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

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).

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)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline: block has expired. Favonian (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2024 (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.

---