2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have not engaged in retaliatory SPI filing. Anybody can read on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy how other editors have been affected by User:Nemov's near hundred reverts on Kathleen Kennedy (producer) and yet still to this day he reverts these. For more background, feel free to read that article's Talk Page adn see for years this level of non-NPOV editing. Moreover, I asked politely twice on said Talk Page if said user had a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and he refused to answer. Then a second editor who has articles in common that they have edited together "took over" and using the same verbiage/words started reverting everything else I added. I used the proper channels to ask for a Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry investigation. Moreover, there is consensus on the contentious article's talk page that something must be added, the question is on the how lengthy it should be. Of note, there are over 15 RS' reporting on this topic of criticisms on Kathleen Kennedy for over a year now, and nothing is even mentioned on passing on the article for no WP-related reason at all. I have now been temp. blocked by User:Drmies with no warning of what rules I have broken. Everything I have done before has been always Wikipedia:Assume good faith and trying my best to follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I have not been hounding editors nor posting on their Talk Page, I actually asked the warring editor to stop posting on my Talk Page or messaging me, and have always asked for a non-involved editor. Currently, one is on the contentious BLP and trying their best. Thank you for your time. 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have not engaged in retaliatory SPI filing. Anybody can read on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy]] how other editors have been affected by [[User:Nemov]]'s near hundred reverts on [[Kathleen Kennedy (producer)]] and yet still to this day he reverts these. For more background, feel free to read that article's Talk Page adn see for years this level of non-NPOV editing. Moreover, I asked politely twice on said Talk Page if said user had a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] and he refused to answer. Then a second editor who has articles in common that they have edited together "took over" and using the same verbiage/words started reverting everything else I added. I used the proper channels to ask for a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry]] investigation. Moreover, there is consensus on the contentious article's talk page that something must be added, the question is on the how lengthy it should be. Of note, there are over 15 RS' reporting on this topic of criticisms on Kathleen Kennedy for over a year now, and nothing is even mentioned on passing on the article for no WP-related reason at all. I have now been temp. blocked by [[User:Drmies]] with no warning of what rules I have broken. Everything I have done before has been always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] and trying my best to follow [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I have not been hounding editors nor posting on their Talk Page, I actually asked the warring editor to stop posting on my Talk Page or messaging me, and have always asked for a non-involved editor. Currently, one is on the contentious BLP and trying their best. Thank you for your time. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993|2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993#top|talk]]) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not engaged in retaliatory SPI filing. Anybody can read on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy]] how other editors have been affected by [[User:Nemov]]'s near hundred reverts on [[Kathleen Kennedy (producer)]] and yet still to this day he reverts these. For more background, feel free to read that article's Talk Page adn see for years this level of non-NPOV editing. Moreover, I asked politely twice on said Talk Page if said user had a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] and he refused to answer. Then a second editor who has articles in common that they have edited together "took over" and using the same verbiage/words started reverting everything else I added. I used the proper channels to ask for a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry]] investigation. Moreover, there is consensus on the contentious article's talk page that something must be added, the question is on the how lengthy it should be. Of note, there are over 15 RS' reporting on this topic of criticisms on Kathleen Kennedy for over a year now, and nothing is even mentioned on passing on the article for no WP-related reason at all. I have now been temp. blocked by [[User:Drmies]] with no warning of what rules I have broken. Everything I have done before has been always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] and trying my best to follow [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I have not been hounding editors nor posting on their Talk Page, I actually asked the warring editor to stop posting on my Talk Page or messaging me, and have always asked for a non-involved editor. Currently, one is on the contentious BLP and trying their best. Thank you for your time. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993|2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993#top|talk]]) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have not engaged in retaliatory SPI filing. Anybody can read on [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy]] how other editors have been affected by [[User:Nemov]]'s near hundred reverts on [[Kathleen Kennedy (producer)]] and yet still to this day he reverts these. For more background, feel free to read that article's Talk Page adn see for years this level of non-NPOV editing. Moreover, I asked politely twice on said Talk Page if said user had a [[Wikipedia:Conflict of interest]] and he refused to answer. Then a second editor who has articles in common that they have edited together "took over" and using the same verbiage/words started reverting everything else I added. I used the proper channels to ask for a [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry]] investigation. Moreover, there is consensus on the contentious article's talk page that something must be added, the question is on the how lengthy it should be. Of note, there are over 15 RS' reporting on this topic of criticisms on Kathleen Kennedy for over a year now, and nothing is even mentioned on passing on the article for no WP-related reason at all. I have now been temp. blocked by [[User:Drmies]] with no warning of what rules I have broken. Everything I have done before has been always [[Wikipedia:Assume good faith]] and trying my best to follow [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]. I have not been hounding editors nor posting on their Talk Page, I actually asked the warring editor to stop posting on my Talk Page or messaging me, and have always asked for a non-involved editor. Currently, one is on the contentious BLP and trying their best. Thank you for your time. [[Special:Contributions/2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993|2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993]] ([[User talk:2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993#top|talk]]) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:242B:FD57:8D2F:6993 (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

---