User talk:9t5 - Knowledge (XXG)

1591:

would lead to the entire article being deleted. I don’t think it’s fair for a user to be having such fears and anxieties when only wanting to collaboratively contribute to this site that we all love so much. It’s very toxic and unhealthy, and some users.. most concerning of all admins.. seem to almost exclusively contribute to this website when it is stoking the fires of that anxiety and toxicity. I cannot imagine being on this website with the exclusive intention of deleting information & blocking people.. because personally what I love about this site is the ability to bring new information to it and to expand the free information this world has access to. I think that is the beauty of this project, and then of course the other stuff is necessary when situations call for it, but could you imagine being on here every single day.. not writing new articles, contributing to existing ones or even making templates to make this place better? Instead just ripping information off of here… starting arguments… causing anxiety in editors.. and blocking people day in and day out? I guess all I can do is pity such a person, because they have to be unhappy in life to find joy in that.

1417:

For the record, the comment left on the discussion is correct. The essay was written in response to a MfD discussion regarding a contest I was trying to start that would encourage engagement from editors in friendly competition in the hopes of helping editor retention. I also pledged to donate money to the Wikimedia foundation for every entry that the contest received, so the intentions were good and sought to solve the retention issue. Again, your confusion over a term is not a reason to initiate a MfD. Now that this has been clarified, you are welcome (and encouraged) to withdraw your nomination. If you do not, I look forward to challenging your nomination after the restoration of my editing privileges.

837:

certainly fits the bill as harassment. Furthermore, following me bringing this to the attention of admins, I was blocked from editing and then one of my articles was deleted without a proper AfD discussion despite it being listed as Mid-Importance to some NYC WikiProjects, all of my essays have been nominated for deletion, another article of mine was nominated for deletion.. JUST LOOK AT MY TALK PAGE AND TELL ME THAT I AM NOT BEING TARGETED. Better yet, go to “page information” on my user page and look at the traffic to my user page following my request to the admin noticeboard to review SFR’s adminship following the discovery of some EXTREMELY concerning facts regarding their confirmation as admin.

1833:

today in my feed, and I marked one as reviewed, draftified one, and nominated one for deletion that wasn't eligible for draftification. The reason I did this is that two of the three I reviewed did not meet one of our standards for notability. You are a prolific editor, but when I look at your page creations (which for the most part have been in the past few months) I see a lack of awareness of notability standards. I hate to see any editor do work that ultimately gets deleted. So, after your block is lifted, you may find it helpful not to immediately return to creating pages on non-notable current events and hyper-local topics. By focusing on topics that the

1912:

contributions. You can’t change the truth, and you can’t stop me from speaking it. I have lived enough life to know what it looks like when people are afraid of you. They will silence you, smear your name, gaslight and belittle you. I know it well. I will be patient, I will document and I will eventually respond in a way that will make clear my feelings on the current attack that is underway against me. I am well aware that the premature adminship of one user is not the whole issue, but rather the tip of an iceberg that has yet to be discovered. Corruption is seldom disorganized. Just remember what I said about the media watching these discussions.

1862:

say that I have always fairly considered others input and I do not challenge things unless I see a reason to. That is why I do not have any grievances to air regarding your nominations, as I respect them and even alluded to one of the nominations being appropriate and warranted by stating I need to fix the article and hopefully by the time the discussion concludes you will feel compelled to withdraw it per my corrections. I just need to be able to edit again first. As this is my one and only account and I have zero intentions of circumventing a block no matter how unjustified I believe it to be.

980:: the reason why there were no sources pointing to the conviction and sentencing of the perp who committed that crime was because the initial source to it was on the victims Knowledge (XXG) article, and the other pages included a wiki link to that article so they didn’t need to have the source included as an inline citation there was well. Considering that article was deleted following YOUR nomination of it, the inline citation simply needs to be added to the other pages since the sections cannot wiki link to the article anymore. I plan to amend this issue tomorrow as well. 758:’s adminship privileges. As for the accusation of utilizing AI, not only is it baseless and untrue, but it also seeks to distract from the issue at hand. I hardly think your false accusation of AI usage carries the same weight of concern that the concern of an amateur editor in possession of admin privileges carries. Keep in mind, this person holds template editing privileges. If they can’t handle basic policy, why are they capable of taking this entire encyclopedia down with the click of a button? 1198: 58: 704:: The message submitted by 9t5 contained several reasons for the proposed removal of adminship from ScottishFinnishRadish. However, many of these reasons appeared to be irrelevant or exaggerated, lacking substantial evidence. The tone and structure of the message suggest it may have been generated or significantly influenced by an AI tool, which raises questions about the intentionality and relevance of the content provided. 3637: 3346: 1505:

draftify is the proper course of action. I say this with all due respect, it was absolutely inappropriate to remove the article without a discussion especially since the articles author is currently restrained by a block. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say you somehow were unaware of this, regardless of the fact that when you go to edit my user page or talk page it explicitly informs you of this.

710:: The points highlighted by 9t5, such as the "Premature Adminship Grant" and "Edit Count and Quality," seemed to emphasize data and criteria that do not necessarily warrant adminship removal under current Knowledge (XXG) policies. The emphasis on such factors, without substantial context or understanding of Knowledge (XXG)'s nuanced guidelines, suggests a disconnect that might be indicative of AI involvement. 3583: 3519: 2020: 256: 3828: 3786: 151: 1367: 1274: 1097: 3108: 30: 529: 329: 716:: It would be beneficial for the community to understand whether AI tools were used to draft or influence the message. If so, clarity on how these tools were employed and whether they impacted the fairness and accuracy of the concerns raised is essential. This transparency will help ensure that future discussions and decisions are based on genuine human judgment and understanding. 1561:

defensiveness as a response to feeling extremely targeted might make certain editors feel less upset by my response to them. As for other editors, who I will not name, they can be offended all they want because their actions on here simply do not reflect the values that Knowledge (XXG) as a whole stands for. However you are not one of those editor. Thank you for reviewing

3448: 1378: 2072:. You have nominated the article based on a presumed lack of notability in the future. That is not a reason to delete an article. The case is still in pre-trial and the arraignment was the only court date so far. Court proceedings go slow and take time. The reason you are not seeing any news about it is because of this. 2973:: I requested the undeletion of the essay since it was being heavily referenced in the noticeboard discussion. I felt it was important for people to see it themselves to make an informed judgment. Anyone reading this is welcome to remove the notices I placed on the discussions, which are holding back the deletion. 1838:

think throwing around accusations about "cronies" and "corruption" is unlikely to lead you to a more productive Knowledge (XXG) experience. Without evidence to offer, continuing with that kind of personal attack will eventually result in an indefinite block. Just my two cents, volunteer to volunteer. Good luck.

2391:, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. 1653:, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top. 1976:

about what was ultimately a minor content dispute with SFR, and stop writing LLM essays that are pretty much thinly veiled attacks on him. Just be nice to other editors, and please don't assume someone is incompetent just for disagreeing with you once, or that everyone is out to get you just to cover

1832:

I really do not like to get involved in Knowledge (XXG) drama, so I'll say this once and be done. When I'm doing new page reviews, I specifically patrol articles created by blocked users because those often have the most content problems that need to be addressed as part of NPP. Your articles came up

1700:

is a coward. They didn’t even notify me or give me the chance to contest the deletion by removing the tag. That article was of mid-importance to New York City. How you could all behave like this when challenged on your behavior is frightening. I think the admins of Knowledge (XXG) need to take a long

1560:

I am unable to thank you for your edit so I will just say thank you here. Thank you. I truly do not mind being challenged. I am understandably overwhelmed by the onslaught I am facing while simultaneously unable to even edit. Compassion for another human being could go a long way here and noticing my

3547:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of

1416:

I plan to contest your nomination tomorrow when I get my editing rights back. Your confusion over a term in the essay is an absolutely inappropriate reason to cite as your reason to initiate a MfD discussion. Next time, write on my talk page asking for clarification on what “creative contest” means.

961:

essentially confirmed at this point, but I think a proper audit should definitely be conducted into specific circumstances that indicated much more deceptive behavior from users. I look forward to the input from arbitration regarding their willingness to investigate. Given I had approached the admin

2932:

and the block placed on me, AND IT IS THE FIRST BLOCK I HAVE EVER RECEIVED. How after having my contributions absolutely targeted and me being utteringly harassed nonstop by these editors — are you going going to honor their attempt to have me banned when this is my first block I have ever received

1861:

article and noticed this as odd behavior to come from an editor intending to harass or distress me. I, admittedly, chose the wrong person to air my frustrations to. I also have had 7 nominations against me in under 24 hours and I’m blocked. The compassion thing always stands true. I confidently can

840:

All I had done was try to defend this encyclopedia against harm, and all I got in response was blocked, unable to defend my contributions as they are torn apart without proper consensus, and harassed by users seeking to discourage me from editing. Which is harassment by Knowledge (XXG)’s standards.

1837:

recognizes as notable, your time spent here may feel more productive. There are things the community decides that I don't agree with, but I keep my focus on creating strong articles that do pass the test and in reviewing pages to ensure that problematic content is handled according to policy. I do

1776:

was the reason listed for its deletion and the discussion is just full of delete votes, should not take a rocket scientist to see that I am being harassed and my contributions being completely stepped all over. I will address this through the proper venues in due time. Thank you for your concerns.

1504:

I am letting you know in advance that at some point tomorrow I will revert the edit. When I do this, I will immediately leave a message on your talk page letting you know, and at that point you are free to mark the article for deletion discussion and specify on the discussion page that you believe

927:

I also find it hysterical that you just so happen to have been an editor keeping an eye on the admin notice board and able to respond to this comment I made on it because the argument between myself and you was the VERY REASON why SFR found me, and subsequently nominated my article for deletion in

1590:

that I 100% agreed with but again I am just sitting here waiting for my block to expire. I agree that the legacy section was a bit too informal. I’m happy someone went ahead and took care of that, because I wanted to amend that issue and was fearful that in the event I didn’t do it fast enough it

780:

If it is any comfort to you, the reason you have such a high percentage of deleted edits is because you requested the deletion of your user page (even though your user page exists now, there are 677 deleted edits which is ~15% of your total). These can be restored so they are viewable in the page

1757:

I know you already know but if you don’t mind I want to say for anyone reading this talk page: I addressed this in a previous comment when I said I am clearly and I think reasonably overwhelmed by the fact that when I was seeking help via the admin noticeboard, it has led to me being blocked and

1000:

I also think you are mistaken about what counts as a "deleted edit" on Xtools (which is where I got the statistic). Reverted edits are not considered "deleted". "Deleted" edits are edits which are no longer accessible in the page history. So if you are reverted, those still count as "live" edits

443:

and that the nominator is trying to claim that somehow the content of the coverage being of “insignificance” (an opinion not a fact) makes it fail WP:SIGCOV, when in fact all WP:SIGCOV states is that a subject has to be more than a trivial mention in a reliable, third party source. Check. Check.

2428:

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend my article. I will be editing it tonight, however I will be unable to make those edits live until tomorrow night due to a block currently on my account. I will be considering your reasons listed for the nomination while making corrections to the

2233:

The case has already led to a city-wide manhunt in New York City. So not sure what you’re on about being uncertain notability-wise. It just seems like you think you know it all and are assuming that the reporting in the future will only be local outlets so you’re trying to cover yourself now by

2162:

You are failing to recognize that your nomination is being made on the presumption that the trial will not be covered in the media. You are not a psychic and the nomination is faulty. That’s what tends to happen when you make a nomination simply because you are trying to harass an editor as per

1798:

and for the record I believe you are incorrect. I believe that there is an abundance of corruption amongst administrators. You likely think that the claims are unfounded because you yourself do not partake in unjustified editing (I am assuming this, of course, based solely on the fact that upon

827:

as reason to remove my edits in their entirety rather than make simple edits to correct the issue, despite another admin being able to very quickly see that the right solution was to simply amend the edit to remove the name and not the edit in its entirety, it is clear that SFR was intending to

832:

defines harassment as behavior that "appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually, the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Knowledge (XXG) unpleasant for the target, to undermine,

818:

In order for my % to drop so drastically, about 1,300 edits of mine would have needed to be removed. Let’s keep in mind the deletion of one of my articles following an AfD, I had about 300 edits on that article. Which is a significant number but still does not account for the 1,000 other edits

2214:

The New York Times is located in New York and in addition to its good coverage tends to often cover more local affairs, which this is. The Washington Post article is an AP reprint with no unique coverage. BBC News is saying it happened and nothing else, no analytical coverage or discussion of

2093:

Well ROTM local news coverage wouldn't help much either. Local sex crimes don't tend to result in in depth or retrospective coverage - there are many horrible rapes and tragedies throughout the world, what makes this one worthy of note? And yes that's CRYSTALBALL but in making the article you

1027:

I am a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, so I can assure you that ArbCom is not going to be receptive to your complains. (I will be recusing if you do bring a complaint, and even if I did not, clerks have no power to decide what cases are accepted.) "Corruption" allegations are very rarely

836:

Given the fact that following me challenging SFR’s nomination of my article where I cite my live edit % as proof that I am not a disruptive editor, the fact they went out of their way to track down edits of mine and disregard protocol in order to have edits of mine removed in their entirety..

2830:

stating that the reason for nominating the article is that they know that the trial will not be reported on in the news and since it was only notable during the crime happening and that’s all, it is not notable and must be deleted. The trial has not even begun. Court proceedings move slowly.

1911:

I may be blocked, and I may have my contributions targeted. Who knows? Maybe I will lose every ounce of effort I have ever put into this place in response to me having called out what I did on the admin noticeboard yesterday. That’s okay. All you can take away from me is my Knowledge (XXG)

1138:’s absolutely inappropriate adminship rights, because this outpouring of upset against me is really juvenile and also permanent. These contributions will remain forever. So what is it you want to be remembered for defending? Ask yourself that. I must stop editing now as it is getting late. 1701:

hard look in a mirror. I slept like a baby last night. Knowing that I did the right things for this project. I called out corruption, and now we are seeing it play itself out in real time. It’s a spectacular display of abuse of power. Go ahead. Continue. It’s all being documented.

1758:

during this block my articles, and all of my essays were nominated, one article removed completely before consensus .. leaving me unable to even defend my own contributions, as anybody could reasonably tell by looking at my talk page, have been targeted. This is harassment as per

396:

Are you referring to the Article Rescue Squadron listing? It is neutral, and completely factual. You are more than welcome to quote what I wrote that would be considered campigning. I would love to know what I did that you considered to be biased or more than a friendly notice.

2562:

and say they want to focus on that.. this is strange considering they are now calling for my removal completely from Knowledge (XXG) for harassing SFR. How is that possible when they admitted my concerns were valid? Now they’re saying I’m just harassing them. Strange.

841:

So I will be seeking Arbitration when I receive my ability to edit again tomorrow and furthermore I will be making this occurrence known to anyone that finds the abuse of power on a site as important as Knowledge (XXG) to be valuable information to know moving forward.

1542:. If you truly believe that I acted inappropriately, I invite you to file a complaint at the appropriate forum. (P.S. Neither your user page nor your talk page make any statements that I could see about your preferences on draftification of pages you have edited.) 3607:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

2248:

There have been mass murders that killed 20+ people that made worldwide coverage and then were never mentioned again. I have seen a lot of event articles, I have made a lot of event articles, I have nominated for deletion a lot of event articles; dealing with

2044:

280:

1856:

This is incredibly valuable information. Thank you. However, your nominations were not being considered regarding my concerns. Even if nominations were delusionally my only source of suspicion, I very likely would have noticed the fact that you reviewed the

1811:. I wrote in an earlier entry here that I plan on bringing the case to arbitration this week, as obviously I have no other recourse I can take given what has happened to me following seeking recourse through the admin notice board. Hope that makes sense. 1723:, and when that happens the previous mainspace page is automatically speedy-deleted. There's no agenda. It has nothing to do with "corruption" or the importance of the subject; it has everything to do with the article in its current form being an 3051:: Since your email is disabled, I'll reach out to you here. I noticed that many of the things you worked on are being nominated for deletion. I'd recommend you downloading each page, then at least you have a copy of everything you worked on. 828:

revert my edits and further remove my contributions as a whole rather than just fix the problems he so desperately was seeking to find. This is present in a number of current disputes regarding my edits. Keep in mind Knowledge (XXG) as per

3610:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has

2047:

283:

720:

I am requesting a clarification from user 9t5 on whether AI was used in composing their message and, if so, to what extent. This information will assist in evaluating their good faith and maintaining the integrity of our discussions.

1534:, once receiving an objection the draftifying editor should revert and I will do so momentarily, taking it directly to AfD as is the procedure at New Page Review when a draftification is reverted. However, I will be very clear that 612:

You cannot add someone's name to an article as a perpetrator of a crime without sourcing that covers that. Additionally, if someone isn't notable for the crime, or notable at all, we shouldn't be repeating their name in an article.

891:

To clarify: you can respectfully bring up grievances about specific users (including admins!), and, if you have evidence of wrongdoing, present it and make your case. That was not what happened, and the definition you quote from

2144:"Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability". The coverage as it is now is a brief burst of news coverage, therefore not demonstrating any notability, it was never notable in the first place, etc. 2206:

I am not trying to harass you, I noticed these articles several days ago because I am active in WikiProject Crime and I noticed the other article you had made that Cameron commented on. I could not care less whatever you are

3543: 2369: 2210:

You are not a psychic either, and you made the article under the presumption that it would be covered - and, therefore, more than locally in the surrounding area. Trial coverage is often ROTM and not especially useful for

2040: 1023:

anyone is allowed to object to draftificaiton). You can move it back when you are unblocked, though that might just trigger a deletion discussion. I would improve the article to address the concerns first if I were

2502:’s side and then proceeding to spend over an hour going through my contributions and nominating my article for deletion. This is the discussion where I cited my 87% live rate as proof I am not a disruptive editor. 1108: 2067:

I cannot now, but I plan to contest your nomination when I receive my editing rights back. Your reason states "Individual sex crimes are very rarely long term notable.” However, Knowledge (XXG) is not a

3464: 858:

Respectfully, the reason why you might have felt targeted recently isn't due to any collusion or meatpuppetry between admins, but due to you making a post on a very public noticeboard. Many admins have

868:

is a bit of an oversimplification: you made repeated accusations of sockpuppetry and collusion without any evidence, and wrote essays about "premature administrators" that were clearly targeting SFR.

211:

Your current signature is essentially unreadable. Light grey on white does not provide sufficient contrast, and the size causes formatting issues. I'd appreciate it if you could remedy that. Thanks.

1285: 962:

noticeboard about a concern and was met with the aforementioned response, I find arbitration to be my only recourse within this community in order to ensure policy and guidelines are adhered to.

414:— apologies. Didn’t see when you posted this. Yes, I had noticed the wording was a bit opinionated so I immediately remedied the issue. The revision in question was only live for a minute tops. 2234:

stating those don’t count. Well, we can have that discussion after the trial now can’t we? Your nomination is inappropriate and lacking a basis backed by policy and guidelines. Talk tomorrow.

1338:

You're welcome to if unblocked, and the community will decide. That's the whole point of these discussions. If it reflects only your own POV, it should be in your userspace which I suggested.

3839: 1032: 343: 276: 1041:

Anyways, I have a different ArbCom case to open. Let me know if you have questions for me; if you want to respond to anything at the AN thread let me know and I will copy it over. Best,

3797: 1317:

I plan to contest this when I get my editing rights back. You do not have to agree with essay as it is not a policy or a guideline and thus reflects the views of the author alone (see

1028:

accepted, and in particular when the community at AN is roundly deciding that your conduct is more troubling than SFR's I doubt you are going to get ArbCom to agree that you are right.

957:

is not occurring. Just as my contributions and edit history are publicly available for digging through, so are every other editors including yours. There are already numerous cases of

3483:

is preserved and it is possible to restore the article: If you believe that this page should remain included on Knowledge (XXG) or that this action was taken in error, then you may

2806: 2695: 2652: 1386: 1370: 1359: 646: 444:

Check. Unfortunately for the nominator, the policy at Knowledge (XXG) doesn’t state that the content of the articles has to be interesting to them in order for them to satisfy

3003:; is that not a personal attack? I'm also not sure what you meant by half of the things regarding the undeletion. I didn't handle the undeletion myself; I only requested it. 1389:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

1296:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

1119:

during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

548: 544: 3729: 2995:: I'll respond to your emails here to avoid an overspill of this into my inbox, as I'm uninvolved in this dispute and haven't read it in its entirety. See the 3077:

I never admitted that your concerns about SFR were valid, where are you getting that from? You thanked me for agreeing with you but I never did such a thing?

3592: 3551:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

3532: 2429:

article and hopefully by the time the discussion closes you will feel compelled to withdraw your nomination. In any case, I plan to contest the nomination.

2029: 1631: 863:

on their watchlists for obvious reasons, as well as quite a few non-admins. I myself had it temporarily watchlisted to help reverting repeated IP vandalism.

265: 1716: 1464: 1456: 1012: 3603: 3195: 3187: 3528: 3320:. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 3283:. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 1481:. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. 3712: 3417: 518: 3025:: You've excluded the emails that I replied to publicly. Out of the five emails you sent to me, you've published #1 and #3. My comment at 06:11 UTC 3182: 1226: 792:

into an essay. I think targeted nominations are a problem, and an essay on the subject would be helpful. I would love to work with you. Best,

552: 2870: 2773: 2368:, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) in its current form. Your comments are welcome at 2365: 2364:

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,

2355: 1883:

also.. for what it’s worth, this is the first time I have ever been blocked. So it came as a shock on top of an already stressful situation.

1800: 1695: 1630:, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) in its current form. Your comments are welcome at 1626:

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created,

1004: 555:, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under 435:

because I do not want anyone thinking that the article (in the event of a keep) is kept for any reason other than the fact that it satisfies

3835: 3793: 2188:

As it stands the Washington Post, New York Times, CBS News and international outlets have reported on it. So not sure what you’re on about.

567: 536: 522: 2505:

Currently, after I have made it clear on my talk page that I plan on moving forward with arbitration following my expiry of my block by

953:

I also am going to approach admins respectfully tomorrow with specific occurrences that warrant the use of the CheckUser tool to ensure

667:

I want to let you know now, full disclosure, that I am interpreting what you are doing as harassment. Please leave me alone. Thank you.

3306: 3298: 3091: 1998: 1046: 910: 882: 797: 741: 540: 229:- Sure thing. Give me until later tonight. I have to finish up at work to edit it. For the meantime I will switch it back to default. 3716: 3421: 2913:

IS BEHAVIOR TARGETING AN EDITOR — IN WHAT WAY AM I NOT BEING TARGETED/HARASSED FOR HAVING GONE TO THE ADMIN NOTICEBOARD SEEKING HELP?

1039:. Did not convince 72% of editors. There were even concerns that SFR might be a sock puppet. Again, did not convince 72% of editors. 2115:, so you can likely put your fears to rest that one day this article will not be notable due to its lack of presence in the media. 844:

In regard to the editor retention issue and the mystery as to what is causing it, you have found your answer. The answer is THIS.

342:

on a Knowledge (XXG) project page to draw other editors into an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence

3451:

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Knowledge (XXG). A page you created or have recently made significant changes to,

3221:

Per consensus at AN, I have blocked you indefinitely. You may appeal to the community after a minimum of six months has passed. —

3144: 1379:

Knowledge (XXG):Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:The Importance of Creative Contests for Community Engagement on Knowledge (XXG)

1215: 3230: 3210: 1766:’s nominations at the very least have intelligent reasons backing them, that does not stand true for all of these nominations. 654: 618: 290: 216: 3488: 2407: 1669: 692:

I would like to raise a concern regarding the use of AI in the message posted by user 9t5 on the administrator's noticeboard.

3704: 3648: 3626: 3409: 3357: 3335: 2933:

and I even respectful stated yesterday I was going to stop writing because I didn’t want to continue an argument. Insanity.

2521:

and others involved have called for my indefinite blocking and even banning of me from Knowledge (XXG). Note this timeline.

3524: 3510: 2890: 2819: 2094:

CRYSTALLBALLed by assuming it would have long term coverage in the first place. Such is making articles on current events.

2025: 2010: 3708: 3456: 3413: 2948: 2734: 2674: 2578: 2559: 1116: 1100: 1089: 3691: 3596: 3536: 2033: 1736: 1206: 269: 3552: 3115: 1767: 2755: 2634: 1538:

about unilateral draftification as part of New Page Review, and saying I acted inappropriately is a form of casting

1293: 1277: 1266: 3831: 3820: 2708: 2704: 2604: 2584: 2551: 2533: 2495: 2447:

I just want to correct myself from before, it’s not the New York City WikiProject that marked it as Mid-Importance.

1344: 1302: 1135: 1031:

SFR became an admin after a community !vote, in which he received the support of 72% of his colleagues. Heck, read

977: 950: 820: 755: 664: 650: 628: 614: 370:

only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Knowledge (XXG)'s principle of

299: 286: 226: 212: 3370: 2387:

about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is

1649:

about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is

3139: 484: 381: 3492: 2827: 2112: 1219: 91: 3317: 3280: 1478: 2845:’s talk page telling them to remove their styling on their talk page as it makes it hard for them to read it. 2823: 2069: 1969: 1531: 1020: 954: 781:

history of your user page. If you want an additional 15% of your edits to become non-deleted edits, let me or

2491: 789: 374:-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. — 3644: 3630: 3269: 3261: 3026: 2996: 1954: 1377:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 1284:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 1107:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 121: 79: 74: 3657: 2384: 1739:

like accusing (WP admins? me? someone else?) of "corruption" and "abuse of power" and of being a "coward."

1646: 1539: 367: 363: 347: 3617: 3500: 3433: 3325: 3288: 3087: 2655:

for deletion — citing not understanding what “creative” contests” means as the reason for nominating it.

2418: 1994: 1843: 1744: 1680: 1547: 1486: 1053: 906: 878: 804: 737: 460:

There is a deletion nomination for the page John Mateer (musician). See deletion discussion for more info.

261: 246: 3720: 3472: 3425: 2457: 2254: 2141: 1981: 449: 371: 334: 3249: 2751: 2630: 2620: 2514: 1936: 1339: 1314: 1297: 2452:"This article is supported by Housing and Tenant Rights in NY Task Force (assessed as Mid-importance)." 1008: 1770:

was nominated because the nominatior did not understand what “creative contests” means. The fact that

3789: 3778: 3740: 2262: 2220: 2149: 2099: 2054: 1160: 1124: 495: 478: 428: 411: 393: 375: 3663: 1804: 958: 929: 631:

THEN EDIT THE ENTRY. REMOVE HIS NAME. JESUS CHRIST ITS LIKE ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS DELETE STUFF.

3562: 3226: 3206: 3058: 3036: 3010: 2980: 1694:

I am blocked from editing everything except my talk page. Whoever did that and then speedy deleted

1254: 1238: 3366: 1965: 1527: 782: 445: 440: 1945: 97: 3666: 1973: 1944:

It's a bummer you think Knowledge (XXG) is so corrupt. This has not been my experience at all. –

1808: 1724: 1470: 1318: 2807: