User talk:Covius

March 2025

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. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 14:57, 30 March 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Not sure why you blocked me or why you are accusing me of being a "sockpuppet"? Covius (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. 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) 11:27, 31 March 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't think you understand Yamla. I was erroneously blocked because Swatjester thinks I am someone else. I did not do anything wrong here. It's just a case of mistaken identity. Why not just apologize and unblock instead of this runaround? LOL Covius (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The combative stance taken in this unblock request, and in the discussion below, render the question of whether or not this is a case of misidentification moot. You have given me no confidence that you are here in good faith to improve the project. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:28, 15 April 2025 (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 unblock request does not address the concern. You state that this block is erroneous. Can you provide any evidence to quell concerns about sockpuppetry? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely flabbergasted by all of this. Is this how you people welcome new editors? LOLCovius (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about explaining why your very first edit to this project happens to be reverting to continue a checkuser-confirmed banned sockpuppet's edit war? ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:50, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining it? I saw what had happened in that article and I did a revision after examining the content of the previous version - the subject of the article is something I was informed about in the news, and the new information that other editors had added to it were quite up-to-date and valid. Next think I know I was blocked for being someone else that I am not.Covius (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find that extremely unlikely and unconvincing, given the incredibly obscure nature of the article subject and general lack of news coverage about it (it's been over a month since the most recent news article about it, which coincides exactly with the timing of the banned sockpuppet user's interest). Additionally, your speech patterns mirror theirs as well. In any event, I will not be reversing my block, pending the outcome of a technical confirmation request (CheckUser). ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 17:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry SWATjester, but not only are you extremely rude, but you are obviously blocking admins for no reason and than asking them to prove why they should be allowed to edit? Yes, 1 month old news IS a very recent update on the subject of this article which, in its current revision, is based on incorrect 12 year old information that has now been corrected with recent 1 month old news reports. Based on my experience here, I am willing to bet you permanently blocked the other editor(s) for no reason as well! Covius (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting me and casting aspersions isn't going to get you unblocked. Technical data has confirmed the other users being sockpuppets, and we're waiting on the same confirmation for you. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 01:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]