the source Aluko make the claim to have assisted her brother during Rangers' financial problems. Reworded to make clearer.

Delete: Supporter of Conservative Party Revise: Aluko publicly stated that she voted for the Conservative Party during the 2019 General election. Reason: Greater factual accuracy. Source: Current source provided.

Done

Add sentence: Aluko alluded to her gratitude at Conservative MPs such as Damien Collins who chaired the select committee DCMS hearing during her racism case against The Football Association as a reason for her support of the Conservative party in 2019. Reason: Factual context in addition to current edit Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/football-association-eni-aluko-bullying-racism-tracey-crouch-cultural-change-a8054681.html Source: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11065/11087495/fa-bosses-should-resign-over-sampson-affair-says-dcms-chair

Not done Sources given do not state that Aluko says this is why she supported the Conservatives in 2019.

{request edit} In Popular Culture Add sentence: In January 2020, Aluko became an Adidas ambassador joining the popular Rent-A-Pred campaign alongside Brazilian footballer Kaka Reason: Updated facts in popular culture Source: https://versus.uk.com/2020/02/eni-aluko-became-latest-adiddas-rent-pred-player-make-surprise-appearance/

Partly done Added " In January 2020, Aluko became an Adidas ambassador". The rest is overly promotional.

{request edit} This is not overly promotional. It is a fact. Much like the previous sentence stating Aluko signed a multi year endorsement deal with Underarmour. It is an update on the popular culture facts as of 2020. Please add. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Add sentence: Aluko released her first memoir autobiography "They don't teach this" - Lessons in the game of life in August 2019 Reason: Updated facts for Popular culture The book was longlisted for the much coveted William Hill Sports book awards 2020 and shortlisted for the Telegraph Sports book of the Year 2020 Sources: https://sportsbookawards.com/autobiography-of-the-year-shortlist-announced-for-the-telegraph-sports-book-awards-2020/ https://sportsbookawards.com/award/telegraph-sport-autobiography-of-the-year/

Partly done Added Aluko released her autobiography They don't teach this" - Lessons in the game of life in August 2019. The rest is a little promotional.

{request edit} Again, there is no promotion in facts. It is a fact Aluko's book was nominated for such accolades and needs to be included in her public Wikipedia record if the book is mentioned. In the same way a Grammy nomination or Oscar nomination of an actress on Wikipedia would be included. Please add. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{request edit} Controversy section Delete: "heavily" criticise Reason: Inaccurate use of the word heavily.

Done

Add sentence: Aluko apologised for her tweets that were widely misunderstood to be in relation to all Britons on the government Furlough scheme and clarified she was referring to tweets by certain people who bragged about abusing the Furlough system. Aluko also stated her support for the Furlough scheme. Reason: Important factual context, clarification and addition to the previous edit that is too vague for a controversy section. All references to controversy need to be as factual and specific as possible. Sources: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2020/05/29/eniola-aluko-ready-juggle-opinions-tact-aston-villa-women-sporting/

Partly done Reworded to "subsequently deleting most of the messages, apologising and stating her support for the furlough scheme"

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to indivual requests per the above. Number 5 7 21:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Abuse of multiple accounts"

I do not know what you are talking about in terms of multiple accounts.

I have one account to which I am using now. Can you share the technical evidence to state that this is abuse??

Do you have evidence that the current editors on this page are not conflicted or using multiple accounts? Why does there seem to be such a defiance to allow me to edit as every other editor has done?

LegallyWiki87 (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edits

Do not make requests for others to edit on your behalf while you are blocked. This is considered sockpuppetry and block evasion. While you are blocked, you have access to this talk page for exactly one purpose, to contest your block. --Yamla (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was advised that I had to make requested edits if I was blocked. This is becoming ridiculous because there are conflicting complicated rules to Wikipedia editing. I have contested my block already and I am still here blocked. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying things

The reason you are still blocked is because (a) you have failed to declare a conflict of interest as requested above by CaptainEek and (b) you have created more than one account (you have also used the accounts User:Apokaradokia and User:Dokiakara1964). CheckUser is the ability of some editors to identify the IP addresses being used by accounts to verify whether people are using more than one account to edit, which is generally not allowed. Your original account (Apokaradokia) was blocked, as it was being used by more than one person, which is also not allowed.

Regarding the conflict of interest, this account is either being used by the subject of the article in question or their assistant. As per WP:COI ("Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships."), you have a clear conflict of interest.

To be unblocked, you will have to use the template {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} and declare your conflict of interest and state something along the lines of you understanding that editing using multiple accounts is not allowed and that you will stick to using one account. Once you are unblocked, you can make live the requested changes to the article above. Number 5 7 20:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, as I appreciate it may be frustrating dealing with the various blocks and requirements (three different blocks were applied to your accounts). In the meantime I have responded the changes requested above and processed some of them. However, as per Yamla's comment above, please do not make any further requests for edits until you are unblocked. Number 5 7 21:25, 12 July 2020 (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).

LegallyWiki87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Since I have been compelled on multiple occasions to declare a conflict of interest, despite not understanding why I actually have one any different to the other editors of this page. I declare a conflict of interest for the purposes of being unblocked. Furthermore this account is an independent account to the others that you mention Apokarodokia and DokiaApoKaria - I have no idea who owns those accounts. The subject of this page, Eniola Aluko, is a well known individual with many supporters who would take issue with some of the clear negative bias editing on her page. The assumption that any editing must come from family members is ridiculous and unfair and it needs to stop. You are administrators and not arbiters of truth that can make misplaced assumptions about peoples conflicts of interest. LegallyWiki87 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:05, 13 July 2020 (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.

Ponyo, as the person who imposed the checkuser block, do you want to comment on the above claim that the accounts are not linked? Number 5 7 13:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I can't reveal all of the technical info that led to the block, but I can break down why I believe the account was created and used in violation of WP:SOCK.

Apokaradokia was created on May 23 and was used solely to dispute and remove negative content at Eniola Aluko. Those edits were reverted.
On June 20th, the Dokiakara1964 account was created on the same individually allocated IP range and was used solely to edit Eniola Aluko. That edit was reverted.
On July 10th, LegallyWiki87 was created, again on the same individually allocated IP range and was again used solely to edit Eniola Aluko and to argue for removal of "negative" content.

While I could see an argument for WP:MEAT being possible (perhaps a case of roommates or coworkers acting together to try to change the article - still a WP:SOCK violation), LegallyWiki87's denial of even knowing these other accounts is not believable given the technical and behavioural evidence.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(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.