CatLoverOdie

odie welcomes you!

April 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Note for reviewing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuackDoctor --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

You are blocked for sockpuppetry

Can you honestly expect us to believe that all four of you thundered in out of the night to make the same edits and are yet not connected in any way. It boggles the mind.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC) In point of fact, your accusation against NeilN is false as he merely reverted the edit of one of your socks. After which you returned in this guise to repeat the edit that your prior sock made. Pro-tip: this is called quacking.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I was not blocked for sockpuppetry, but for "disruption". What disruption? As for your accusations about the other accounts, the investigation will show that I have nothing to do with these accounts, the IP is from another country that I can tell. The only thing that boggles the mind is the amount of admin abuse and baseless presumptions. It is clear that NeilN uses different standards based on his POV. CatLoverOdie (talk) 06:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I cannot even post to defend against baseless claims even though it says I can post a comment in my defense on the sockpuppet page. I have nothing to do with other accounts, I was blocked in bad faith because I run onto admins pet article / editor who was already unblocked by the same admin. Wikipedia is a disgrace with such bully "admins". CatLoverOdie (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2018 (UTC) {unblock|reason=I made no disruptive edits - participating in a discussion is not disruptive. This admin is blocking people to push his POV.}

Blocked as a sockpuppet

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).

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

---

Request reason:

This is outrageous - now the same vindictive admin is blocking me for "sockpuppetry" despite the evidence from checkuser to the contrary. Isn't someone else supposed to check the evidence, not the biased admin, who has agenda here and was involved in the first block? Despite the fact that I am not in the same country as other accounts per investigation evidence, the abusive admin blocked me now indefinitely? Shouldn't someone ELSE make a judgement, not the very admin who started the case and ignores the evidence

Decline reason:

Try again, this time without the personal attacks and addressing the evidence raised at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/QuackDoctor. Yamla (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2018 (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 don't think we've had sock masters who use VPNs and webhosts before? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)