Kanikosen
December 2023 edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Kanikosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think Milan Tepić page should be locked untill these is concensus at talk page. Kanikosen (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Not an unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 18:47, 27 December 2023 (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.
Kanikosen (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Kanikosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I was blocked with an expiration time of indefinite? While Silverie edited again and again without using talk page of article? Why is that? In talk you can see we have 0 concensus about War Criminal status that is try to pin on Tepić. What court convicted him? Kanikosen (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
WP:NOTTHEM. Unblock requests are not a place to discuss the content of articles. I strongly suggest you have a read of WP:GAB. stwalkerster (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2023 (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.
Kanikosen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am writing to once again appeal the recent block decision imposed on my Wikipedia account. I believe the block was unwarranted, and I would like to provide a detailed explanation of my actions and concerns.
Adherence to Wikipedia Policies: Throughout my contributions, I have consistently followed the WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss) process in an attempt to reach a new consensus - I was WP:BOLD and changed the article aftter which, following WP:BRD I initiated the discussion on talk page in en effort to ensure that content adheres to Wikipedia's core policies, especially when it pertains to verifiability and neutrality. In response, although my main objection was not disputed, the article was reverted again multiple times by colleagues, again stating the unsubstantiated claims within the article, which I was forced to revert while discussing the matter in parallel, again as recommended within WP:BRD.
Concerns about Content: My primary concern revolves around the inclusion of unsourced claims labeling Milan Tepic as a war criminal. Despite multiple attempts to discuss and request verifiable sources from my colleagues, no concrete evidence was provided. The sole reference offered was a newspaper article citing "some" unnamed Croats' beliefs - basically, the claim in the article that "some Croats believe Tepic is a war criminal" is backed with claim from the newspaper that "some Croats believe Tepic is a war criminal". Such vague attributions set a concerning precedent for Wikipedia's content quality and neutrality - by such standard, if we wanted, we could insert a similar claim even in the article about Mother Teresa - for I am 100% certain that "some Croats" also believe Mother Teresa is a war criminal.
Citing Jimbo Wales' Guidelines: I would like to reference Jimbo Wales' guidelines, particularly from [1]. As emphasized, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research." In this instance, the absence of credible sources to substantiate claims against Milan Tepic raises significant concerns about the article's neutrality and factual accuracy.
Upholding WP:NRSNVNA: My actions were also aligned with [WP:NRSNVNA], which stresses the importance of removing unverified, speculative information, especially when it pertains to negative claims about living individuals. I stand by my commitment to this policy and believe that my edits were in line with its principles.
In conclusion, I appeal for a reconsideration of the block decision and request a thorough review of the Milan Tepic article's content and it's sources. I remain committed to contributing constructively to Wikipedia and upholding its core values of neutrality, verifiability, and accuracy. Kanikosen (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were blocked for disruptive editing, and you seem to be trying to justify it, not tell us why it was wrong or what you will do differently. You also have not said why you need your access to editing that article restored. You are only blocked from the article involved itself- please use the talk page to discuss your concerns to arrive at a consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2023 (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.
ANI notice edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Michael Z. 17:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)