TerungwaSamuel
Welcome!
edit
|
Editing Draft:Ejembi John Onah
editI noticed that you have taken up editing Draft:Ejembi John Onah. It looks like you are not focused on solving the main problem this draft has, which is the matter of establishing notability for Onah. You are of course allowed to make any reasonable edits that you wish, but from my perspective it looks like you have been wasting your time. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 21:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest on the subject article titled Draft: Ejembi John Onah, jmcgnh. I have been focused to address the issues raised by you and Swister Twister on August 30, 2017 on issue of reference that are verifiable on notability and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. The current article includes references with articles that are published in highly impact peer review journals with many citations independent of the subject. Be reminded, as part of one of the criterion in establishing notability in academics according to wikipedia is "the person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources..... to count towards satisfying criterion 1, citations need to occur in peer reviewed scholarly publications such as journals and academic books". This criterion amongst others was what i addressed in the current edited article. Specifically to address your proposal on August 30,2017 suggesting to select three best references independent of the subject to support notability to the AFC help desk for all to review, that have been done, You can go to the AFC desk and review my submission on that matter as you propose with other reviewers.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)september 12, 2007
September 2017
edit | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet 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 sock puppet, 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. Primefac (talk) 13:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC) |
TerungwaSamuel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
It is with dismay that I notice I have been blocked on wikipedia for the account of multiple accounts by Primefac. I have not had good internet connectivity for a while now and that informs the delay in my response. With regards to the accusation (sock puppetry), you may wish to note that all reference were gotten directly from wikipedia page on notability(academic). The account Ejembi12 is independent of mine,TerungwaSamuel. The contributions made are also independent. Therefore, I am appealing for my account to be unblock.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You have not satisfactorily explained the common interest in Draft:Ejembi John Onah between this account and Ejembi12. MER-C 12:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
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.
TerungwaSamuel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I will be most grateful if this common interest with Ejembi12 is well defined in my activity here to enable me explain, so that we can get over this quickly. I have had an interest in the field of nanotechnology and noticed that Ejembi John Onah's feat of synthesizing nanofilms with the least diaelectric constant of 1.5 in the world has gone unnoticed or rather not mentioned in an encylopedia like wikipedia with such a broad base. So do well to help me answer you satisfactorily by defining the perceived common interest with Ejembi12 that needs explanation. Thanks.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 03:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Though I concur with the inconclusive CU result below, the totality of the evidence suggests otherwise. Declined. —DoRD (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
MER-C, this account TerungwaSamuel is not my account neither is it puppet socket and this can easily be verified by comparing the 2 IPS which are entirely different. If the 2 accounts have 2 entirely different IPS, it is therefore baseless and completely false and against wiki policy or ethic to block the account for puppet socket. As a high level professional, I don't engage in such and will never be to open up 2 accounts to misuse. The common interest here is nanoscience and nanotechnology between myself and TerungwaSamuel and it is not a conflict of interest to have 2 entirely different accounts be interested in an article if not there cannot be editing and no wiki because the interest has to be there before you can edit as a team work with other editors.Please let us stop these falsehoods that can easily be determined as false as in this case and move to contribute objectively towards wiki article,thanks Ejembi12 (talk) 14:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- How do you know the other user's IP?--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Anthony bradbury! I don't know that was why I recommended that the 2IPs should be verified: If the 2IPs are different then puppet socket does not apply; I am 100% sure that it is not my account neither do I see that the 2IPs will be thesame , this is basic knowledge and if that basic computer knowledge on how to verify IPs is known and applied; it will sure show that these two accounts are not related, thanks once more. Ejembi12 (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please can anybody assist to unblock this account of being falsely accused of being a puppet socket of my account which is entirely false I repeat by verifying the two IPs? Verification of IP takes minutes but it is taking close to a month to simply verify this in this case to unblock if the IPs are not thesame. Ejembi12 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- A check has been performed and the results are inconclusive - the technical data is not sufficient to link the two accounts definitively, though the evidence available is leaning towards a link of some sort -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 15:20, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks There'sNoTime for stating there is not technical data to support any link, so unblock: Socket puppet is defined as 2 accounts being opened by thesame person to misuse and mislead and can only be verified by IPs and that has been verified as untrue; then unblock and stop unethical behavior of blocking accounts out of just some imaginations against laid down rules. I am 100% sure that I have no other accounts except one of mine, there is no other relationship except teamship working together to improve an article as stated above by the 2 accounts as allowed by wiki. You cannot just engage on fishing expedition to accuse people wrongly, it is unethical. Ejembi12 (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC) DoRD thanks for your contribution, explain what other evidence you have more than technical data to decline for socket puppet? I repeat this account does not belong to me neither any form of relationship including any conflict of interest between me and the blocked account, can I be much clearer, please unblock the account. This is so strange. Ejembi12 (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please can someone kindly assist to objectively review this information here against this blocked account and unblock? Now, this account was blocked for being suspected of socket puppet, now the technical data based on wiki admin findings as above said there was no link yet the account is still blocked for other imaginative unexplained reasons against ethics for socket puppet by wiki
Ejembi12 (talk) 22:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I still need help for my question to be answered DoRD: What other evidence are there as stated by DoRD to block the account even when technical data clearly showed as stated as above that there was no link?
Ejembi12 (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
| | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
. Please who can anyone assist me further since this account continues to be blocked for socket puppet even when technical data findings by wiki as above does not support any link to me? For an unexplained reason the account continues to be blocked. I have consistently asked what other reasons are there for the account to be blocked more than IPs verification that so far said no link and nobody is answering that question. Please I need an objective review here, some administrators are just misusing their powers to block accounts even when ethics of wiki does not support it. Accounts cannot be blocked for unexplained reason as this is the case here.
Ejembi12 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- Ejembi12, you have a surprisingly large amount of concern for whether TerungwaSamuel is unblocked. In fact, they have made zero edits other than the unblock requests themselves. Why are you advocating for them so hard when you (as you claim) have no idea who they are? Primefac (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Just like you; Primefac, I don't like injustice and when I smell one as in this case, I get not happy. Yes, may be TerungwaSamuel is annoyed for being treated this way especially when findings show no link. Secondly, I cherish my name and reputation, indirectly, I am being accused as if I have 2 accounts which is absolutely not true as I have been saying before the wiki technical data came out supporting the fact that there is no link. This is about clearing my name. This account is not associated with me at all and is not a socket puppet of my account, I repeat, please kindly unblock. Ejembi12 (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Ejembi12: As I already stated, the avaliable evidence strongly suggests that this account belongs to you, so no, it will not be unblocked. —DoRD (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
DoRD, what available evidence do you have you to make such unsubstantiated attack in this era of knowledge? There'snotime clearly stated that there is no evidence technically that the 2 accounts are linked and here you continue to manufacture evidence out of your imagination misusing your authority; that is vandalism against the ethics of wiki. You can request cc between TerungwaSamuel and myself, so that both of us can speak at thesame time. You are on the wrong side, I can never do what you are attacking me to do, it is very unfortunate that you are using your position wrongly, please unblock the account, you have no reason to block, just emotions built on your imagination. Ejembi12 (talk) 01:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
| | This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
Please can someone assist me besides DoRD to objectively review the issues surrounding this account to unblock it for DoRD continues to talk of unexplained or undisclosed evidence since as a flimsy and unprofessional approach to block the account? DoRD clearly has no further evidence and refuse to agree to the technical data that definitely stated the 2 accounts are not linked.
Ejembi12 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
- At some point in the next 24 hours I'll collate all of the information that led me to this block. Primefac (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Primefac, remember the reason for you blocking the account was because of socket puppet which no longer applies since technical data shows no link. Further how can someone edit when the account is blocked? Ejembi12 (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I will further stress that what makes this blocking strange and unprofessional is that TerungwaSamuel who I think is a new editor based on his talk page is not given any warning for any suspected misbehavior before the account was blocked against ethics of wiki on preliminary education because there was none. Such unilateral action by Primefac without due process is unethical and filled with emotion. So this case of block based on the cause and the technical findings on the block lacks further merit, so the account should be unblocked.
Ejembi12 (talk) 14:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Unblock break 1
edit TerungwaSamuel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Attention: Primefac Ejembi12 There'sNoTime Anthony Bradbury DoRD etc. I have gone through the various post here and I can best say," I am watching a comedy piece unfold! Forgive my language for its dose of sarcasm. I asked a simply question, identification of the common interest for me to address it properly. I see no attempt to address that thus far. The decision to have me blocked for now remains whimsical; more so that the accusation of socket puppetry adduced by Primefacis no longer tenable. Today is two weeks since i asked that question. The bone of contention prior to the time I was smeared with the allegation of socket puppetry, was whether nor not the article fits into the criteria for notability academic. I simply asked for the article to be undeleted and gave reference to wiki guidelines, period. Next, I was blocked. At this point, I ask, "has the article been undeleted?". To end this contribution, I see a display of unhealthy ego going on here and wish we can all be as civil and professional. You would shown high level of professionalism by drawing my attention to your thoughts(a query more like) before blocking my account. Regards.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've reviewed the history of interaction here and at the AFC help desk and simply don't believe that the accounts are unrelated. GoldenRing (talk) 23:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
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.
- My rationale for blocking as a sock was due to the overlap in editing between the two editors beyond simply editing the draft. Two (or in this case three) SPAs editing one draft? Weird, but not unheard of. Two editors editing the AFC help desk within 19 minutes of each other? Rather odd. With the exception of the draft itself (and the now-deleted article) TerungwaSamuel always starts the conversation and Ejembi12 follows shortly afterwards. There is also this comment, which implies that Ejembi12 knows where TerungwaSamuel is despite them having no direct contact. Additionally, there was an IRC conversation (which I unfortunately cannot find the logs for) that implied that the two accounts were linked, though without those logs I think this evidence can be ignored.
- I will not argue if an uninvolved admin feels that this is insufficient evidence to unblock, but I will not be taking action to do so. Primefac (talk) 14:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Primefac, you are manufacturing this because it is completely false what you are alleging as the basis for blocking: It is completely untrue that any technical data supported the 2 accounts were linked. On your allegation that I knew where TerungwaSamuel lived basing your conclusion by me just guessing that TerungwaSamuel be in Africa in my statement wikihelpdesk. I came to that hypothesis that may be TerungwaSamuel comes from Africa by google search on name 'Terungwa'; http://forebears.io/surnames/Terungwa whereby the result shows it has highest density in Africa, therefore it is with high probability that TerungwaSamuel comes from Africa. I know by visiting your talk page that probably you come from UK and Dodger67 comes from South Africa, does that make you or dodger67 a socket puppet of myself now? Infact, such name search can be used to show that I am not a sock in reference to wiki socket puppetry item 6. Interactions by time interval chats cannot be a basis for blocking as there is no rule like that in Wiki. Also see above; I started a conversation 01.13, 12 October 2017 (UTC) and you responded 01.14, 12 October 2017 (UTC); does it mean that you were my socket puppet? You were always following Dodger67 arguing against undeletion appeal of draft Ejembi John Onah, did it mean you were a socket puppet of Dodger67? Socket puppetry is defined by wiki as having multiple accounts to mislead and misuse. I have only one account as supported by wiki technical data finding as above. Interactions by conversation or chats is the way issues are resolved whether within a minute as in your case with mine or other time interval as you alleged above; it does not matter and account cannot be blocked because of that. It is completely untrue as confirmed by technical data by wiki findings that the 2 accounts are not linked. Further you were asking TerungwaSamuel why no edition atall after the block, which was very strange because a blocked account cannot edit based on wiki ethics. The truth is that you blocked the account as a punishment or retaliation to TerungwSamuel against the ethics of wiki blocking policy because he supported the undeletion of draft: Ejembi John Onah while you and especially Dodger67 were against it but later the draft Ejembi John Onah was undeleted by administrative appeal review process. Again, TerungwaSamuel as a new editor was not given any warning at all if you thought that he did something wrong before you hurriedly blocked the account to disrupt. Please let us be objective and professional in our approach. Let this account be unblocked; manufactured, unethical, harassing, untrue and retaliatory evidence/behavior against an editor because he/she disagrees with strange and biased opinion of an administrator cannot trigger account to be blocked as exhibited by Primefac misusing authority. This outrageous behavior misusing authority by administrators who set aside rules of wiki to apply their own subjective imagination must be stopped for a better wiki. Ejembi12 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
TerungwaSamuel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have taken time again to go through the appealing for unblock and the Wikipedia community guidelines. I write to say am sorry for being in the middle of correspondences that has gone on in a manner that has being frontal in some instances obviously in contravention of the spirit driving the Wikipedia encyclopedia team, even from me. I will work by the consensus verdict of the team. I therefore requestEjembi12 to leave this matter and allow the team to exercise her discretion in good faith. While I still maintain that my account (myself) are independent of Ejembi12, I wish to request for what you think I should do to have my account unblocked, going forward. I wish to participate meaningfully in the development of the Wikipedia encyclopedia in the areas of Nanoscience, history and anthropology with specific reference to the Bantu nationalities for now. Thanks.TerungwaSamuel (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
While the technical data may not say as much, the physical evidence, the editing patterns and habits, tell me that this is indeed a sockpuppet. I agree with PrimeFac and the other admins who have declined previous unblock requests. There's too much going on new to leave me to believe these accounts are NOT related. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
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.