User talk:Oluwa2Chainz

FOLU AGOI

Hello Oluwa2Chainz,

I will like to know the reason why you have flagged the new living biography: Folu Agoi I have created. Well, I think the problem with the page is that I have been editing regoriously since yesterday that it was created but with the 7days grace of a new published biography, I don't think you should flag it. I have now provided a least three references for the article.

I am willing to take correction if there is any at all but I find flagging frustrating as you know that gathering data on a living person is not an easy job with Wikipedia specifications.

Ayandaabeke (talk)

I have improved the article with new sources.

Please check and let me know what you think.

Aderemi Adegbite

Hello Oluwa2Chainz,

I will like to know the reason you are flagging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aderemi_Adegbite

It will be nice to hear your opinion about the article.

Thanks.

Ayandaabeke (talk)

Thejuker

>>>Thanks Man But I'd Love These Pages to be Published Dunno how you cn help, Im New Here Draft:Jukebox Music (Music Blog) and Draft:MP3NAIJA

Blessing Abeng

Hello Oluwa2Chainz, do help improve article. The subject is pretty popular in the entrepreneurship space in Nigeria and there are many inquiries and searches. Especially as she is the codirector of Startup Grind, the notable entrepreneurship community. Analyze critically and share tips to help improve the article.

WiR December highlights

		Welcome to Women in Red's December 2017 worldwide online editathons. New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/61|"Seasonal celebrations"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/62|"First Ladies"]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/63|"Go local!"]] Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]] Remember the World Contest closes on Thursday, 30 November
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Hello Sir

I would like to state that the following School, Hill City University Benin, Should be on the list of universities in benin, i tried contributing to the list two years ago (december 15) but you took it down. I would love to know what it take to add the school stated above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobychampion (talk • contribs)

(talk page stalker)@Bobychampion: The school you want add doesn't have an article that's, it appears redlink. Consider writing the article by yourself or request it to be written by clicking here and filling the details. If you need more help ask me on my talkpage. –Ammarpad (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for unblock

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Oluwa2Chainz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am making this appeal due to my passion for this project and the pressure to prove my innocence. An editor with over 500 created articles should know that sock puppetry is what the community frowns at. No? I edit from Nigeria and the IP service provided by my ISP shows "Suspected Network Sharing Device" i.e a public IP address of a router with more than one device behind it. After this observation, it dawned on me that I surely must have been sharing the same IP with several accounts on here. I must admit that I began to fear for a situation like this ever since my IP got affected following the block on Wikicology before I was given the IP-exempt user right after an appeal. I have seen some usernames popping up and I am being accused to be the owner of those accounts which is, to me, quite laughable; but I won't blame the CUs anyway.

. .

To Versace1608, Darreg and Mahveotm, your concern towards this issue is highly appreciated. Thank You.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am making this appeal due to my passion for this project and the pressure to prove my innocence. An editor with over 500 created articles should know that sock puppetry is what the community frowns at. No? I edit from Nigeria and the IP service provided by my ISP shows "Suspected Network Sharing Device" i.e a public IP address of a router with more than one device behind it. After this observation, it dawned on me that I surely must have been sharing the same IP with several accounts on here. I must admit that I began to fear for a situation like this ever since my IP got affected following the block on Wikicology before I was given the IP-exempt user right after an appeal. I have seen some usernames popping up and I am being accused to be the owner of those accounts which is, to me, quite ''laughable''; but I won't blame the CUs anyway. . . To [[User:Versace1608|Versace1608]], [[User:Darreg|Darreg]] and [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]], your concern towards this issue is highly appreciated. Thank You. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am making this appeal due to my passion for this project and the pressure to prove my innocence. An editor with over 500 created articles should know that sock puppetry is what the community frowns at. No? I edit from Nigeria and the IP service provided by my ISP shows "Suspected Network Sharing Device" i.e a public IP address of a router with more than one device behind it. After this observation, it dawned on me that I surely must have been sharing the same IP with several accounts on here. I must admit that I began to fear for a situation like this ever since my IP got affected following the block on Wikicology before I was given the IP-exempt user right after an appeal. I have seen some usernames popping up and I am being accused to be the owner of those accounts which is, to me, quite ''laughable''; but I won't blame the CUs anyway. . . To [[User:Versace1608|Versace1608]], [[User:Darreg|Darreg]] and [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]], your concern towards this issue is highly appreciated. Thank You. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am making this appeal due to my passion for this project and the pressure to prove my innocence. An editor with over 500 created articles should know that sock puppetry is what the community frowns at. No? I edit from Nigeria and the IP service provided by my ISP shows "Suspected Network Sharing Device" i.e a public IP address of a router with more than one device behind it. After this observation, it dawned on me that I surely must have been sharing the same IP with several accounts on here. I must admit that I began to fear for a situation like this ever since my IP got affected following the block on Wikicology before I was given the IP-exempt user right after an appeal. I have seen some usernames popping up and I am being accused to be the owner of those accounts which is, to me, quite ''laughable''; but I won't blame the CUs anyway. . . To [[User:Versace1608|Versace1608]], [[User:Darreg|Darreg]] and [[User:Mahveotm|Mahveotm]], your concern towards this issue is highly appreciated. Thank You. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

—Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 18:31, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

This is a CU-block. Pinging Berean Hunter as the blocking admin. GAB^gab 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• For what it's worth- and bearing in mind I don't think we ever directly interacted- I'd just like to put it on the record that, patrolling the various "List of-" pages regarding Nigerians as I do (I think they're all watchlisted), I was never more pleased to see the many occasions where my rv. "reverted to last version" by them, or I saw them "rv to last version" by me. And those pages can be truely spambanks for non-notable DJs, holy men, poets, singers, and, of course, "businessmen." Etc; few of whom- unlike O2C- have the faintest regard for WP:LISTN but plenty for self-aggrandisment. I hope this can be resolved to the benefit- not of individuals- but the encyclopaedia. Cheers, SerialNumber54129 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Kaizenify admitted that Imagekraft was his in this thread and there is more evidence laid out there. Additionally there is more evidence here. WP:MEAT means that multiple editors work together illegitimately..and some of those appear to sock. Kaizenify still denies wrongdoing despite clear socking. Oluwa2Chainz, please read those threads and then explain.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

It is true that I used to manage the social media accounts of Wikimedia Nigeria UserGroup but I have never attended any WNUG function and know nothing about "modem sharing". I am not doubting the CU evidence but I feel justified since Darreg also pointed out that Nigerian ISPs usually assign one IP address to multiple internet users. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: It's over 24hrs and I'm yet to get a response from you :| —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 19:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I gave evidence in links above but you have only offered what I have heard before. "Nigerian ISPs usually assign one IP address to multiple internet users." I have seen in your ranges and other ranges and that isn't whats going on here. I haven't seen a response from you or the others about Kaizenify socking? I would have expected some response. That is a pretty short time evaluating evidence from my post to yours. Seventeen minutes before you responded but didn't explain any days where you and Kaizenify were together or other explanation for the many things that I laid out before.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter: I have answered your questions to the many thing you laid down by telling you about the IP address issues we have in the country. Reality check, can you say I am the same person as the other usernames popping out, because to me, it is unreasonable for an established user to have over 7 accounts. I have never seen nor been with Kaizenify and I only know him to be a photographer as his userpage states. It is about time you stop counter-attacking my view on this issue and then begin to think about what an established editor can add to the encyclopedia and not about a mix-up caused by an ISP. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 07:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On Nov. 15, you pinged me but then reverted a minute later. You did not file an unblock request until Dec. 3. Why did you wait so long after knowing that you were blocked? Did you begin to confer with someone else over your block?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

No, not at all. As an experienced editor, I decided to stay calm, follow the case then request for an unblock at the right time. I believe this is the right time to tender my request after the heat must have died down. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 00:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• So I was considering the best and worse case implications that could arise from unblocking Oluwa2Chainz.

Worst case: Oluwa2Chainz has socked in the pastOluwa2Chainz is actually CPN, but he has realized his mistakes even though he isn't modest enough to state it. He would stop socking since he now knows all eyes are on him. FWIW, CPN wasn't so bad, for me to appeal that he request to get unblocked tells you that I have a level of confidence that he was here to build an encyclopedia, just didn't understand some core things properly during his early days. Probably too excited on the prospect of being a WP editor, and used wrong approach, continuous socking in attempting to correct his mistake. To cut the long story short, Wikipedia wins, and a prolific editor is retained.

Best case: Oluwa2Chainz is innocent of everything and didn't deserve to get blocked in the first place. This was as a result of similar ip allocation in Nigerian cyberspace. Wikipedia retains a major content creator and level-headed editor. In both cases, Wikipedia wins. What could possibly go wrong from unblocking him?

In both scenerios highlighted above, I do not see how unblocking could have an adverse effect on Wikipedia. WP wins both ways. But then again, I ask myself, is there compelling evidence to make Oluwa2Chainz blocked indefinitely? I don't have Checkuser rights, so I can't see the ip trends, but based on the behavioral evidence, I say "NO". There is enough evidence that show that it may be logical but to indef an experienced editor forever, I don't think so. Please revert if my unbiased opinion is not helping this case. Darreg (talk) 10:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a fair assessment, Darreg, pointing out that either way, WP wins; and, ultimately WP "winning" is what it's all about, Alfie. ----->SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: I have no understanding of CU work. But I will say I was shocked to see Oluwa2Chainz blocked. I wasn't aware of their article creations, which is a little embarrassing, but I often encounter them doing sterling work in the unfortunately growing field of self-aggrandisement by Nigerian "non-notable DJs, holy men, poets, singers, and, 'businessmen'", as Serial Number 54129 puts it. Not just reverting them, but talking to them, explaining how Wikipedia works, etc. And O2C is someone ignorant people like me can consult about Nigerian sources, compare [1]. I wish we had many more editors with the background, competence, and enthusiasm to do the work Oluwa2Chainz has been doing. If there's any chance you're wrong, Berean Hunter, I hope you'll unblock. And if there isn't, I would still hope for a time-limited block. Time served is already three weeks, hint, hint. Bishonen | talk 11:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC).

@Berean Hunter: why is this case stalling tho'? —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 21:06, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am endorsing Darreg and Bishonen's thoughts above. Mistakes may have been made, technical limitation may have blurred something. But overall, the chief purpose of block on Wikipedia is plain clear: to prevent disruption or harm to the project. Once the fear of such disruption no longer exist there is no reason for continual block as it changed from prevention of project to punishing a user. –Ammarpad (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not believing the response from Oluwa2Chainz. On Nov. 15, he pinged me from this talk page but then reverted himself a minute later. A few hours later, I received an email which was carbon-copied to the functionaries mailing list from another admin asking for a second checkuser opinion. The admin said that he was doing this for a friend from WUGN. The two accounts defended together were Oluwa2Chainz and Kaizenify. They were discussed as individuals that the "friend" had worked with and had spoken to both "a few days ago". The admin explained "...and they say that in the past they had been passing around an Internet modem between them and both Kaizenify and Oluwa2Chainz had been affected by another user's autoblock and they ended up being unblocked afterwards...".

I don't believe that Oluwa2Chainz has not discussed this with anyone at all as he implies above and I don't think that is plausible. With that admin and friend proxying Oluwa2Chainz's defense, he was silent. Above, he said that he has followed this case but did not contradict what I said on Nov. 28, "Oluwa2Chainz originally pinged me to his talk page but then reverted and sent an email to another admin. That admin sent an email and I replied." I also noted in that same diff that I said "This will help to have the blocked editors answering questions. You cannot necessarily answer for them." That was 14 days after I blocked and the third editor counting the admin to answer for Oluwa2Chainz. If I don't have a fire under me to get to this request, I'll note that Oluwa2Chainz set that pace. Discovering that I had power again this morning after our winterstorm, I have more pressing issues than suddenly seeing this as urgent.

I'm inclined to think that Oluwa2Chainz filed this unblock request after those proxied attempts didn't work and Kaizenify's attempts failed based on the timeline. Oluwa2Chainz says that he doesn't know him and doesn't know about modem sharing. Kaizenify had acknowledged sharing a modem with others as the friend had said. That at least was plausible why these certain editors are popping up together.

The ones appearing all around Oluwa2Chainz are the guilty looking ones. Other members of WUGN mentioned on this page do not appear to have these odd coincidences surrounding them.

Oluwa2Chainz, on the day that Kaizenify did the Imagekraft unblock request (socking), you shared his IP. On another day, I find you on the same IP as the two socks you suggested. Where are all of these other Nigerian editors and why aren't they being mixed in here? I see you and the socks on the same IP with the same operating system version on the same day. If so many Nigerian editors are being mixed in together as implied, I'd like to see it. I get the impression that excuses have been provided.

Oluwa2Chainz, who do you think that the friend that sent the email to the admin on your behalf was? Do you know who that admin was?

Also, would you care to explain about this AfD? To me, it looks like you offered a ridiculous delete rationale. You got your support from undisclosed paid editors. It took regulars to make the sound arguments. That suspicious behavior makes an impression.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know how pinging you has an effect on this matter. I have no idea on whatever email you received and I was never behind it if you indeed received an email. I have never attended a WUGN function so I think the thought of modem sharing between myself and someone else should be waived. As I previously said, I had to stay calm and follow the case before I would make an unblock request. You said I offered a ridiculous delete rationale on an AfD which I detailed my reasons for it's nomination and you further went on to accuse me of getting support from paid-editors I have never crossed path with on this project. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

That ping establishes that you knew you were blocked and wanted a checkuser ASAP. To me, it starts a logical order because just a few hours later that same request will come from an admin and a friend on your behalf. Now, the SPI case was over and if you didn't file an unblock request (and no one else in this case did until Nov. 26) how were you following the case? What did you expect to happen and why?

That you received your support in that AfD from undisclosed paid editors is a fact. MassiveYR !votes and then you challenge and they oblige you. This delete was from XFhumu which was another UPE sock from the same group blocked by a different admin. The other delete was from a sock from this case. You don't see that socks are the ones backing you up?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I pinged you and reverted after a second thought to stay calm because I know how frustrating some administrators who see themselves as demigods on here can be. I repeat, I have no idea whoever emailed you and I wasn't behind it and why do I feel these accusations are a kind of baiting? It is clear that some administrators like yourself are "block-happy", why didn't you go through my contributions and compare my style of edit with the other accounts you claim I'm socking with? Have my edits been disruptive? Can't I argue with editors on an AfD to reach a consesus for the good of this project? I refuse to agree that checkuser can be 100% right and again you might as well brand the users supporting me on this page as socks. I have a clear conscience on this one and I put it to you that whatever decision you make on this case doesn't affect me in anyway. I move on, Wikipedia moves on. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

You knew you were blocked on the 15th of November. Do you remember how long before that day that you had communications with this guy?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course the guy is a member of WUGN and was only concerned about the block and it stopped there. On a second thought, I have the right to have a word off-wiki with fellow members in my user-group community and I do not see how I violated any Wikipedia policy by my actions. I am experienced enough to handle this issue myself hence my decision to wait and follow the case. I have been seeing the accusations you were peddling around of me socking and I thought keeping mute for too long might not help my reputation on this project. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 16:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

For clarity, this is a reversal of your previous answer that you didn't confer with anyone at all about your block. Is that right?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you stop these attacks already? Why do I think you are finding a way to justify the block? I am not a toddler and I refuse to be intimidated. You are trying so hard not to admit that all these were a mix-up afterall, but the pride that comes with being an admin and your "check-user evidence" won't let you. I can understand. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Berean Hunter:, As I said earlier, I think behavioral evidence should take precedence over whatever outcomes from checkuser findings. And I don't understand how his communication with that guy has anything to do here. I can't recall reading any policy which prohibits blocked users from communicating with members of their usergroup if there was ever any. Darreg has pointed out in clear terms that unblocking could be a net positive and this was further echoed by several other notable contributors. And I think this conversation is getting too personal, you accused him of meat-puppetry with Kaizenify, socking with these accounts you listed above and now trying to bring an issue of whether he probably interacted with members of his usergroup. Mahveotm (talk) 18:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry to join in. I have been watching this for days and while, Berean Hunter, I do not for a moment, doubt your handling of the matters, given that quite a few experienced non-CU users have supported unblocking for the greater encyclopedic good et al, would it be prudential for some of the other functionaries to chime in and/or the unnamed admin to present his/her statements?Regards:)Winged Blades^Godric 14:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

con'd

Was that your way of agreeing that you gave incorrect info to me? That's your behavior triggering the red flags here. When asked whether you can see that socks are supporting you in that AfD, you seem to not want to acknowledge that they are socks by minimizing it as "Can't I argue with editors on an AfD to reach a consesus for the good of this project?" which looks dismissive to me. So, you see them as editors and don't consider them as socks?

"I repeat, I have no idea whoever emailed you and I wasn't behind it and why do I feel these accusations are a kind of baiting?"

I was hoping for the truth. With your reversal above, that reassures me that you do have an idea about that email. If that guy has tried a stealth approach to getting you unblocked then it matters. You turned to him and the communications happened rapidly. An email was sent but his identity was not revealed down the line. "Facts" were presented by your friend but it wasn't transparent. Your friend and Kaizenify both acknowledged modem sharing. You say that isn't it so and offer NAT as the reason.

For a recap, you, Adamk36 and Dominicstudent are sharing the same IP on the same day and have the same operating system with matching update versions. That is quite the coincidence considering that you are their accuser. For clarity, Kaizenify has a different operating system. No one else uses that IP on that day at all but you, Adamk36 and Dominicstudent. For all of this talk about Nigeria having to use NAT for all of those people...where are they? You're not being muxed with a bunch of people. Quite a concentration of socks surround you though.

You, that guy, Coal Press Nation and Kaizenify all share the same IPs and have had the exact same problem in uploading copyright images. This Commons case and your talk at Commons with CU results also included there. Behavior seems to link you as meatpuppets. Lots of coincidence? This is not a surprise to me.

You get caught behind that guy's autoblock...and no one else does. Where were all of those other Nigerian editors that are having to use NAT? I don't believe that anyone at all has been caught in an autoblock for the blocks placed on you, Kaizenify or the others although it is possible but I haven't seen this. Are you editing from that guy's home? It's his modem isn't it? Why aren't the other editors that you have pinged here from WUGN having these problems? I have seen Darreg's SPI and aware of what happened there but he doesn't have these problems recurring.

You took a different route on trying to get unblocked and the timeline and logic show that. You tried to deny the communications which seems to confirm that you are complicit. Why deny it if there was nothing wrong with communicating with him as you suggest? Why hide it?

I have invited review from other checkusers from the beginning. I proactively posted an email titled "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dominicstudent" on Nov. 14 with CU data before you ever pinged me. I responded on Nov. 15 to the email sent to the functionaries titled "Request Review of CU findings (User:Oluwa2Chainz)" with more info and it included "I welcome other checkusers taking a thorough look." I know from the CU log that others have looked beyond what I posted in the CU email. It hasn't been skipped over and the invitation to review still stands. Any CU may email me to discuss.

You don't leave a lot of room for doubt by doubling down and denying knowledge of communicating with that guy and trying to hide it. His influence in this process is germane to this case. Hidden, proxied unblocking attempts with plausible deniability on your part doesn't work. It is meatpuppetry to have a banned user try to orchestrate or influence from a hidden position. Denying knowledge of that email will leave us at an impasse.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 13:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course CUs work with their check-user evidence but reality check, I do not understand how a sock master would ever want to report their socks. So, you see them as editors and don't consider them as socks? - How do I know they are socks when I have never crossed path with any of them here? It is clear you have taken this whole thing personal and please stop telling me about modem sharing and accusing me of knowing about an email you received or being with Kaizenify because it irks me. As I said earlier, this block does not in any way affect me or this project and if you think I will ever apologize over what I have a clean conscience on, you are wrong. We move on!! —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 14:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

"...how a sockmaster would want to report their socks..." - this statement gets me confused when I attempt to beleive the checkuser evidence. Editors sock to push POV, throw personal attack or to evade blocks but neither of those seem to be the case here. I'm yet to understand the supposed motivation if I were to believe Oluwa2Chainz had engaged in sockpuppetry.

I want to personally appeal to you not to abandon the project, not this way, not anyway. You are the Nigerian editor with the highest number of articles and edits. If you leave, the knowledge gap in African content will take a huge blow. I need you here, Nigeria need you here, ignore the seeminly annoying things about the Wikimedia administration and look at the bigger picture. Like you, I took a similar decision as you've done some years ago, but I came back mainly because I was concerned about Nigerian content, and realistically there is no alternative to Wikipedia in the cyberspace. They have the platform, nomatter how victimized you percieve yourself to be, you just need to tell them what they want to hear for now, albeit truthfully.

Let me also add that the bad thing about being blocked indefinitely is that in a few years time, if you change your mind and decide to come around with a new account, newer editors that do not know the genesis of the case will treat your edits aggressively with a excuse that it was from a banned user. I don't want you to take that path.

To this end, for the sake of clarity, I have a few questions for you. Please ignore any inner meanings to them and just provide answers to them untainted. This will go a long way in assisting the case.

1. Do you have any idea on who Adamk36, Coal Press Nation or Dominicstudent could be? I believe they are not you, but do you have anything to say about them that will make us unravel their sockmaster?
2. Have u ever taught anyone how to edit Wikipedia using your computer or on a shared network?
3. On October 28, did u use a public computer to browse the internet or your personal computer
4. To the best of your knowledge, do you have any friends/families/acquaintances that edit Wikipedia occasionally? (formerly Darreg) HandsomeBoy (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@HandsomeBoy: Of course I feel victimized when I'm seen as a liar by someone who doesn't know anything about me outside Wikipedia. The answer to your questions above is a sound NO. I do not know who the aforementioned users are and with the help of Versace1608 I have always been on the look out for socks of Coal Press Nation because they keep using several accounts to put up promotional articles of upcoming music artists and non-notable persons. I edit from my personal laptop and sometimes my smartphone. @Berean Hunter:, this comment You get caught behind that guy's autoblock...and no one else does is false because Jamie Tubers and Olaniyan Olushola were also caught up with that guy's hard block hence their IPBE user rights. Are you going to say I am same as the aforementioned people or we all edit from that guy's home? If I was a sock of that guy, HighInBC, Yamla or Miniapolis would have detected it when I filed an unblock request. Why deny it if there was nothing wrong with communicating with him as you suggest? Why hide it? — I have previously noted that I have no knowledge about the email you received and I'll like to remind you that I am not the only person you blocked. The other person is a member of WUGN and I wonder why you keep assuming that I am the one who is behind the email when you clearly know that I am not the only person you blocked. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 15:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Oluwa2Chainz. @Bearan Hunter, on a scale of 1-100%, how would you generally rate the accuracy of the Checkuser system? And sorry for the winterstorm, I hope it has subsided now. When I hear things like this on CNN, it makes me truly know that no part of this world is perfect.

This is my final take on this issue. If we can not guarantee that CU results are 100% efficient, then in accordance with WP:AGF, I do not see any compelling behavioral evidence to make me believe that Oluwa2Chainz is not telling the truth. At this point, I think an unblock will be in order considering the level of devotion this editor has shown to Wikipedia over the years and the fact that he has been blocked for over a month. The least we can do is to put faith in him when a computer program isn't. @Berean Hunter I apologize on behalf of o2c, if you felt demeaned by any of his words. I can assure you that he didn't mean them, and as soon as he gets unblocked, all that will be history. HandsomeBoy (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You've linked to this. How is that connected to that guy?

For the other one, the reply "Yes, have been editing since the request because i switched to another internet modem." could be seen as backing up my evidence.

"...edit from my personal laptop..." Where? What kind of circumstances?

Further up the page, I had asked you to review the evidence and after you had replied inferring that you have, I commented about 17 minutes being a short time for that evaluation. You would go on to reveal that you have been following this case all along. If that is so, why didn't you ever respond to try to correct what I stated on Nov. 28, "Oluwa2Chainz originally pinged me to his talk page but then reverted and sent an email to another admin. That admin sent an email and I replied." Sorry, but if someone had wrote that about me and I didn't have an understanding of what the CU was talking about, that would be one of my first questions: What email? I didn't write any email. You responded, "I have answered your questions to the many thing you laid down..." and didn't address my statement about the email at all. After I got more poignant, you denied having any communications with anyone over your block. But that wasn't the case by your own admission. You waited more than two weeks after wanting a checkuser ASAP to file an unblock request and I believe that you wouldn't have done that unless you thought that you had some kind of request going on elsewhere. Your first ping wanting something ASAP is consistent with your general impatience (1, 2) making that two week wait seem unlikely.

"I do not understand how a sock master would ever want to report their socks."

To expound on that, you didn't report the socks. After it had become apparent that Velella had detected that they were socks and filed the SPI case, you suggested that they were CPN by pointing to the stale accounts. Given the circumstances that you pop up under a CU check on them, this could be seen as a deflection tactic because any checkuser requests against CPN would have most likely been declined by an SPI clerk because the accounts are stale and this was already known by you since you were the last one to have filed. The clerk-in-training's endorsement was to check the sock accounts against each other (justified) and potential connection to CPN. Either the clerk didn't recognize the accounts as stale or they did but were hoping that information in the CU logs might help.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your back and forth accusations are really frustrating and sincerely I am losing patience with your continuous dragging of this case. I admitted to the fact that I pinged for a checkuser out of my anxiety to prove my innocence of these allegations but decided to revert my edit then watch from the sideline. You admitted here that there might be a misunderstanding and I'ld like to demand a convincing proof that clearly shows that I am behind that email you received from an admin. I dug up this link because Anthere pointed out that it was not the first time Jamie Tubers was blocked because of a block affecting another user. The first block? The one handed to that guy. You seem to be reading and responding to my comments in a selective manner. I have mentioned two editors who were affected by the same block but you choose to comment on the one that suit your hypothesis. Contrary to your claim, at the time I wrote "I have answered your questions to the many thing you laid down" you never mentioned anything about email or presented any statement about email on this thread. This comment I believe that you wouldn't have done that unless you thought that you had some kind of request going on elsewhere appears to be a fundamental attribution error because you seem to have dismissed other situational factors. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 20:33, 16 December 2017 (UTC)