Atlas0001

June 2020

Procedural note: CU is not indicating this is a sock, but as the edits precisely mirror those of other socks the question is moot per WP:NOTHERE. I changed to a NOTHERE block instead as the edits are (unlike the block) pretty obviously not in line with WP:BLP. Guy (help!) 16:27, 4 June 2020 (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).

Atlas0001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking politically motivated, i'm not a sock puppet and don't violate Wikipedia policy as i do not have another account en:wikipedia but in another language. This blocking was made in order to block me from mentioning the sourced criminal record of George Floyd, censored on his article by Black Lives Matter activists and by dishonest methods (including blocking people, changing peoples' signatures, removing peoples' comments in talk pages and so on). Atlas0001 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

1) You started off with personal attacks in your unblock request, so that is an immediate disqualifier. 2) If your only purpose here is to fight with other editors over the content of Killing_of_George_Floyd, then you will not be unblocked. 3) You claim not to be single purpose account? Clearly, that's the appearance. What other edits on what other subjects would you make? 4)Please see below--I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have not adequately addressed the reason for your block.

Please see our policy on edit warring. In the event of a content dispute, editors are required to stop reverting, discuss, and seek consensus among editors on the relevant talk page. If discussions reach an impasse, editors can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution.

Points to ponder:

Edit warring is wrong even if one is right.

Any arguments in favor of one's preferred version should be made on the relevant talk page and not in an unblock appeal.

Calling attention to the faults of others is never a successful strategy; one must address one's own behavior.

To be unblocked, you must affirm an understanding of all of this, and what not to do, and what to do when in a content dispute. Please tell us, in your own words, what it all means. Thanks, --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:25, 9 June 2020 (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.

You've said you don't violate Wikipedia policies and that you have a Wikipedia account on a non-English Wiki, which means you understand those policies. However, you clearly went to 7RR after being warned here on your Talk Page at the 3RR mark. Do you acknowledge that you violated the edit warring policy, and that your reverts were not covered by any 3RR exceptions? That would be a good place to start in clearing this up. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Politically motivated

Just so you know, last week I was threatened by people with the opposite political take that you have. Whenever an admin receives such threats, it probably means it's because we have done a good job stopping non neutral editors who want to make a battlefield out of this encyclopedia. Please pardon me while I SMDH and your assertion of "politically motivated". Nope. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Yeah. If you cannot get along with people with different political views from your own, Wikipedia might not be a good fit for you. --Deep fried okra (schalte ein) 17:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)