User talk:At odds

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).

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

Request reason:

What is this? A blatant breach of Wikipedia:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet & Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations. This is definitely a white terror act if this kind of block is not just an accident. It's unbelievable that an admin dares to restore an article to a poor quality status in the name of sockpuppet. I guess that admin's account has been either compromised or WP:MEAT. @Jimbo Wales, Beeblebrox, Bradv, Casliber, David Fuchs, DGG, GorillaWarfare, KrakatoaKatie, Joe Roe, Maxim, Newyorkbrad, SoWhy, Worm That Turned, and Xeno: This blocking admin's account might have been stolen and requires to be secured! When I was a reader in my elementary school, I always admired CheckUsers and thought that they're busy protecting Wikipedia against WP:Vandalism. Now, I get some of them might be interested in making time to WP:bullying good faith newbies. Very disappointed! To User:Greyjoy, do you think the current version of secretomotor supersedes the earlier version? I don't know what are you talking about? I accidentally came to that article and found that how was an older version better cited than the newer? Is it my improvement of that article a WP:disruption or it's your reporting that was without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research that constituted WP:disruption? I am here to contribute to an encyclopedia. How about you? Can you please explain the intention behind your reporting? Thank you!

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Attacking the blocking admin and pinging Jimmy Wales and members of the Arbitration Committee is not the way to get yourself unblocked, and it will be considered disruptive if you do it again and could lose you the ability to edit this talk page too. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:23, 6 April 2020 (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.