`  Wait a minte, I provided evidence above that, by policy, would say the other way.  The harassment I received from Hrafn. The bit where I cited sources being  outright deleted and replaced with uncited material, and one user continuously brought things against me with very selective evidence that doesn't match her statements when the rest of the context is shown (even after previously repeated failed attempts?????) If it failed then, what changed? What was so obvious?  Let's examine another one in detail:  A claim of ``disruption``:   However, I inquired about a reply where a mentor was requested:   (but side note on the edit summary:  and  for comparison that they all were inflammatory???)  So, the inquiry lead to me being discouraged:   I reviewed the article that was on AfD while I was there (for what was called being disruptive), but my vote immediately had a response:   I was quite amazed by such accusation. There was obvious central discussion, with a wikilink on every ``my watchlist`` at the time, about the entire topic, so why would just I get slammed with WP::POINT?  Example of someone else making a vary similar vote:   Only I justified my thought on it more (as policy says it doesn't like a bunch of ``per nom`` or ``per user`` type votes)`