IDCOVReveal

IDCOVReveal, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi IDCOVReveal! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Lectonar (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. --- Possibly (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• The question you posed towards Scope creep was unacceptable, as it implied something fairly vile. This block is a caution and warning. Any further comments of this nature will lead to another block and the next one may be permanent. Do not make personal attacks against another individual on Wikipedia, particularly when it relates to something that is a sex crime. This is unacceptable and Wikipedia has zero tolerance towards this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

It was not a ‘sex crime’ it was more an ‘abuse crime’ because why would you call it sex unless there is something wrong with a person thinking ‘it’s right’. I did not make any personal attacks, I don’t know Scope Creep in person, if I did I would say a different story. IDCOVReveal (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

New to Wikipedia, but got banned miscalculately IDCOVReveal (talk) 20:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I suggest you sit it out; this block was a warning. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:59, 7 June 2021 (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.

Take Jpgordon's advice. I was shocked that you were only blocked for 31 hours. Wikipedia doesn't tolerate that sort of personal attack here. --Yamla (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Two unblock requests after the first one was rejected. I suggest revoking talk page access until the end of the current block. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Miscalculation IDCOVReveal (talk) 23:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

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. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:35, 8 June 2021 (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.

I have read the comment the resulted in your block I and can tell you right now that you are getting off easy. If I was the blocking admin seeing that from a brand new account the block would have been more severe. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 02:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• I support the indef. I was tempted to give an indef as well, but wanted to give this user one last chance. Their actions here show that they don't understand why they were blocked and show that they would almost certainly continue in this vein if they continued. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:24, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:IDCOVReveal reported by User:Possibly (Result: ). Thank you. --- Possibly (talk) 01:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)