User talk:WikiCoverings11111

a question

have you ever edited wikipedia before, under any other accounts or ip addresses? lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I never edited Wikipedia before, just normally discovered it. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 08:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how did you find out about userboxes? lettherebedarklight 晚安 08:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did this by search through the web on Wikipedia and added it via source editor. Therefore, these look very different enough to identify me as a user who loves to edit Wikipedia. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 08:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please do not report me to an admin? Thank you already. Still not the same user. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 09:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

explanation

Can you explain this and how you even found the discussion in the first place? Valereee (talk) 10:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found this by replying to my talk page on how I got those userboxes and answer the first question about editing Wikipedia to say never to that. But however, he decided to report me to a admin in where they’re going to block me for that reason, when just in fact, I never did anything wrong, I didn’t have an account before starting to use one. Even further to that, I don’t have similarities to an other account edited in the past, I have different favorites and interests to that, this is why I discovered and blank the discussion section. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 10:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I’m not the same person as the other account. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 11:05, 15 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:ChronicleBooks885 per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885. 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.

--Blablubbs (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez

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).

WikiCoverings11111 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recently discovered that Bbb23 just reported me to SPI and requested a checkuser on and confirmed that I misuse accounts, but I did not. Can somebody please explain why did an admin requested a checkuser to perform check on me without my consent? Also, there are no similarities on my edits.than other accounts used. Another explanation is why did you get other accounts on checkuser when several of these accounts are completely inactive and have no contributions on their accounts? Also, these few accounts are created a month ago and are unused. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 20:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Obvious massive abuse of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:28, 15 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.

~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 20:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need your consent to run a checkuser. The report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicleBooks885 sufficiently established a violation of WP:SOCK was very possible. It's unclear in your unblock request if you are admitting some or all of these accounts do indeed belong to you or if you are claiming none of them do. --Yamla (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla I know that I got blocked on editing Wikipedia, but some accounts listed on checkuser made zero edits and are unused a month ago. What are the steps of spotting sockpuppetry? ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 21:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I never knew that hidden accounts are going to be brought up by a checkuser. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 22:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the main purposes of WP:CHECKUSER. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 22:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpgordon @Yamla In other words, how am I obviously massively abuse multiple accounts when I only did minor edits and there are created accounts unused for months? Explain this. ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 23:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

let's just ignore this person, they're only here to troll. lettherebedarklight 晚安 03:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lettherebedarklight Why I’m being accused of trolling only, especially Teahouse? ~WikiCoverings11111 (message) 03:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please revoke talk page access. lettherebedarklight 晚安 04:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]