385:
me. In her nomination, she asked for redirect which could be easily done via consensus on the article's talk page without the need of nominating it for AfD. I initiated the discussion on the article's talk page and expecting this. Note, Praxi had issued with me before and if that nomination is not harassment then why my nomination are considered as harassment? I would understand that if my nominations have no merits and again, I still do not understand how nominating an article harass someone? No one owns any article and there is nothing to worry if their articles pass the notability guidelines. You tried to explain clearly and I got your point but if we consider the intensity of this incident, it doesn't warrant an indef block. I should be given a chance to explain my rationales on the deletion discussions.
103:
674:
829:
412:
757:. I understood why I was blocked and I assure you that this won't repeat. I had no intention to harass a fellow editor but I apologies as my actions did. I will be more careful and you will find only constructive policy based contributions from me. Please unblock me so I can make positive contributions and make policy based rationale to reach consensus through discussions.
906:
1024:
363:. I don't even need to include the "based on policy" bit because it's irrelevant by that point. You acknowledge that someone nominated your article(s), it bothered/angered/frustrated you and so in turn went through that editor's contribution history and nominated their articles. That's precisely why you were blocked. --
528:
You clearly targeted
Praxidicae because they nominated one of your articles for deletion. Whether they merit deletion or not, you wouldn't have gone and nominated their articles for deletion otherwise, as from looking at your history you had never nominated an article for deletion before. This is a
384:
Ok I understood and thank you for the explanation. I just tried to explain the whole store of what has happened. If this can be count as a harassment then please allow me to explain that it was not me who nominated her articles first. It was she who nominated it and she had previous interaction with
620:
I have full trust on all admins because admins are more experienced and entrusted with the tools for a reason. We all are human so make mistakes. I want to contribute in positive sense and you will find me making only policy based arguments with no personal attacks or harassment. If possible could
505:
clearly states: "Please do not take it personally". I am not aware if
Knowledge (XXG) rules are different for experienced/regular editors. I do not deserve this block at all. I have no intention to harass anyone or rather have time for such childish acts. I still believe the 2 articles I nominated
226:
Praxidicae is a long term active editor who has been editing since your last conflict. That she nominates something you have create for deletion isn't really a big deal since she's so active. That you previously engaged in targeting her and returned to targeting her immediately after she nominated
500:
while it was being created and not even finished. They didn't bother to even leave any notes or reply to my note on the article's talk page. When I found that 2 of her articles did not meet the required guidelines, I nominated them based on policy. Now here TonyBallioni thought I was harassing
227:
one of your articles for deletion shows that you didn't learn from what happened last time. You are not allowed to target other editors based on content disputes. This is harassment and bad faith editing. Whether or not they have merit doesn't matter since harassment is not allowed by policy.
153:
I've blocked you for harassment since despite being inactive for the most part since your last block, you have managed been focusing on content that
Praxidicae has created or heavily contributed to and targeting them for deletion. As this was a large part of your last block, and you returned
312:
If I had to began targeting their content, I would have listed all their articles for AfD or would have undone their edits etc. My first edit after the last block was not even targeting them or any intersection with them. This is a clear bias against editors having less edit counts.
129:
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.
939:
of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are extremely strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the
360:
while it was being created and not even finished. They didn't bother to even leave any notes or reply to my note on the article's talk page. When I found that 2 of her articles did not meet the required guidelines, I nominated
211:
and for a second, could you please just check my nominations if these have a merit or not? I strongly believe my nomination has merits and these articles do not meet the required guidelines. I request you to check again
506:
have merits and nominating articles no way make a harassment. I am still waiting for the blocking admin to show me a diff where I targeted
Praxidicae based on content disputes. I am appealing to unblock me please.
133:
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.
354:
I did not summarize TonyBallioni's post, I reviewed your edits and came to the same, obvious, conclusion. Your own words in your unblock request make the targetting of
Praxidicae even more obvious. Specifically,
787:
nominate a page for deletion, that they are not targeting you specifically. I know from experience that it's frustrating when something you've worked hard on is viewed as unimportant. As a final thought, if you
986:. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case,
920:(COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Knowledge (XXG) to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on
241:
I had no intention of harassment and how an afd can harass someone? The policy should not differentiate a new editor or a long term editor. If she has been harassed then me too. It seems a bias to me.
280:
I can answer that. You only have a very small handful of edits, and the majority of the most recent ones demonstrate a fixation on
Praxidicae's edits. Any admin worth their salt can review
835:
792:
feel like someone is unfairly harassing or targeting you, please feel free to drop me a talk page note; it is sometimes easier to get a third opinion before jumping into places like ANI.
783:
will, as part of their workload, curate and potentially nominate pages you create and assess them for suitability. Additionally, that you will assume good faith if and when an editor
912:
Hello
Beritagsier. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Knowledge (XXG)'s
284:
and see that you returned from a block related to your interactions with a specific editor and then began targeting content connected to that editor. That's not acceptable.--
529:
form of harassment, and is not acceptable. As you don't concede that you did anything wrong, there are no grounds to lift the block, and I am declining your request.
126:
73:
563:
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.
115:
913:
709:
452:
38:
79:
1004:
Really which nature of my edits made you think that? Please, tell me before I answer your message because I think you are randomly guessing here.
1065:
548:
925:
154:
immediately to focusing on her, I feel the only reasonable outcome is an indefinite block. You may appeal by following the instructions in
941:
921:
704:
447:
917:
24:
68:
1061:
502:
187:
59:
1082:
1057:
1032:
425:
119:
681:
419:
935:
Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the
928:, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to
424:
Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the
1047:
1043:
1039:
723:
466:
947:
Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are
635:
I appreciate your trust but I would still prefer that you make another request for someone else to look at.
303:
232:
163:
49:
64:
139:
869:
754:
Requesting the reviewing admin to please have a look at the above conversation including my reason
266:
and would you mind showing me one instance please where I targeted her based on content disputes?
110:
94:
890:
797:
599:
You are free to make another unblock request, for fairness to you, someone else will review it.
1080:
333:
299:
261:
228:
206:
175:
159:
45:
1071:
1005:
959:
879:
851:
810:
758:
687:
650:
640:
622:
604:
582:
557:
534:
507:
430:
386:
339:
314:
267:
242:
213:
191:
20:
780:
155:
936:
838:
has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the
281:
135:
1042:
that was created to violate
Knowledge (XXG) policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
1060:. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
996:
966:
886:
793:
1077:
497:
I do not agree with TonyBallioni's judgement here. Praxidicae nominated my article
844:
template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
183:. Didn't even bother to leave a reason on my talk page or the article's talk page
636:
615:
600:
573:
530:
929:
379:
364:
327:
285:
180:, the same applies to Praxi as well. As soon as I start editing, she undone it
1087:
1013:
998:
894:
859:
818:
801:
766:
658:
644:
630:
608:
590:
538:
515:
394:
372:
347:
322:
307:
293:
275:
250:
236:
221:
199:
167:
143:
991:
953:
905:
1023:
779:
I am unblocking here based on the assumption that you recognize that
581:
as an extension of this appeal and check the grounds for an unblock?
184:
809:
Any admin kind enough to take a moment to review my appeal please?
501:
Praxidicae! I still don't understand how AfD can harass someone?
1018:
958:
You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at
823:
15:
904:
672:
410:
885:
template already puts your page into a tracking category.
114:
is suitable for inclusion in
Knowledge (XXG) according to
545:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please
565:
Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
1056:, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
755:
737:
733:
727:
718:
714:
700:
696:
692:
579:
498:
480:
476:
470:
461:
457:
443:
439:
435:
358:
330:
has just summarized your post and still no valid diff,
181:
108:
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article
850:
Please review my appeal and kindly unblock me please.
680:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
418:
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an
956:to disclose your employer, client and affiliation.
127:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ben Dronkers
972:can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form:
503:Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion#General_advice
188:Knowledge (XXG):Guide_to_deletion#General_advice
27:, where you can send them messages and comments.
914:mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements
8:
578:could you please consider my last message
116:Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines
190:applies. I do not deserve this block.
7:
836:request for help from administrators
186:. AfD cannot be a way for revenge.
14:
975:{{paid|user=Beritagsier|employer=
916:. Paid advocacy is a category of
125:The article will be discussed at
44:New to Knowledge (XXG)? Welcome!
1022:
990:until you answer this message.
865:This is an inappropriate use of
827:
357:"Praxidicae nominated my article
101:
39:Click here to start a new topic.
944:process, rather than directly.
1:
621:you please review my appeal?
36:Put new text under old text.
684:, who accepted the request.
422:, who declined the request.
1106:
1058:may be reverted or deleted
1066:guide to appealing blocks
549:guide to appealing blocks
74:Be welcoming to newcomers
1088:09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1074:|Your reason here ~~~~}}
1014:21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
1009:
999:16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
895:16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
860:16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
855:
819:18:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
814:
802:20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
767:09:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
762:
659:09:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
654:
645:09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
631:09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
626:
609:09:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
591:08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
586:
539:08:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
511:
395:08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
390:
343:
318:
271:
246:
217:
195:
118:or whether it should be
1068:, then adding the text
516:21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
373:22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
348:22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
323:22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
308:21:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
294:21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
276:21:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
251:21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
237:21:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
222:21:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
200:21:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
168:21:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
144:16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
1031:This account has been
954:Wikimedia Terms of Use
926:Knowledge (XXG) is not
909:
677:
415:
69:avoid personal attacks
1064:by first reading the
1046:, but using them for
942:articles for creation
922:neutral point of view
908:
724:change block settings
676:
467:change block settings
414:
918:conflict of interest
988:do not edit further
910:
678:
416:
80:dispute resolution
41:
1093:
1092:
1062:appeal this block
848:
847:
298:What Ponyo said.
90:
89:
60:Assume good faith
37:
1097:
1075:
1026:
1019:
994:
985:
984:
971:
965:
960:User:Beritagsier
884:
878:
874:
868:
842:
831:
830:
824:
743:
741:
730:
712:
710:deleted contribs
675:
619:
577:
562:
556:
486:
484:
473:
455:
453:deleted contribs
413:
383:
370:
337:
291:
265:
210:
179:
105:
104:
16:
1105:
1104:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1085:
1069:
992:
982:
978:
974:
973:
969:
963:
962:. The template
903:
882:
876:
872:
866:
840:
828:
806:
805:
770:
731:
721:
707:
690:
673:
613:
571:
568:
560:
554:
553:, then use the
542:
519:
474:
464:
450:
433:
426:blocking policy
411:
377:
365:
331:
286:
259:
204:
173:
151:
106:
102:
99:
86:
85:
55:
12:
11:
5:
1103:
1101:
1091:
1090:
1083:
1027:
1017:
1016:
980:
976:
902:
899:
898:
897:
846:
845:
841:{{admin help}}
832:
822:
821:
777:
752:
748:Request reason
745:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
649:Ok, thank you.
594:
593:
543:
526:
522:Decline reason
495:
491:Request reason
488:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
325:
296:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
202:
150:
147:
100:
98:
93:Nomination of
91:
88:
87:
84:
83:
76:
71:
62:
56:
54:
53:
42:
33:
32:
29:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1102:
1089:
1086:
1081:
1079:
1073:
1067:
1063:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1036:
1034:
1028:
1025:
1021:
1020:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
995:
989:
968:
961:
957:
955:
951:
945:
943:
938:
933:
931:
930:black-hat SEO
927:
923:
919:
915:
907:
900:
896:
892:
888:
881:
871:
864:
863:
862:
861:
857:
853:
843:
837:
833:
826:
825:
820:
816:
812:
808:
807:
804:
803:
799:
795:
791:
786:
782:
776:
774:
773:Accept reason
769:
768:
764:
760:
756:
751:
749:
744:
739:
735:
729:
725:
720:
716:
711:
706:
702:
701:global blocks
698:
697:active blocks
694:
689:
685:
683:
682:administrator
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
617:
612:
611:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
596:
595:
592:
588:
584:
580:
575:
570:
569:
567:
566:
559:
552:
550:
541:
540:
536:
532:
525:
523:
518:
517:
513:
509:
504:
499:
494:
492:
487:
482:
478:
472:
468:
463:
459:
454:
449:
445:
444:global blocks
441:
440:active blocks
437:
432:
427:
423:
421:
420:administrator
396:
392:
388:
381:
376:
375:
374:
371:
369:
362:
359:
353:
352:
351:
350:
349:
345:
341:
335:
329:
326:
324:
320:
316:
311:
310:
309:
305:
301:
297:
295:
292:
290:
283:
279:
278:
277:
273:
269:
263:
258:
252:
248:
244:
240:
239:
238:
234:
230:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
208:
203:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
182:
177:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
148:
146:
145:
141:
137:
131:
128:
123:
121:
117:
113:
112:
96:
92:
81:
77:
75:
72:
70:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
51:
47:
46:Learn to edit
43:
40:
35:
34:
31:
30:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1053:
1049:illegitimate
1048:
1035:indefinitely
1030:
1029:
987:
949:
948:
946:
934:
911:
849:
839:
789:
784:
778:
772:
771:
753:
747:
746:
719:creation log
686:
679:
564:
546:
544:
527:
521:
520:
496:
490:
489:
462:creation log
429:
417:
367:
356:
334:TonyBallioni
300:TonyBallioni
288:
282:your history
262:TonyBallioni
229:TonyBallioni
207:TonyBallioni
176:TonyBallioni
160:TonyBallioni
152:
132:
124:
111:Ben Dronkers
109:
107:
97:for deletion
95:Ben Dronkers
1040:sock puppet
1006:Beritagsier
852:Beritagsier
811:Beritagsier
759:Beritagsier
688:Beritagsier
651:Beritagsier
623:Beritagsier
583:Beritagsier
508:Beritagsier
431:Beritagsier
387:Beritagsier
340:Beritagsier
315:Beritagsier
268:Beritagsier
243:Beritagsier
214:Beritagsier
192:Beritagsier
21:Beritagsier
981:InsertName
977:InsertName
870:admin help
715:filter log
458:filter log
366:Jezebel's
287:Jezebel's
136:Praxidicae
937:talk page
924:and what
734:checkuser
693:block log
547:read the
477:checkuser
436:block log
82:if needed
65:Be polite
25:talk page
1052:reasons
979:|client=
950:required
901:May 2020
887:Primefac
794:Primefac
705:contribs
448:contribs
361:them..."
50:get help
19:This is
1078:Yunshui
1076:below.
1072:unblock
1044:allowed
1033:blocked
952:by the
880:unblock
728:unblock
558:unblock
471:unblock
212:please.
149:Blocked
120:deleted
1054:is not
875:; the
637:331dot
616:331dot
601:331dot
574:331dot
531:331dot
156:WP:GAB
1038:as a
834:This
551:first
380:Ponyo
368:Ponyo
328:Ponyo
289:Ponyo
78:Seek
1010:talk
967:Paid
891:talk
856:talk
815:talk
798:talk
785:does
781:NPRs
763:talk
655:talk
641:talk
627:talk
605:talk
587:talk
535:talk
512:talk
391:talk
344:talk
319:talk
304:talk
272:talk
247:talk
233:talk
218:talk
196:talk
164:talk
140:talk
67:and
993:GSS
738:log
481:log
428:).
23:'s
1070:{{
1012:)
983:}}
970:}}
964:{{
932:.
893:)
883:}}
877:{{
873:}}
867:{{
858:)
817:)
800:)
790:do
775::
765:)
750::
732:•
726:•
722:•
717:•
713:•
708:•
703:•
699:•
695:•
657:)
643:)
629:)
607:)
589:)
561:}}
555:{{
537:)
524::
514:)
493::
475:•
469:•
465:•
460:•
456:•
451:•
446:•
442:•
438:•
393:)
346:)
321:)
306:)
274:)
249:)
235:)
220:)
198:)
166:)
158:.
142:)
122:.
48:;
1084:水
1008:(
889:(
854:(
813:(
796:(
761:(
742:)
740:)
736:(
691:(
653:(
639:(
625:(
618::
614:@
603:(
585:(
576::
572:@
533:(
510:(
485:)
483:)
479:(
434:(
389:(
382::
378:@
342:(
338:.
336::
332:@
317:(
302:(
270:(
264::
260:@
245:(
231:(
216:(
209::
205:@
194:(
178::
174:@
162:(
138:(
52:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.