User talk:RoyalBlessing

Unblock Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello User:Bbb23, I noticed you blocked my account for sockpuppetry. I honestly didn't know about this until now that I'm meant to indicate on my talk page all wiki users using the same shared IP address as mine. I have listed out the only user of such and will include any other if the need arises. Please have a reconsider on this. Also many thanks to you for the enlightenment. Awaiting your response.

Decline reason:

The connection is closer than just a shared IP address. You've used the same computer to edit the same articles. That's pretty clearly WP:SOCK. Yamla (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hello Yamla, I appreciate your response. But there isn't any policy that states it is forbidden to use same computer to edit same articles with clearly linked, legitimate, alternative accounts, of which that has been rectified already. I have never vandalized any article and never will I ever consider such. Please reconsider your decision on this. Thank you. RoyalBlessing (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Two editors editing the same cluster of articles that overlap behaviourally and technically are violating WP:SOCK, especially when they are doing so contrary to our conflict of interest policies and guidelines, which is apparent from your edits. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 17 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

Please apart from being vague in articulating what policy/rule/regulation I may have violated. I'd appreciate you to list out the article(s) I may have edited that "overlap behaviourally and technically are violating WP:SOCK, especially when they are doing so contrary to wiki's conflict of interest policies and guidelines."
All I did was use a shared IP in good faith which complies with wiki's Sharing an IP address policy. As for COI, I have never violated this policy and if any administrator thinks otherwise kindly state with evidence; listing out the affected article(s) and relevant portions of that article(s).
Thank you. RoyalBlessing (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear case of WP:SOCK, as explained above. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:49, 19 October 2019 (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.

True_N's edits vs. your edits, made from a shared IP. This is a violation of WP:SOCK from obvious single-purpose accounts. You can deny it all you want, by any experienced editor or admin will be able to see it clear as day. If you are stating that you have no relationship whatsoever with Ayo Oritsejafor or the Word of Life Bible Church, I simply don't believe you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We all create/edit new/existing articles with credible information from reliable sources. All my contributions thus far are referenced accordingly particularly with regard to sources. As regards your claim about me having a relationship with Ayo Oritsejafor or the Word of Life Bible Church is just me acting in good faith and thus editing such topics I have general interest in. You can believe whatever you choose to believe but I'm the one who made the edits so this is me telling you my story. I accept the fact that I made edits from a shared IP which is a violation of WP:Sock. My sincere apologies for this. RoyalBlessing (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I understand the block reason. I accept the fact that I was wrong to have violated WP:SOCK, and I promise it won't happen again. RoyalBlessing (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time as this is a sockpuppetry and/or checkuser block. Check users have access to technical and personally identifying information they may not disclose openly on Wikipedia. Please read and heed the relevant sections of the WP:GAB. If this is not your original account, you will need to appeal at your original account.
Also, please read and heed WP:COI and WP:PAID if they apply..-- Deep fried okra 16:32, 22 October 2019 (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.

Request Appeal of Block

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello, my account was blocked indefinitely due to violation of WP:SOCK. I indeed understand the reason why I was blocked and I sincerely apologize for my actions which I deeply regret. I promise to avoid anything that has to do with sock-puppetry, edits contrary to conflict of interest policies and guidelines, and to abide by community rules and Wiki policies henceforth. Please consider my appeal. Thank you. RoyalBlessing (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please request unblock from your original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:42, 22 December 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.

As a checkuser, I can see no recent evidence of socking. Note that the blocking admin is no longer active on Wikipedia. On these bases, this block should be treated as a regular block and any admin should feel free to lift the block (unless another checkuser indicates they disagree). --Yamla (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does need to request unblock from the original account. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]