User talk:Jejeki

Speedy deletion nomination of Juiceslf (Nigerian musician)

Hello Jejeki,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Juiceslf (Nigerian musician) for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Nagol0929 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Juiceslf (Nigerian rapper) (June 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Greenman was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All statements need to be sourced, starting with the date of birth.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Juiceslf (Nigerian rapper) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Greenman (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jejeki! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Greenman (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tags

Please don't remove maintenance tags, like you did at Shallipopi in this edit, if the problems raised haven't been fixed. If you need help, you can ask at the Teahouse, a friendly forum for new users. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively as a sockpuppet of User:Ijumdiya wadzani per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijumdiya wadzani. 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Subject: Appeal regarding Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijumdiya wadzani

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request the unblocking of my Wikipedia account, which has been erroneously associated with the sock puppet account "Ijumdiya wadzani" in the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijumdiya wadzani case. I want to emphasize that I have no involvement whatsoever in the creation or use of the aforementioned sock puppet account.

As an avid contributor and supporter of Wikipedia's mission, I have always adhered to its policies and guidelines diligently. Throughout my tenure on Wikipedia, I have made substantial contributions to various articles and discussions, focusing primarily on Apple Industrial Design Group, Coco lee, Shallipopi, Kiriku, Mr Funny etc. My commitment to upholding the principles of neutrality, accuracy, and ethical editing has been unwavering.

It has come to my attention that I have been blocked due to the alleged association with the sock puppet account. I can assure you that this is an incorrect assumption and a case of mistaken identity. I cannot stress enough my innocence in these allegations.

I am fully aware of the seriousness of sock puppetry and understand why the community takes such actions seriously. I firmly believe in the integrity and honesty of the Wikipedia platform. I am devoted to supporting its growth and maintaining the highest standards for trustworthy content. Therefore, it is essential to address and resolve this misunderstanding promptly so that I can resume my contributions.

I kindly request that you thoroughly investigate this matter to ascertain my complete lack of involvement in the sock puppet account. I offer my full cooperation and am prepared to provide any additional information or evidence that may be necessary to establish my innocence beyond any doubt.

Being blocked over such allegations has been disheartening, but I remain optimistic that through this appeal, the truth will prevail. I request your reconsideration of the block on my account, allowing me to continue my contributions and uphold the values of transparency, collaboration, and reliability within the Wikipedia community.

Thank you for your attention and understanding. I eagerly await a positive resolution to rectify this misunderstanding and enable me to contribute to Wikipedia once again.

Sincerely,

Jehu Matthew

Jejeki (talk) 00:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jejeki,

I'm not a checkuser so I can't unblock you, and you actually haven't posted an unblock request, but I'd just like to ask you what led you to try to create an article on Juiceslf? Because most of this sockmaster's sockpuppets have done exactly that. In fact, I'm sure that's what got you reported to SPI in the first place. Do you have an explanation for that? Are you being compensated for writing this article? Thank you for any information you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying Intention: Creating an Article on Juiceslf without Sockpuppet Involvement: Thank you for reaching out to discuss my attempt to create an article on Juiceslf. I understand your concerns about potential connections to sockpuppet accounts. I want to assure you that I have no knowledge or involvement with any sockpuppet accounts or their activities.

The reason I wanted to create an article on Juiceslf is simply because I'm genuinely interested in the music and artistry of this individual. I find their talent and creativity inspiring, and I believe they deserve recognition within the Wikipedia community.

To answer your question about compensation, I want to clarify that I am not being compensated in any way for writing this article. I have no personal or financial gain from creating content on Juiceslf.

I apologize if my actions seem similar to those of sockpuppets in the past, but I assure you that it is purely coincidental. I am just an enthusiastic editor who wants to contribute positively to the Wikipedia community.

If there is any additional information I can provide or any steps I can take to address this misunderstanding, please let me know. I value transparency and ethical editing practices, and I am committed to working with you to resolve this matter.

Thank you for your understanding and support.

please can you lead me through, because am new here. Jejeki (talk) 07:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jejeki (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the information in the block notice box. All the help you need is there. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am writing to appeal the block imposed on my account due to its alleged association with the sock puppet account mentioned in the investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet Investigations/Ijumdiya wadzani. I want to emphasize that I have had no involvement or connection whatsoever with the mentioned sock puppet account. I am writing to provide further information in support of my request for an unblock. 1. No Knowledge or Connection: To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with or used the account "Ijumdiya wadzani" or any other sock puppet account mentioned in the investigation. I believe my account was mistakenly associated with this account due to a misunderstanding or misinterpretation. 2. Adherence to Wikipedia Policies: I have always been committed to upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines since I became a member of this community. I have actively participated in discussions, made constructive edits, and contributed valuable content to various articles in line with Wikipedia's core principles of verifiability, neutrality, and reliable sourcing. 3. Ethical Editing Practices: I firmly believe in maintaining the highest standards of ethical editing. I have never engaged in any form of prohibited behavior, such as using multiple accounts, creating biased content, or engaging in edit wars. My editing activities have always been driven by a genuine commitment to knowledge sharing, accuracy, and the improvement of Wikipedia. 4. Transparent Collaboration: I have consistently demonstrated a genuine willingness to collaborate with other editors, seeking consensus and engaging in respectful discussions. I value the collaborative nature of Wikipedia and have actively worked towards maintaining a positive and constructive environment for all editors. Given the above reasons, I kindly request that you reconsider the block on my account as it is based on a mistaken association with the sock puppet account mentioned in the investigation. I am eager to continue contributing to Wikipedia and engage in positive discussions and editing activities within this community. If there is any additional information or steps I can take to resolve this matter and ensure a fair assessment of my account, I am more than willing to cooperate. I look forward to your assistance and guidance in resolving this issue promptly. Thank you for your attention and understanding. Jejeki (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Re- Confirmed to Savemoon. The technical evidence is very, very clear here. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Subject: Request for Reconsideration: Clearing Up Misunderstanding Regarding Multiple Accounts

I recently received your response regarding my appeal, and I appreciate your attention to my case. However, I would like to address the evidence provided concerning my association with the account "savemoon."

First and foremost, I want to emphasize that when I created both accounts, I made a clear and transparent disclaimer stating that I am the owner of both accounts. Through this disclosure, I intended to ensure accountability and transparency within the Wikipedia community. My intention was never to engage in any disruptive or misleading editing practices.

I would like to clarify that, to the best of my knowledge, I have not participated in any form of disruptive editing or any actions that would violate Wikipedia's editing guidelines with either of my accounts. I have always strived to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and contribute positively to the community.

If there are specific concerns or evidence that suggests otherwise, I kindly request that you provide me with the details or examples of any alleged disruptive or inappropriate activities associated with my accounts. This will enable me to address the concerns directly, clarify any misunderstandings, and take appropriate corrective measures if necessary.

I understand the importance of maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the Wikipedia platform. As an avid contributor and advocate of ethical editing practices, it is my utmost commitment to uphold the community's standards and contribute positively to the collective knowledge.

I genuinely appreciate your careful consideration and willingness to reassess the situation. If there are any further actions required from my end or any additional information you need to support the review process, please do not hesitate to let me know.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to resolving this matter and continuing my contributions to the Wikipedia community. Jejeki (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. Also wasting our time with a chatbot request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:15, 14 July 2023 (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.

Note that my decline was solely based on the Confirmed connection to Savemoon, which Jejeki appeared to be denying ("I have had no involvement or connection whatsoever with the mentioned sock puppet account"). I did not deeply dive into the connection with the original sockmaster and I see that Jejeki did indeed previously disclose the connection to Savemoon. --Yamla (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk)

Subject: Clarification of Ownership and Connection with "savemoon" Account

I would like to address the recent discussion regarding my alleged connection with the "savemoon" account. I want to clarify that I have never denied, nor will I ever deny my connection with the "savemoon" account based on what I said above is that I have never created multiple accounts for violation, but I created them to improve Wikipedia. In fact, I want to provide a full disclaimer that I am the owner of both accounts and acknowledge my responsibility for their actions.

While it is true that I disclosed my ownership of both accounts during their creation, I would like to emphasize that neither account has been involved in any disruptive or malicious editing. I have always strived to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the information I contribute.

In light of the evidence presented, I kindly request specific details or examples of any alleged disruptive activities that have been associated with either account. I am committed to upholding the standards set by Wikipedia, and I am dedicated to rectifying any mistakes made.

I assure you that I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia as a community-driven platform and the efforts made by its administrators to maintain its integrity. I am truly grateful for the opportunity to contribute positively to the platform and to learn from experienced editors like yourself.Thank you for your understanding and for considering my appeal. I look forward to resolving this matter in a fair and transparent manner. - Jejeki (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User was

Confirmed to the original sockmaster at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ijumdiya wadzani. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]