Hello, I'm Blue-Sonnet. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to University of Lagos have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take a look at our guidelines about external links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Blue-Sonnet 21:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine. I added the school's website. It's the school's official website. Distrigency (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - those would go in an External links section, the article itself should only link to other pages within Wikipedia. Blue-Sonnet 04:50, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

this information is very insightful. I am happy i got to learn this from you. Would you be able to check an article i edited but now moved to draftspace? I will be glad to get help to make the draft better and get it back for public view. The creator of the page may have been disappointed that i edited his or her work and now it has been reverted to draft.

While i continue to improve my experience here, i have seen the links shared with me to learn more about wikipedia editing. With you and some other contributors helping, i am sure i will become better. thank you once again Blue sonnet Distrigency (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Jidex Distrigency (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Distrigency! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

If you have questions, just use this link to ask for help; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Blue-Sonnet 04:12, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

aww you are far too kind. I appreciate this warm welcome. How could you help with the existing contributions i made? In a bid to improve the outlook of the topic i found, i may have negatively affected it and now it has been moved to draftspace. Do you edit drafts? Could you work with me to ensure it is properly done. Distrigency (talk) 04:21, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I work with blocked editors & disputes more than articles, but you can look into whether you have a mentor & request one if you don't - see Wikipedia:Mentorship.

There are also lots of different WikiProjects where you can talk to other editors who have similar interests, and work together on articles you find interesting. Blue-Sonnet 04:53, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

sadly, my mentor does not respond to messages. I am even happy that you are here providing tangible contributions that has been helpful. I wish i could switch mentors. Regardless, could you take a look at the draft, see the disputes on it. Check for me if i can submit it for review or do i need the main article creator to do all of that. I feel bad for affecting his works. Distrigency (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mentorship#How_can_I_get_a_different_mentor?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:14, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

thanks so much for this suggestion. Nice to meet you. What niche do you like more on wikipedia Distrigency (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty diverse, I scroll some noticeboards like Teahouse and WP:FTN for interesting stuff. I've edited on Shakespeare, religion, politics, pop-cult and UFO-related stuff. If you stick around, you'll get access to the WP:LIBRARY, if you're interested in access to a lot of good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

smooth and amazing. Well done.

Could you please check this draftspace to check if it is now good to go for review.Jidex Distrigency (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I might get back to this, but atm I will not. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, take your time and do it at your earliest convenience. Thank you

Distrigency (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Thank you for the note regarding my previous request and formatting.

I would like to appeal this block. While I understand that it is based on overlapping editing patterns with the Dahproman account. I want to clearly state that I do not own, operate neither do i have any connection to that account and I do not know the individual behind it whether female or male.

I also want you to know that I understand that the combination of technical signals and similar editing topics may create like a strong appearance of connection. I believe this may be due to my independent focus on similar niche topics.

I take Wikipedia’s policies seriously and understand the concerns here. If unblocked, I am willing to edit under strict conditions, including avoiding the topics involved, or any other restrictions that would eliminate further overlap or concern.

My intention is to contribute constructively and transparently using only this account. I respectfully request a second review and am open to any conditions you consider appropriate.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Distrigency (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Newer appeal below. Also, likely AI-generated. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2026 (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 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. PhilKnight (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2026 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to appeal this block. I really do understand that it seemingly relates to the alleged sockpuppetry connecting me to Dahproman. I am stating this that I do not own, control neither do i manage or have any connection to that account and I don’t know the individual behind it whether female or male. I have also not contacted him or her but the community only for solutions. I was even skeptical when i made that edit and it was flagged for use of grammatical software to rewrite the english.

I believe this could be a sort of misunderstanding possibly because of the fact that i attempted to perfect the error made when i started editiing or technical factors. Also note that I am editing independently and in good faith. I have sought for more help on this than to take laws into my own hands especially through tea house.

I respect Wikipedia’s policies regarding multiple accounts and will continue to use only this account in compliance with the rules. I am also willing to follow any guidance as the case may be. Tell me what to do, i will do it.

I kindly request that the block be reviewed. Thank you for your time and thank you for also protecting our dear community. Distrigency (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request appears to have been written by a chatbot using a large language model. The purpose of unblock requests is to determine whether you, the human operating this account, understand why you were blocked – not to test a chatbot's ability to tell us what we want to hear. A message written (or rewritten) by a chatbot can also cause you to sound like you're making empty promises. It is better to write the unblock request yourself. Please read through the guide to appealing blocks for more help. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:10, 8 June 2026 (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.

That this is a checkuser block means there could be a technical connection that linked the two accounts together. While that information cannot be revealed by WMF policy, it's frequently something like IP addresses and user agents. Given the overlap of nearly a third of your edits over multiple articles, with a couple of them only edited by a few people of the 8.3 billion on this planet, a simple denial is going to be a hard sell. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this clarification. While i understand that this is based on data and overlapping editing patterns and I appreciate you for sharing this fact.

I want to state once again clearly that I do not own or operate the Dahproman account and I have no personal connection to the anyone behind the account. However, I acknowledge that there may be a sort of technical or coincident reasons that could explain such an overlap. I majorly use Wikipedia through shared or common networks via our MTN fibre network which could have resulted in IP or user-agent similarities but i am verybsure that i have been editing with just my laptop and no one else has access to it.

Regarding the editing overlap, I am aware that my focus on similar or niche topics may have contributed to the appearance of coordination. This was not intentional coordination with another user but rather , it is a reflection of my independent interests.

I understand why this could have raised concerns, trust me I take Wikipedia’s policies very seriously. This is the more reason why i went to teahouse to ask questions as guide. I have also reached out to my mentor. Even when the previous did not reply, i had to change to a more responsive one. I am committed to editing transparently, using only this account and avoiding any situation that could appear misleading. If unblocked, I am willing to follow any restrictions or guidance you consider appropriate. For a third time, i have gone through the policies attached to wikipedia.

I respectfully ask that this be reviewed again in light of my explanation. Thank you so much for coming through. Distrigency (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Only one open request is needed at a time. Please click "edit" and not "reply" to edit this page, the reply function is imperfect and doesn't work well in all situations; its automatic indent and signing interferes with other formatting like unblock requests. 331dot (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: you did the CU; would the above explanation (of shared network connection) account for the technical evidence you found? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@DoubleGrazing: - the technical evidence is that they share a range and the user agents match. As technical evidence goes, it isn't especially strong. However, combined with the behavioral evidence, I still think the block is correct. PhilKnight (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification knight. I quite understand that your concern is based on a combination of technical and behavioral factors.

I appreciate the careful review that has gone into this discussion.

I actually maintain that I am editing independently and have no connection to any other account. I also want to let you know that i understand why the overlap in editing interests and patterns raised concerns.

When you come through on this and i am allowed to continue editing, I will be more mindful about avoiding conduct or topic overlap that could create similar concerns in the future and I will ensure my contributions remain transparent and policy-compliant.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. Distrigency (talk) 07:12, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks @PhilKnight. I was thinking that if their explanation CU-wise holds water then this might be worth some ROPE since no apparent abuse has been taking place. But obviously I'm not about to question the technical evidence of dispute your conclusions thereof. Thanks, --- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very nuch for your comment and for considering my explanation in good faith. I understand all the concerns involved and I have corrected myself by removing the autocorrect part of my keyboard and also have studied the guidelines and policies at wikipedia. I also will appreciate you for the approach being taken here.

If I am given another chance to edit, I intend to do it very carefully, transparently and in full compliance with Wikipedia policies. I also want to use this moment to appreciate the thoughtful consideration from everyone involved. My hope is to continue contributing constructively under this account and rebuild trust through. I will also appreciate every possible support going forward to become a better editor.

Lastly, i have also committed to avoiding any misconducts or mistakes that could create further confusion or suspicion in the future. Thank you again for taking the time to review my appeal fairly. Distrigency (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]