User talk:Alphalul

Victor Olalusi moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Victor Olalusi, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, 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. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 23:27, 11 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

This account is not a sockpuppet. I have never edited Wikipedia as Snazzymike. Just renaming an article from "Michael Alozie" to "Snazzy the Optimist", which was the most common name of the subject of the article, shouldn't count as evidence of sockpuppetry. WP:NOASSUMESOCK is a good essay that the admin who blocked me should read. Alphalul (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not assuming doesn't mean we should ignore our common sense. Every sock puppet denies being one, since that is the whole point. It could certainly be that this is not sock puppetry but meat puppetry, but they are treated the same. Yes, that sort of action is sufficient to establish sock puppetry. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 12 September 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm not a meatpuppet either, because I was not only editing Wikipedia in context of Snazzy's spam. My only action in context of Snazzy was renaming an article. Many of my edits were on a now-deleted article named Victor Olalusi. Alphalul (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to admit that you did indeed edit "in context of Snazzy". Yamla (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2022 (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: I'm not sure what you mean. By "in context of Snazzy", I meant "relating to content about Snazzy". Snazzymike and his sockpuppets have created many articles with "Snazzy" in their title, for example, "Snazzy (musician)", "Snazzy (rapper)", and "Snazzy the Optimist". I was not editing at the direction of Snazzymike. Alphalul (talk) 10:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: I'm not sure what you mean. By "in context of Snazzy", I meant "relating to content about Snazzy". Snazzymike and his sockpuppets have created many articles with "Snazzy" in their title, for example, "Snazzy (musician)", "Snazzy (rapper)", and "Snazzy the Optimist". I was not editing at the direction of Snazzymike. Alphalul (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

@SuperMarioMan: Why was I blocked? What was the evidence you had? Alphalul (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alphalul. I blocked this account because I suspect it to be a sockpuppet of User:Snazzymike which is being used for block evasion, or a meatpuppet indistinguishable from a sockpuppet. I perceived several behavioural similarities with earlier Snazzymike sockpuppets, and I found them hard to dismiss. Re. below – "My only edit that had any connection ... to [Snazzymike]" – I would point out that the sockmaster too wasn't dedicated solely to Snazzymike; they edited other articles as well. Further, your "Michael Alozie" -> "Snazzy the Optimist" page move, citing naming conventions policy, doesn't strike me as behaviour typical of a new editor; it shows familiarity with Wikipedia procedure. The combination of these factors leads me to suspect sockpuppetry. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My point was that two accounts can be said to show significantly similar behaviour only if they show similar peculiar behaviour. Normal behaviour can't be used as evidence. Fixing a new article's name, in accordance with Wikipedia's conventions, is normal. And it was one instance. You said that you perceived several similarities, but I can't find any distinctive similarity. I can't see the deleted pages, though. Also, since you're concerned about my apparent "familiarity with Wikipedia procedure", I suggest you read the WP:BRANDNEW section of the WP:NOASSUMESOCK essay I linked to. Alphalul (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All behaviours, normal or "peculiar", can and should be considered when deciding whether or not to block. As I indicated above, I did not block for proficiency alone – which is the point that WP:BRANDNEW makes – or for any other one thing. I blocked for multiple factors including, but not limited to, intersection with another suspected sockpuppet of Snazzymike, and editing in userspace and draftspace. More generally, other aspects, including your editing pattern from account registration until just after autoconfirmation, the content of the biography you created (fairly promotionally written, on a subject of questionable notability), as well as your awareness of CSD A7 and naming conventions, suggest to me that this is not your first account on Wikipedia. For me, the combined weight of these factors puts the matter beyond reasonable doubt. Others are free to disagree with my assessment. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 22:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir/ma, I completely disagree with your assessment. What you pointed out may reasonably suggest that this account may not be my first one, but it isn't sufficient to show that I'm Snazzymike. You can find clues about Snazzymike's linguistic habits on this discussion. Take a moment to think carefully, with common sense, about whether it's possible that we're the same person. IMO, Snazzymike's linguistic habits are sufficient to show that I'm not Snazzymike. That would rule out one of the factors you considered before blocking. The "Sir/ma" was a joke, by the way. Still, that phrase is probably common in Nigeria.

Also, the normal similarities in behaviour between my account and Snazzymike's accounts were because I created my account to create an article.

Victor Olalusi is notable. He was covered by The Guardian (Nigeria), a newspaper once described as "Nigeria's most respected" by The New York Times. Many of the sources listed here mention him. The Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Education in Abuja has said about him: "We have to search the Guinness Book of Records for anybody who has achieved 5.0 in a university. ... You should be the ambassador of the Federal Scholarship Board, Ministry of Education, Nigeria and the Russian Federation. ... I look forward to the day you will stand before the President to receive your honour. We have recommendations to that effect,".

See:

Pulse Nigeria The Guardian Daily Post The Nation Nigerian Tribune Vanguard Channels TV.

I'd like to make it clear that this isn't what Snazzymike does; the sources he cites are paid posts, not independent, or about someone else called Kusher Snazzy.

Please sir/ma unblock!!

Otherwise, I'll have to consider creating a new account as per WP:IAR. I'm not the person the block is supposed to be applied to anyway. Alphalul (talk) 14:44, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those closing remarks speak for themselves. And I strongly disagree with your assertion that Victor Olalusi is sufficiently notable for Wikipedia; the sources you cite point to WP:BLP1E. If the article you started hadn't been moved to draftspace, it probably would have been AfD'd. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Please explain your "decline reason". I didn't understand it. What is wrong with "editing 'in context of Snazzy'"? Alphalul (talk) 08:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More unblock requests

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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't understand Yamla's decline reason. I do not admit to violating any Wikipedia policy. I found the article about Snazzy on Special:NewPages, looked at the titles of the references, made a Google search and decided that the article needed to be renamed. I am not connected to Snazzymike in any way. My only edit that had any connection whatsoever to that user was renaming an article, but I'm tired of repeating this. Alphalul (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 25 December 2022 (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.

Checkuser note: From a purely technical standpoint, Alphalul is editing from a different continent than the suspected master.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]