User talk:Beritagsier

This is Beritagsier's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Nomination of Ben Dronkers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ben Dronkers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ben Dronkers 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.

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. Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

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 immediately to focusing on her, I feel the only reasonable outcome is an indefinite block. You may appeal by following the instructions in WP:GAB. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni:, the same applies to Praxi as well. As soon as I start editing, she undone it[1]. Didn't even bother to leave a reason on my talk page or the article's talk page[2]. AfD cannot be a way for revenge. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#General_advice applies. I do not deserve this block.Beritagsier (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: 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 please.Beritagsier (talk) 21:25, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.Beritagsier (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: and would you mind showing me one instance please where I targeted her based on content disputes? Beritagsier (talk) 21:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 your history 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.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:47, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What Ponyo said. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Beritagsier (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo has just summarized your post and still no valid diff, @TonyBallioni:.Beritagsier (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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, "Praxidicae nominated my article[3] 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...". 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. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: 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 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.Beritagsier (talk) 08:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Beritagsier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not agree with TonyBallioni's judgement here. Praxidicae nominated my article[4] 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 Praxidicae! I still don't understand how AfD can harass someone? Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#General_advice clearly states: "Please do not take it personally". I am not aware if Wikipedia 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 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.Beritagsier (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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 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. 331dot (talk) 08:15, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

@331dot: could you please consider my last message[5] as an extension of this appeal and check the grounds for an unblock? Beritagsier (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make another unblock request, for fairness to you, someone else will review it. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: 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 you please review my appeal? Beritagsier (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your trust but I would still prefer that you make another request for someone else to look at. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you.Beritagsier (talk) 09:17, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Beritagsier (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Requesting the reviewing admin to please have a look at the above conversation including my reason[6]. 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. Beritagsier (talk) 09:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking here based on the assumption that you recognize that NPRs 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 does 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 do 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. Primefac (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin kind enough to take a moment to review my appeal please? Beritagsier (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Please review my appeal and kindly unblock me please. Beritagsier (talk) 16:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an inappropriate use of {{admin help}}; the {{unblock}} template already puts your page into a tracking category. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

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 Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page 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 articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Beritagsier. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Beritagsier|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. 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, do not edit further until you answer this message. GSS ^💬 16:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.Beritagsier (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]