User talk:Pasdecomplot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:03, 29 January 2021

Welcome!

Hello, Pasdecomplot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Pasdecomplot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pasdecomplot! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

So sweet, and I'll rsvp as yes. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le quagmire

Mystery re-edit of word 'TBan', to 'Thanks'; occurred during editing at other far end of discussion thread. 24jan2021.[1]

[2]

____________________________

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

wish to protect account from hijacking while gone. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you have a strong password and enable Meta:2fa Praxidicae (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Praxidicae. Worried about it due to recent login bizzarities, assuming from the internet connection. Pasdecomplot (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

mobile editing

Hey, Pasdecomplot, I know you're taking a sabbatical but, for when you get back: an editor who edits often on his device recommends not using the mobile site or the app but instead the desktop site, which you can get to by scrolling down to the bottom of any article. He has an essay about smartphone editing at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing. I think it's possible using the mobile site or the app, combined with unfamiliarity with the desktop site, might have caused issues that then caused a communications disconnect between you and other editors, including me, and if that's true I apologize. Best to you. —valereee (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If your apology —valereee is for repeatedly redirecting George Floyd talk page discussions of important content edits which needlessly harassed a new editor, then for continuing by pushing for a BLP ban, for three months, for format issues such as tabbing but not based on content issues, then I accept. But I hesitate to even respond since a response could illicit further harassment.

Thank you for your diligence

Hi Normchou I noticed you're on this editor[3] already. Here are three more blankings without reason at Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche and Dudjom Rinpoche and Dilgo Khyentse. As soon as I was blocked. It appears the editor has a rollback tool, since the blankings are noted as reverts, and they are rollbacking around the bots. Also, they're still blanking Nyingchi. I think it's possibly CaradhrasAiguo's sockpuppet, and note AdoTang has used identical text at 2008 Tibetan unrest. Restores are definitely in order. Please and thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a static IP for colo/servers [4], but not sure if it is an open proxy. I can file a report on WP:OP if it becomes active again. Normchou ^💬 00:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link u|Normchou. The user is definitely reverting my specific edits (as the diff evidences), which also includes Biographies of Tibetan masters and refs. Thus, they're also deleting info in contradiction to BLP policy. But, the pattern of being blocked before unsupported reverts occur isn't a new phenomenon. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Normchou, it's Panchen Lama to which the editor has also made edits and deletions without reason. (Looks more like Chuckie's sockpuppet...). If you might also look and revert those, Thanks! Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)(resent 16:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC) )[reply]

Hi Pasdecomplot,

Thank you for your edit expanding the section "20th century" on the Tibetan Buddhism page. It's important those of us familiar with Tibetan Buddhism and Maoist China work together. Time is precious, and so we need to support each other... There is a very real and current danger to our teachings and methods, and that is Chinese manipulation. You should know both OTD and TTD want the same thing - that is to unite the Karma Kagyu lineage. Let it unfold with time, and it will. Skillfully. Have confidence. You don't need to rush. Understand that there are and were very real dangers to the lives of both OTD and TTD and their families. China would have its way and kill both of them. Many high lamas have been killed. For this reason a lot of information has to be kept in secrecy. This means you and I don't know the full story regarding, and don't need to. Dharma is intact. Each of us needs to work together, and not create unnecessary work for each other. We have busy lives, and editing on wikipedia is noble work. All best wishes, Badabara (talk) 07:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Badabara Thanks for the positive wishes! Working in unison is always easier than working in conflict, but Mr Floyd went way overboard... Regards. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

It has been pointed out to me that you're currently working on a filing for AN in your sandbox. As long as you move that to AN in a timely manner that is fine. However, what is not fine there, at AN/ANI, or anywhere else would be speculating that an editor is having a nervous breakdown. Please remove that speculation. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at editor's talk. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violation of your editing restriction and repeated and regular combative edits incompatible with editing on a collaborative project..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing administrator: this block is for two (related) reasons. If you believe that this editor can edit in a collaborative manner please feel free to reduce the indefinite block. However, I believe this editor should be blocked for a minimum of two weeks for their second violation of their editing restriction for this edit which clearly speculates on the mental state of another editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Barkeep49, this block does not adhere to the TBan of commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI. Nowhere is motivation discussed in that diff. Nor is motivation inferred, insinuated, or implied, all three of which have wrongfully been cited as the bases of imaginary TBan violations you and Girth Summit have repeatedly alleged. Now, this invalid block and Girth's invalid block from 31Dec are both wholly based on your projections, not on the actual comments and certainly not based on my intentions.
And, just what, exactly, is the "(related) reason" or is it so weak as to be kept a secret?
Frankly, this block is more abusive bullshit, as was the block on 31Dec. The result of this gross abuse of administrative tools is the silencing of an editor. The obviousness of this result, after repeatedly requesting a clarification of the TBan from you, leads me to wonder if the TBan was just another sanction-game within the sanction-gamming block/ban request. I don't know what your motivations were in providing advise on the TBan. Numerous times I've said you effectively became an involved administrator, before the block/ban was decided, and cannot administrator the TBan due to conflicts of interest. Here, I'm just specifying the results, and have been proven correct in my earlier assessments of both the TBan and your role.
Here's some advice: If an editor is unwilling to join in "hooping" Chinese propaganda, don't infer that editor lacks the capacity to work collaboratively. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you disagree with my block. Your unblock request is below and presents your thoughts for consideration by an uninvolved administrator who can consider your point of view and make a decision accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "disagreement" Barkeep49. Your block is totally invalid since it does not correspond to the TBan. You're abusing your administrative tools, and not directly responding to this very obvious problem. Your "related reason" is still apparently a secret. Just admit it: you need to remove the block as a mistake, with apologies. El_C had the graciousness to do so months ago. You should follow his lead. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say it doesn't correspond to the TBan. I say it does. That's a disagreement. Since I think it does I have used my administrator's discretion to impose a block. Since you say it doesn't, you have appealed. Your appeal will be accepted or not. If it is accepted, in whole or im part (if the indef is reduced/vacated), you can then pursue remedies against me if you wish of which you have several options. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have not provided your opinion on where the TBan was violated by the diff. You also have not supplied your secret reason, after being asked twice. A disagreement has two sides: There's only one side here - mine, supported by the TBan text. Your side Barkeep49? Non existent. Thus, no disagreement, but rather logic based on collaborative community policy vs your secret alleged violations, like the Spanish Inquisition. Come off it, Barkeep. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My message from 16:39 16 January immediately following the block provides a diff of where I believe you violated your topic ban. I also had asked you to remove it, which you declined to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we're talking about the same diff. You offer no supporting opinion on how or where it allegedly violates the TBan.

You again, for the third time, fail to provide your secret reason.

That's also a false claim that I declined to remove the text from the sandbox, since the diff there evidences I told you you were acting outside the parameters of the TBan, and to "Just stop". You promptly blocked me, and prevented me from editing which is obviously very different from declining to remove text.

Just remove the mistaken block, Barkeep49, and apologize. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, I realize that you're upset, but you should realize that this is coming across as you badgering Barkeep, which isn't a good look. El_C 22:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks El_C. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary TBan violation; Repeated abuse of TBan

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

With all due respect, this invalid block is the result of chronic administrative abuses of a poorly defined TBan - commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI. The abuse has sharply escalated to a point where any person would wonder if the TBan was purposely designed so as to be a sanction-gaming tool. This block also apparently targets balanced content and signifies collaboration, to Barkeep49, appears to mean self-censoring and using only minority views/fringe theories supported by the government of China.

The escalation of abuse began after 26Dec when I edited at a RfC on Xinhua[5], where I provided RS and used the 2008 Tibetan unrest as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today.

The page 2008 Tibetan unrest was then shredded, and minority views reinserted unchallenged since I was invalidly blocked by Girth Summit for challenging those views. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by administrators began around the project; refs were deleted or altered; and open hostility occurred on user talks, at Dudjom Rinpoche, and at an RfC. All of which was stirred into an imaginary reason for this second grossly abusive and more disturbingly invalid block by Barkeep.

Please excuse the length of text, but invalid blocks which silence balanced content seriously undermine the community and its policies while directly and negatively impacting the stated objectives of the project. Repeated requests to clarify the TBan were made, but Barkeep49 denied clarification [6] [7]. I pointed out the undefined TBan could be easily abused. Requests for reviews of the ban during the block went unanswered [8] [9] and appealing to ANI was discouraged [10]at least two times. It doesn't appear that the diffs and text presented at ANI and at the unblock requests were ever read.

Gross Abuse

31Dec invalid block for writing the letters WP:HOUND: MarkH21 has followed into at least 6 pages and an RfC, and has made at least 45 reverts and deletions of refs, made re-edits of supported info with unsupported info, and made numerous false claims on edit summaries. Mark had commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest began on 29Dec[11], which Mark continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond. Earlier on 31Dec, I had warned the editor, while they were in the act of both shredding 2008 Tibetan unrest and copying some identical reverted text used by both AdoTang and an IP editor (the two are probably sockpuppets of one editor; and likely it's CaradhrasAiguo since it's hounding my edits into biographies at Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche, at Panchen Lama, at Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche all with BLP concerns, and into geography at Nyingchi)[12]. Here's the warning on their talk[13]. GirthSummit then ignored the BLP issues and made a false claim[14] which supported Mark's shredding. I noted at the page 2008 Tibetan unrest that WP:HOUND could also be cited and added to their warning[15] on EDITWAR. Not comments on motivation were made. I was then blocked by GirthSummit for writing the letters WP:HOUND, then wrongly accused of violating the TBan by both Cullen328 and Mark in support of Girth's abusive block[16], all of whom falsely claimed I was violating the ban. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. Thus, the block was an abuse of admin tools, on New Year's Eve, made while I was also being blocked from accessing the internet^{[by whom?]}.
16Jan invalid block: In an even more gross example of abuse of admin tools and abuse of the TBan, Barkeep doesn't like diffs and text in my sandbox, and imaginary parallels to the TBan have been alleged. At the sandbox, no names are written, no comments are made on motivation, and worth adding is no one has been officially invited into the sandbox (a semi-private/public area). It's also an edit almost in a personal code[17], so as to keep the info private. Barkeep writes a rude and hostile message [18]; I say the message is clearly way outside the parameters of the TBan[19]. His response was this block. He also actually edited my sandbox[20] without respect nor requesting permission.
(16Jan invalid block reason not specified by Barkeep, as in "Note to any reviewing administrator: this block is for two (related) reasons". When the second reason is specified, it will be addressed here.)

These are clearly cases of disruptive editing, of hounding, and of direct rudeness and possible trolling which can be forms of personal attacks. My attempts to deal with these issues and possible attacks - ignoring; addressing gently; addressing strongly - have not worked. Instead, the block appears to also be vindictive.

It's important to remember the TBan was related to repeatedly trying to get the chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo sanctioned, or stopped [21]. Several of the same admins involved here refused to provide support, including Cullen (refused on 03oct[22]) and Barkeep (refused while drafting the original TBan response[23]). I had also approached ANI about Chuckie, as had many other editors.

I'm a good researcher, provide solid information, and the refs can be rated as good to excellent. I contribute to biographies on Tibetan Buddhist masters and teachers, on current events, on related pages, and provide majority opinion RS such as Josh Rogin's China’s atrocities in Tibet are growing too big to ignore, from 24 December 2020 at the topic areas related to Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet. I add missing notable information, check refs and repair, and provide balance to a constant creep of minority/fringe theory from a pro-Chinese POV.

I like working collaboratively, but not with repeatedly abusive editors or admins. If collaboration to Barkeep means self-censoring to appease the Chinese government, he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather a propaganda tool.

Chuckie was a notorious minority view/pro-PRC editor. Just before his sanction, he initiated a false allegation about 'intentionally misleading edits', at Nyingchi, which has become a false-accusations theme. Its falsity is evidenced by the same information on Re-education camps at Larung Gar, and expanded at Chen Quanguo, which are both correct. It appears I was distracted after discovering refs for that specific information had been broken/altered by another admin at Larung Gar, then distracted after focusing on repairing those refs. (The admin did not respond to requests for clarification[24].)

When Chuckie was indefed, I thought editing without harassment was again possible. Then Mark seemed to replace him, while the same admins which supported Chuckie like a Teflon Shield seem to now be aligned with Mark.

If there's an unspoken policy on supporting minority/fringe views, it needs to be made public. The admin abuse and sanction-gaming[25] must be stopped. Likewise, the practice of deleting refs, reassigning refs and disassociating refs - as experienced on at least 4 pages and due to actions by different admins and editors - must be stopped. As Horse Eye's Back said at the RfC, We’re also obviously going to see pushback from the Chinese gov on that issue both on and off wiki...

This block, if permitted to continue, effectively nurtures admin abuse since these actions will be effectively condoned, whether directly or indirectly. The TBan has now been abused repeatedly - grossly as detailed above, and subtly by repeatedly invalid direct confrontations about imaginary violations posted to my talk by Barkeep (before Chuckie's sanction), and afterwards by Girth [26] [27] [28] and [29] (the lead-up to the 31 Dec block), and after [30]. As such, it's outlived its stated purpose, and the TBan has become a tool of admin abuse, and needs to be lifted for that reason among others. I'd add 3 of the 5 admins involved are also listed participants in so-called minority-view "Old Fashioned Wikipedia Values", but at 20 years of age, there's nothing old-fashioned about Wikipedia, and admin abuse contradicts OFWV alleged values.

I would appreciate a full reading of this text by an univolved administrator. Thanks.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=With all due respect, this invalid block is the result of chronic administrative abuses of a poorly defined TBan - '''commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI'''. The abuse has sharply escalated to a point where any person would wonder if the TBan was purposely designed so as to be a sanction-gaming tool. This block also apparently targets balanced content and signifies '''collaboration, to Barkeep49, appears to mean self-censoring''' and using only minority views/fringe theories supported by the government of China.

The escalation of abuse began after 26Dec when I edited at a RfC on Xinhua[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323], where I provided RS and used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. 

The page 2008 Tibetan unrest was then shredded, and minority views reinserted unchallenged since I was invalidly blocked by Girth Summit for challenging those views. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by administrators began around the project; refs were deleted or altered; and open hostility occurred on user talks, at [[Dudjom Rinpoche]], and at an RfC. All of which was stirred into an imaginary reason for this second grossly abusive and more disturbingly invalid block by Barkeep. 

Please excuse the length of text, but invalid blocks which silence balanced content seriously undermine the community and its policies while directly and negatively impacting the stated objectives of the project. Repeated requests to clarify the TBan were made, but Barkeep49 denied clarification 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113]. I pointed out the undefined TBan could be easily abused. Requests for reviews of the ban during the block went unanswered [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/991189973] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113] and appealing to ANI was discouraged [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994471492]at least two times. It doesn't appear that the diffs and text presented at ANI and at the unblock requests were ever read.

'''Gross Abuse'''
# 31Dec invalid block for writing the letters WP:HOUND: MarkH21 has followed into at least 6 pages and an RfC, and has made at least 45 reverts and deletions of refs, made re-edits of supported info with unsupported info, and made numerous false claims on edit summaries. Mark had commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest began on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which Mark continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond. Earlier on 31Dec, I had warned the editor, while they were in the act of both shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and copying some identical reverted text used by both AdoTang and an IP editor (the two are probably sockpuppets of one editor; and likely it's CaradhrasAiguo since it's hounding my edits into biographies at [[Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche]], at [[Panchen Lama]], at [[Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche]] all with BLP concerns, and into geography at [[Nyingchi]])[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.205.9.224]. Here's the warning on their talk[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410]. GirthSummit then ignored the BLP issues and made a false claim[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997473388] which supported Mark's shredding. I noted at the page [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] that [[WP:HOUND]] could also be cited and added to their warning[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661] on EDITWAR. Not comments on motivation were made. I was then blocked by GirthSummit for writing the letters WP:HOUND, then wrongly accused of violating the TBan by both Cullen328 and Mark in support of Girth's abusive block[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999096919], all of whom falsely claimed I was violating the ban. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. Thus, the block was an abuse of admin tools, on New Year's Eve, made while I was also being blocked from accessing the internet<sup class="noprint Inline-Template " style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|<span title="The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution.">by whom?</span>]]</i>]</sup>.
# 16Jan invalid block: In an even more gross example of abuse of admin tools and abuse of the TBan, Barkeep doesn't like diffs and text in my sandbox, and imaginary parallels to the TBan have been alleged. At the sandbox, no names are written, no comments are made on motivation, and worth adding is no one has been officially invited into the sandbox (a semi-private/public area). It's also an edit almost in a personal code[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051], so as to keep the info private. Barkeep writes a rude and hostile message [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Sandbox]; I say the message is clearly way outside the parameters of the TBan[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000724818]. His response was this block. He also actually edited my sandbox[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000767341] without respect nor requesting permission. 
# (16Jan invalid block reason not specified by Barkeep, as in ''"Note to any reviewing administrator: this block is for two (related) reasons".'' When the second reason is specified, it will be addressed here.)

These are clearly cases of disruptive editing, of hounding, and of direct rudeness and possible trolling which can be forms of personal attacks. My attempts to deal with these issues and possible attacks - ignoring; addressing gently; addressing strongly - have not worked. Instead, the block appears to also be vindictive.

It's important to remember the TBan was related to repeatedly trying to get the chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo sanctioned, or stopped [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Several of the same admins involved here refused to provide support, including Cullen (refused on 03oct[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/981513436]) and Barkeep (refused while drafting the original TBan response[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]). I had also approached ANI about Chuckie, as had many other editors.

I'm a good researcher, provide solid information, and the refs can be rated as good to excellent. I contribute to biographies on Tibetan Buddhist masters and teachers, on current events, on related pages, and provide majority opinion RS such as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/chinas-atrocities-in-tibet-are-growing-too-big-to-ignore/2020/12/24/ba9d5c4e-4624-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html Josh Rogin's ''China’s atrocities in Tibet are growing too big to ignore'', from 24 December 2020] at the topic areas related to Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet. I add missing notable information, check refs and repair, and provide balance to a constant creep of minority/fringe theory from a pro-Chinese POV. 

I like working collaboratively,  but not with repeatedly abusive editors or admins. If collaboration to Barkeep means self-censoring to appease the Chinese government, he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather a propaganda tool. 

Chuckie was a notorious minority view/pro-PRC editor. Just before his sanction, he initiated a false allegation about 'intentionally misleading edits', at Nyingchi, which has become a false-accusations theme. Its falsity is evidenced by the same information on Re-education camps at [[Larung Gar#Political Re-education|Larung Gar]], and expanded at [[Chen Quanguo#Tibet|Chen Quanguo]], which are both correct. It appears I was distracted after discovering refs for that specific information had been broken/altered by another admin at Larung Gar, then distracted after focusing on repairing those refs. (The admin did not respond to requests for clarification[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/986292349].) 

When Chuckie was indefed, I thought editing without harassment was again possible. Then Mark seemed to replace him, while the same admins which supported Chuckie like a Teflon Shield seem to now be aligned with Mark. 

If there's an unspoken policy on supporting minority/fringe views, it needs to be made public. The admin abuse and '''sanction-gaming'''[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115] must be stopped. Likewise, the practice of deleting refs, reassigning refs and disassociating refs - as experienced on at least 4 pages and due to actions by different admins and editors - must be stopped. As Horse Eye's Back said at the RfC, <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">''We’re also obviously going to see pushback from the Chinese gov on that issue both on and off wiki...''</q>

This block, if permitted to continue, effectively nurtures admin abuse since these actions will be effectively condoned, whether directly or indirectly. The TBan has now been abused repeatedly - grossly as detailed above, and subtly by repeatedly invalid direct confrontations about imaginary violations posted to my talk by Barkeep (before Chuckie's sanction), and afterwards by Girth [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995506208]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995508467] 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995523706] and
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997414174] (the lead-up to the 31 Dec block), and after [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999538897]. As such, it's outlived its stated purpose, and '''the TBan has become a tool of admin abuse''', and needs to be lifted for that reason among others. I'd add 3 of the 5 admins involved are also listed participants in so-called minority-view "Old Fashioned Wikipedia Values", but at 20 years of age, there's nothing old-fashioned about Wikipedia, and admin abuse contradicts OFWV alleged values. 

I would appreciate a full reading of this text by an univolved administrator. Thanks. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=With all due respect, this invalid block is the result of chronic administrative abuses of a poorly defined TBan - '''commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI'''. The abuse has sharply escalated to a point where any person would wonder if the TBan was purposely designed so as to be a sanction-gaming tool. This block also apparently targets balanced content and signifies '''collaboration, to Barkeep49, appears to mean self-censoring''' and using only minority views/fringe theories supported by the government of China.

The escalation of abuse began after 26Dec when I edited at a RfC on Xinhua[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323], where I provided RS and used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. 

The page 2008 Tibetan unrest was then shredded, and minority views reinserted unchallenged since I was invalidly blocked by Girth Summit for challenging those views. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by administrators began around the project; refs were deleted or altered; and open hostility occurred on user talks, at [[Dudjom Rinpoche]], and at an RfC. All of which was stirred into an imaginary reason for this second grossly abusive and more disturbingly invalid block by Barkeep. 

Please excuse the length of text, but invalid blocks which silence balanced content seriously undermine the community and its policies while directly and negatively impacting the stated objectives of the project. Repeated requests to clarify the TBan were made, but Barkeep49 denied clarification 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113]. I pointed out the undefined TBan could be easily abused. Requests for reviews of the ban during the block went unanswered [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/991189973] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113] and appealing to ANI was discouraged [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994471492]at least two times. It doesn't appear that the diffs and text presented at ANI and at the unblock requests were ever read.

'''Gross Abuse'''
# 31Dec invalid block for writing the letters WP:HOUND: MarkH21 has followed into at least 6 pages and an RfC, and has made at least 45 reverts and deletions of refs, made re-edits of supported info with unsupported info, and made numerous false claims on edit summaries. Mark had commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest began on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which Mark continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond. Earlier on 31Dec, I had warned the editor, while they were in the act of both shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and copying some identical reverted text used by both AdoTang and an IP editor (the two are probably sockpuppets of one editor; and likely it's CaradhrasAiguo since it's hounding my edits into biographies at [[Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche]], at [[Panchen Lama]], at [[Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche]] all with BLP concerns, and into geography at [[Nyingchi]])[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.205.9.224]. Here's the warning on their talk[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410]. GirthSummit then ignored the BLP issues and made a false claim[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997473388] which supported Mark's shredding. I noted at the page [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] that [[WP:HOUND]] could also be cited and added to their warning[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661] on EDITWAR. Not comments on motivation were made. I was then blocked by GirthSummit for writing the letters WP:HOUND, then wrongly accused of violating the TBan by both Cullen328 and Mark in support of Girth's abusive block[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999096919], all of whom falsely claimed I was violating the ban. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. Thus, the block was an abuse of admin tools, on New Year's Eve, made while I was also being blocked from accessing the internet<sup class="noprint Inline-Template " style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|<span title="The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution.">by whom?</span>]]</i>]</sup>.
# 16Jan invalid block: In an even more gross example of abuse of admin tools and abuse of the TBan, Barkeep doesn't like diffs and text in my sandbox, and imaginary parallels to the TBan have been alleged. At the sandbox, no names are written, no comments are made on motivation, and worth adding is no one has been officially invited into the sandbox (a semi-private/public area). It's also an edit almost in a personal code[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051], so as to keep the info private. Barkeep writes a rude and hostile message [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Sandbox]; I say the message is clearly way outside the parameters of the TBan[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000724818]. His response was this block. He also actually edited my sandbox[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000767341] without respect nor requesting permission. 
# (16Jan invalid block reason not specified by Barkeep, as in ''"Note to any reviewing administrator: this block is for two (related) reasons".'' When the second reason is specified, it will be addressed here.)

These are clearly cases of disruptive editing, of hounding, and of direct rudeness and possible trolling which can be forms of personal attacks. My attempts to deal with these issues and possible attacks - ignoring; addressing gently; addressing strongly - have not worked. Instead, the block appears to also be vindictive.

It's important to remember the TBan was related to repeatedly trying to get the chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo sanctioned, or stopped [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Several of the same admins involved here refused to provide support, including Cullen (refused on 03oct[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/981513436]) and Barkeep (refused while drafting the original TBan response[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]). I had also approached ANI about Chuckie, as had many other editors.

I'm a good researcher, provide solid information, and the refs can be rated as good to excellent. I contribute to biographies on Tibetan Buddhist masters and teachers, on current events, on related pages, and provide majority opinion RS such as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/chinas-atrocities-in-tibet-are-growing-too-big-to-ignore/2020/12/24/ba9d5c4e-4624-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html Josh Rogin's ''China’s atrocities in Tibet are growing too big to ignore'', from 24 December 2020] at the topic areas related to Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet. I add missing notable information, check refs and repair, and provide balance to a constant creep of minority/fringe theory from a pro-Chinese POV. 

I like working collaboratively,  but not with repeatedly abusive editors or admins. If collaboration to Barkeep means self-censoring to appease the Chinese government, he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather a propaganda tool. 

Chuckie was a notorious minority view/pro-PRC editor. Just before his sanction, he initiated a false allegation about 'intentionally misleading edits', at Nyingchi, which has become a false-accusations theme. Its falsity is evidenced by the same information on Re-education camps at [[Larung Gar#Political Re-education|Larung Gar]], and expanded at [[Chen Quanguo#Tibet|Chen Quanguo]], which are both correct. It appears I was distracted after discovering refs for that specific information had been broken/altered by another admin at Larung Gar, then distracted after focusing on repairing those refs. (The admin did not respond to requests for clarification[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/986292349].) 

When Chuckie was indefed, I thought editing without harassment was again possible. Then Mark seemed to replace him, while the same admins which supported Chuckie like a Teflon Shield seem to now be aligned with Mark. 

If there's an unspoken policy on supporting minority/fringe views, it needs to be made public. The admin abuse and '''sanction-gaming'''[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115] must be stopped. Likewise, the practice of deleting refs, reassigning refs and disassociating refs - as experienced on at least 4 pages and due to actions by different admins and editors - must be stopped. As Horse Eye's Back said at the RfC, <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">''We’re also obviously going to see pushback from the Chinese gov on that issue both on and off wiki...''</q>

This block, if permitted to continue, effectively nurtures admin abuse since these actions will be effectively condoned, whether directly or indirectly. The TBan has now been abused repeatedly - grossly as detailed above, and subtly by repeatedly invalid direct confrontations about imaginary violations posted to my talk by Barkeep (before Chuckie's sanction), and afterwards by Girth [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995506208]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995508467] 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995523706] and
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997414174] (the lead-up to the 31 Dec block), and after [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999538897]. As such, it's outlived its stated purpose, and '''the TBan has become a tool of admin abuse''', and needs to be lifted for that reason among others. I'd add 3 of the 5 admins involved are also listed participants in so-called minority-view "Old Fashioned Wikipedia Values", but at 20 years of age, there's nothing old-fashioned about Wikipedia, and admin abuse contradicts OFWV alleged values. 

I would appreciate a full reading of this text by an univolved administrator. Thanks. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=With all due respect, this invalid block is the result of chronic administrative abuses of a poorly defined TBan - '''commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI'''. The abuse has sharply escalated to a point where any person would wonder if the TBan was purposely designed so as to be a sanction-gaming tool. This block also apparently targets balanced content and signifies '''collaboration, to Barkeep49, appears to mean self-censoring''' and using only minority views/fringe theories supported by the government of China.

The escalation of abuse began after 26Dec when I edited at a RfC on Xinhua[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_323], where I provided RS and used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. 

The page 2008 Tibetan unrest was then shredded, and minority views reinserted unchallenged since I was invalidly blocked by Girth Summit for challenging those views. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by administrators began around the project; refs were deleted or altered; and open hostility occurred on user talks, at [[Dudjom Rinpoche]], and at an RfC. All of which was stirred into an imaginary reason for this second grossly abusive and more disturbingly invalid block by Barkeep. 

Please excuse the length of text, but invalid blocks which silence balanced content seriously undermine the community and its policies while directly and negatively impacting the stated objectives of the project. Repeated requests to clarify the TBan were made, but Barkeep49 denied clarification 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113]. I pointed out the undefined TBan could be easily abused. Requests for reviews of the ban during the block went unanswered [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/991189973] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113] and appealing to ANI was discouraged [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994471492]at least two times. It doesn't appear that the diffs and text presented at ANI and at the unblock requests were ever read.

'''Gross Abuse'''
# 31Dec invalid block for writing the letters WP:HOUND: MarkH21 has followed into at least 6 pages and an RfC, and has made at least 45 reverts and deletions of refs, made re-edits of supported info with unsupported info, and made numerous false claims on edit summaries. Mark had commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest began on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which Mark continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond. Earlier on 31Dec, I had warned the editor, while they were in the act of both shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and copying some identical reverted text used by both AdoTang and an IP editor (the two are probably sockpuppets of one editor; and likely it's CaradhrasAiguo since it's hounding my edits into biographies at [[Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche]], at [[Panchen Lama]], at [[Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche]] all with BLP concerns, and into geography at [[Nyingchi]])[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/103.205.9.224]. Here's the warning on their talk[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410]. GirthSummit then ignored the BLP issues and made a false claim[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997473388] which supported Mark's shredding. I noted at the page [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] that [[WP:HOUND]] could also be cited and added to their warning[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661] on EDITWAR. Not comments on motivation were made. I was then blocked by GirthSummit for writing the letters WP:HOUND, then wrongly accused of violating the TBan by both Cullen328 and Mark in support of Girth's abusive block[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999096919], all of whom falsely claimed I was violating the ban. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. Thus, the block was an abuse of admin tools, on New Year's Eve, made while I was also being blocked from accessing the internet<sup class="noprint Inline-Template " style="white-space:nowrap;">[<i>[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Unsupported attributions|<span title="The material near this tag may use weasel words or too-vague attribution.">by whom?</span>]]</i>]</sup>.
# 16Jan invalid block: In an even more gross example of abuse of admin tools and abuse of the TBan, Barkeep doesn't like diffs and text in my sandbox, and imaginary parallels to the TBan have been alleged. At the sandbox, no names are written, no comments are made on motivation, and worth adding is no one has been officially invited into the sandbox (a semi-private/public area). It's also an edit almost in a personal code[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051], so as to keep the info private. Barkeep writes a rude and hostile message [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Sandbox]; I say the message is clearly way outside the parameters of the TBan[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000724818]. His response was this block. He also actually edited my sandbox[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000767341] without respect nor requesting permission. 
# (16Jan invalid block reason not specified by Barkeep, as in ''"Note to any reviewing administrator: this block is for two (related) reasons".'' When the second reason is specified, it will be addressed here.)

These are clearly cases of disruptive editing, of hounding, and of direct rudeness and possible trolling which can be forms of personal attacks. My attempts to deal with these issues and possible attacks - ignoring; addressing gently; addressing strongly - have not worked. Instead, the block appears to also be vindictive.

It's important to remember the TBan was related to repeatedly trying to get the chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo sanctioned, or stopped [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Several of the same admins involved here refused to provide support, including Cullen (refused on 03oct[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/981513436]) and Barkeep (refused while drafting the original TBan response[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795]). I had also approached ANI about Chuckie, as had many other editors.

I'm a good researcher, provide solid information, and the refs can be rated as good to excellent. I contribute to biographies on Tibetan Buddhist masters and teachers, on current events, on related pages, and provide majority opinion RS such as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global-opinions/chinas-atrocities-in-tibet-are-growing-too-big-to-ignore/2020/12/24/ba9d5c4e-4624-11eb-b0e4-0f182923a025_story.html Josh Rogin's ''China’s atrocities in Tibet are growing too big to ignore'', from 24 December 2020] at the topic areas related to Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet. I add missing notable information, check refs and repair, and provide balance to a constant creep of minority/fringe theory from a pro-Chinese POV. 

I like working collaboratively,  but not with repeatedly abusive editors or admins. If collaboration to Barkeep means self-censoring to appease the Chinese government, he's not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather a propaganda tool. 

Chuckie was a notorious minority view/pro-PRC editor. Just before his sanction, he initiated a false allegation about 'intentionally misleading edits', at Nyingchi, which has become a false-accusations theme. Its falsity is evidenced by the same information on Re-education camps at [[Larung Gar#Political Re-education|Larung Gar]], and expanded at [[Chen Quanguo#Tibet|Chen Quanguo]], which are both correct. It appears I was distracted after discovering refs for that specific information had been broken/altered by another admin at Larung Gar, then distracted after focusing on repairing those refs. (The admin did not respond to requests for clarification[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/986292349].) 

When Chuckie was indefed, I thought editing without harassment was again possible. Then Mark seemed to replace him, while the same admins which supported Chuckie like a Teflon Shield seem to now be aligned with Mark. 

If there's an unspoken policy on supporting minority/fringe views, it needs to be made public. The admin abuse and '''sanction-gaming'''[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115] must be stopped. Likewise, the practice of deleting refs, reassigning refs and disassociating refs - as experienced on at least 4 pages and due to actions by different admins and editors - must be stopped. As Horse Eye's Back said at the RfC, <q  class="inline-quote-talk  ">''We’re also obviously going to see pushback from the Chinese gov on that issue both on and off wiki...''</q>

This block, if permitted to continue, effectively nurtures admin abuse since these actions will be effectively condoned, whether directly or indirectly. The TBan has now been abused repeatedly - grossly as detailed above, and subtly by repeatedly invalid direct confrontations about imaginary violations posted to my talk by Barkeep (before Chuckie's sanction), and afterwards by Girth [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995506208]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995508467] 
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995523706] and
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997414174] (the lead-up to the 31 Dec block), and after [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999538897]. As such, it's outlived its stated purpose, and '''the TBan has become a tool of admin abuse''', and needs to be lifted for that reason among others. I'd add 3 of the 5 admins involved are also listed participants in so-called minority-view "Old Fashioned Wikipedia Values", but at 20 years of age, there's nothing old-fashioned about Wikipedia, and admin abuse contradicts OFWV alleged values. 

I would appreciate a full reading of this text by an univolved administrator. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC) (reedited 19:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC))(reedited 13:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I don't intend on closing this unblock request or even commit to commenting further beyond this query, but where can I find the restriction spelled out as well as the pertinent discussion that led up to it? (No mobile diffs, please!) El_C 22:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks. I don't know why I thought it was an AE discussion that someone forgot to log at WP:AEL rather than an AN/ANI one logged at WP:RESTRICT — maybe because I applied WP:ARBBLP on Pasdecomplot a few months ago...? Anyway, sorry for the poor reading comprehension on my part! El_C 22:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~The ANI was closed,Here's the reopened discussion Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Looks like you forgot a link... El_C 23:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a cat choosing to publish on wiki...El_C. Thanks for looking. The ANI was closed, then apparently reopened by Valereee using advice directly from Barkeep49, who then closed it and has been acting as its administrator. I wasn't notified it had been successfully reopened, after pinging EdJohnston. Here's the reopened discussion Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot. I've never seen this other link from Barkeep before Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full text from editing restrictions link: Pasdecomplot is banned from commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at ANI. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...? And you maintain that saying "nervous breakdown indications" doesn't violate that, do I got it right? El_C 23:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear there was notification of the unarchiving by EdJohnston within about a half hour, for which I thanked them because I'd belatedly realized I should notify again, came here to do so, and saw the notification. PDC acknowledged less than an hour later. —valereee (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question, "nervous breakdown indications (?)". As a question, Yes El_C, Correct. A nervous breakdown isn't a motivation, but a medical condition. I wouldn't have written the question if it was about motivation. Also, please note no names were written, so "commenting on other editors' motivations" also doesn't really match. It's a question with a diff buried in the sandbox among other underused items.

Barkeep also imagined I was preparing an ANI, as his diff reveals. (Why the sandbox was dug into and by whom is another question.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to me, it looks a comment about an editor's possible motivation, regardless if it was delivered as a question or whether that individual was named or not. El_C 23:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But El_C, a mental state isn't a motivation. For example, Harming, harassing, stalking, making uncomfortable, all of these words can be used as describing motivations. A mental state isn't a motivation, generally speaking, since a person would not be consciously motivated but rather incapacitated, beyond motivation. Thus, I felt it was allowed within the TBan, and being without a name, and assumedly semi-private, I didn't worry. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About the Notification: The notification said that there was a request to reopen. I pinged EdJohnston afterwards from El_C's talk, asked about the process and why, asked about an IBAN on Valereee. Did not receive a reply, or a proper notice it was officially reopened, as my lack of participation indicates. (I have since pinged EdJohnston about it.) The whole block/ban process and now on to this invalid block really smells bad. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, your indents confuse me. Anyway, that's a bit too nuanced of a distinction for me, but I suppose we'll see how the reviewing admin sees it. Regards, El_C 00:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it appears nuanced, I think a good point is the intent El_C. Did I intend to write about motivation? No. Did I think, or do I think I wrote about motivation? No. Did Barkeep imagine a violation? Yes, but it wasn't. Did Barkeep also imagine I was filing an ANI? Yes, but I wasn't.

And, an obvious question: is a indefinite block valid for such a questionable instance by an involved administrator after a month a constant surveillance, deleted refs, direct rudeness, and pages with obscured and serious BLP issues undertaken by editors whose behaviors are more serious than an imagined comment on motivation? Most definitely not. (No comments were made on their motivation.)

And, we're still waiting on Barkeep's secret related reason for the block, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with the overarching dispute to tell whether an indef is warranted here or not, but I have little doubt that Barkeep is WP:UNINVOLVED and that you are still badgering them with "secret"-this and "questionable"-that. I think you've made your point about all of that abundantly clear already — maybe now just wait for an admin to attend to the unblock review (which, frankly, seems far too lengthy to be viable, anyway, but oh well). El_C 00:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My assuming you were filing for AN/ANI was assuming good faith given that I also know you were trying to build up a case for having your editing restriction rescinded. Otherwise that sandbox has issues with WP:POLEMIC which I linked to in my original request that you remove the speculative statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no medical condition called a "nervous breakdown" and that is simply a colloquial layperson's term to describe a person who is mentally ill (an extremely broad concept) and experiencing a personal crisis (also broad). Pasdecomplot, in my opinion, is wikilawyering. The comment strongly implies one or more editors who disagree with Pasdecomplot are motivated by an out of control mental illness. In my opinion, it is difficult to imagine a more severe violation of the editing restriction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ASPER to throw around the pejorative term 'wikilawering' in this discussion, as well as inappropriate and unhelpful, (as are your other opinions in these interrelated matters, found in the diffs above, especially the opinions surrounding a chronic sockpuppet). Your word "implies" is based on your personal interpretation, Cullen328. "One or more editors..." Are you just fabricating accusations now?

I am being precise. Since the definition above is incomplete, here's the project:

Motivation : "a reason for actions, willingness, and goals. Motivation is derived from the word motive, or a need that requires satisfaction."
Nervous breakdown : "A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning."

A pattern of repetitively disruptive edits by a particular administrator was so far outside editing standards and policy in ledes and for BLP [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] that my private question was warranted after finding this. Seemingly uncontrollable disruption continued - a ref was deleted[37] another ref disassociated [38] which required more repairs [39] [40] [41] [42] [43].

The key text is commenting on other editors' motivation, and is not "implying" , nor "inferring" , nor "insinuating" comments on other editors' motivations, since those are not comments. Those words have only ushered in chronic administrative abuse of the TBan, as the diffs above illustrate.

OVERVIEW: Not a good look.: To restate the Involved/COI's more clearly, this invalid block is by the same administrator (Barkeep) that gave advise (to Valereee) for the closed then reopened ANI block/ban, before stepping in to administer the apparent sanction-game by Valereee (see diff above detailing the sanction game components). Barkeep has now escalated an apparent sanction-game into an indefinite block, while imagining another TBan violation, in a diff from a sandbox with a warranted coded question about the author of the TBan request, due to that author's repetitive and seemingly uncontrolled disruptive edits. (These include tags which another editor has since slightly altered, into standard cn tags.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience, here's a non-mobile diff: Special:Permalink/999334686. Another editor was concerned about what they saw as non-neutral language and iffy sources being added to an on Tibetan Buddhism and asked me to take a look. That's what I found. The series of mobile edits PDC provides above are the attempts I made to first neutralize the language, as we were asserting religious belief as fact in wikivoice. When PDC reverted, I tried tagging the non-neutral language for attribution/quotes, as the sources used appear to be the writings of Buddhist religious leaders. (PDC's quite right that I accidentally deleted a source they'd added in an apparent edit conflict; I apologized and when I went to correct, I found they'd already added it back.) —valereee (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page has BLP concerns. Defining a deleted ref as an "edit conflict" ? ~~is interesting.~~ And what are the disassociated refs? More edit conflicts? Why aren't BLP parameters being followed, why were the refs never read before the tagging and deletion and disassociation? I've added good to excellent sources to a poorly sourced page, but the mischaracterization above could lead a person to believe the opposite occurred. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PDC, do you see that Defining a deleted ref as an "edit conflict" is interesting. And what are the disassociated refs? More "edit conflicts? appears to be a direct comment on my motivation? I suggest you strike it. I have so far ignored your comments on my mental health because I'm trying really hard not to pile on here. —valereee (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any reviewing administrator I hadn't intended to comment here, but since I have been mentioned in the unblock request, and Pasdecomplot still seems to be arguing that they don't believe that comments about a user's mental health can reasonably be interpreted as a breach of their topic ban, I should point out that I have warned Pasdecomplot about breaching their TBan, and about approaching the boundaries of it cautiously (here and here) and in this ANI thread multiple editors said similar things to them. I did so again here, prior to their edit that implied that another editor was hounding them, which was what led me to block them for a week. Their continued willingness to make all sorts of edits that cast doubt over others' motivations, including this one at RSN that clearly implies that I am racist, convinces me that this indefinite block is both appropriate and necessary. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Girth Summit, those diffs are included in the unblock request above. And no, the RSN implies not that you're a racist by quoting you. It only illustrates your BLP concerns at the Chinese government's representative Chen Quanguo's page as versus your lack of BLP concerns for Tibetan monks at the 2008 Tibetan unrest page. Sorry if that wasn't clear, but now it is.

Note to reviewing administrator: Girth Summit's diffs and more can be found in the paragraph where subtle admin abuses of TBan are included. I am not addressing motivations, just the results of actions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Struck through "is interesting"; valid questions about edits cannot be reasonably lumped into accusations of commenting on motivations. This is how and why the TBan is being abused, while the ban appears to be designed only as a sanction-game. The repeated requests for clarification of the TBan, and the denial of clarification supports this understanding.

Furthermore, the text because I'm trying really hard not to pile on here is more bullshit. The administrator Valereee has been either directly or indirectly responsible for every block in the block log[44], and responsible for two bans. Recently, the November TBan and 1 month block was awarded to their sanction-game, which ushered in the invalid block on 31Dec, and this current invalid block. Their actions have been unrelenting, despite requests for help from others, requests for information on IBANing an administrator, and despite a direct informal IBan request. I've lost count of the number of pages they've followed into, (along with the sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo and now with MarkH21). The admin's uncontrolled disruptive edits at Dudjom Rinpoche have been illustrated above. These are their actions. I'm not addressing their motivations. (And, don't you wonder where the other volunteer editors are in Tibetan Buddhism and in the related pages? I do.) Pasdecomplot (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, you took my words entirely out of context, and used them in a different way. I was talking about content - I said that I associated a certain word with xenophobia and racism (specifically, the word 'swamped' in the context of a description of the movement of peoples), and I was arguing that we should be more careful in the words we choose. You were talking about conduct - you explicitly said that my actions were those that you associate with xenophobia and racism. Your apparent inability to discuss content without speculating on the motivations of others is the very reason why the Tban was imposed in the first place, and your inability to abide by it, or to even see that you have repeatedly transgressed it, is why I believe that the block is necessary. I don't intend to get into a tit-for-tat with you about this, and am content to allow another administrator to review. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then, perhaps tell The Economist's author of In Xinjiang, China applies repressive lessons learned in Tibet from 12 December 2019 (link here) your concerns regarding their choice of using the word "swamped", and share your concerns Girth Summit that their word might be portraying Chinese policies as "xenophobic" and "racist".

Your inability to edit without false allegations of my "commenting on other editors' motivations" is unreal. Your block from 31Dec was invalid. Please read WP:HOUND and also explain where the alleged "comments on motivation" was made in my edit to Mark here. You can't, neither can Cullen nor Mark, because the comment wasn't made; on wiki pages, your interpretations and Barkeep's interpretations of my edits would be routinely deleted as OR, since they are simply not supported by text. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second sentence at the link you just gave reads This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. How you think you can give a link to that, and not be seen as commenting on others' motivations, is entirely beyond me. You were warned multiple times about not pushing the boundaries of the TBan; you chose not to heed those warnings.

I'm not getting back into the discussion with you on the question of whether the word 'swamped' was appropriate to use in Wikipedia's voice. The fact remains that you took my words about content, stripped them of their context, and used them to describe my actions as racist, which is yet another comment on another editor's motivations - and a deeply unpleasant one at that. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, here's a reality check. Had I seen that "no comment is made on the editor's motivations" comment at the time, I would have blocked you on-the-spot, probably indefinitely. That is so beyond the pale. If you're unable to recognize that, it is my view that your unblock request's chances of success approaches zero. El_C 16:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So then I might as well just pile on after all, as you're going to believe that's what I've been doing all along either way? Fine: I've been concerned about your apparent inability or unwillingness to learn behavior guidelines and what constitutes "involved", but really after the two RfCs at RSN w/re Tibetan Buddhism and China, and now this unblock request, two things concern me even more:

1. I'm a good researcher, provide solid information, and the refs can be rated as good to excellent. Your sources are absolutely not good to excellent. The sourcing you bring in is quite often iffy in the extreme, especially w/re Tibetan Buddhism and China, such as Tibetan Political Review. (Someone had to take it to RSN and you still refused to be convinced.) The sourcing you criticize shows a deep misunderstanding of how we assess and use sources, such as removing content sourced to Sydney Morning Herald and Reuters because they were reporting on claims made by Chinese state television. (You took it to RSN and still refused to be convinced.) This is a huge concern; it's a waste of other editors' time, and it doesn't seem to be making any impression.

2. As seen in those RfCs, this unblock request and the earlier ones, you tend to believe your own understanding of policy is superior to other editors you've encountered. As far as I’ve seen, no one can tell you anything, including editors with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience. You’ve called almost every admin you’ve ever encountered “abusive” or “involved” or both, and you've accused pretty much every editor you've ever had a disagreement with, which you regularly do at Tibetan Buddhism and China articles, of hounding. This is also a huge concern.

Between these two apparently-intractable concerns, if you're unblocked I'm ready to propose you be indefinitely topic banned from editing Tibetan Buddhism and China, broadly construed. You edit disruptively in those areas. —valereee (talk) 15:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee's assessments are once again gross mischaracterizations of my contributions and edits, and disturbingly incorrect in their sweeping judgements. She (assumed pronoun) taught me about AdminAbuse at George Floyd, and afterwards taught me about Hounding. Unfortunately, Barkeep and GirthSummit, who might otherwise be good administrators, are presently aiding in just another one of her sanction-games. And, her next sanction-game target has been revealed in the last sentences above: Tibetan Buddhism and China.

I've made more than 3000 edits, but Valereee has characterized my understanding of RS as a "deep misunderstanding", due to one source Mark and NormChou didn't approve of before an RSn was opened. (Sure. One source (Tibetan Political Review) that had published a published academic author's work (Warren Smith Jr), who also has a page in FR wiki. The flurry of activity in rushing the deletion of the source and 2015 text about "singing and dancing" Tibetans in "fake Tibetan 'model villages'" from Nyingchi#Tourism was astonishing. It's possible the Tibetan nuns in Nyingchi's 2016 Re-education camps are being forced to not only sing and dance on stage (per RS), but to sing and dance for Chinese tourists in Nyingchi at the fake villages, where forced sex for tourists could also be involved (not in RS yet), since RS states rape by the camp guards is considered a form of "re-education". ) Involved at the page were Chuckie (CaradhrasAiguo), Esyimbro, MarkH21, myself, and NormChou. And, it's still an issue for Valereee?

The edit history reveals Valereee is the most disruptive editor in the topic area, after Chuckie and now Mark. Valereee's edits in Dudjom Rinpoche were deeply and repetitively disruptive - to a lede and beyond (see mobile diffs above). Their edits reveal a total lack of respect for BLP parameters, and a repetitively deep lack of knowledge in editing pages on spiritual leaders. I repair her edits, Chuckie's edits, and now Mark's disruptive edits. It that what she finds "disruptive"?

What's incredible is that Valereee has not stopped "piling on" since June, and since George Floyd:

She directly blocked once,
then twice; the second one was invalid as El_C clarified.
Then, she proposed a third block with a BLP ban, which El C granted. She seemed to really not want text on Chauvin dragging Floyd's dead body to the gurney.
I left to another area of the project. Tibetan Buddhism. She tagged a page I was editing as a BLP, and tried for another TBan violation, which was pure sanction gaming. El _C graciously removed the block less than 24 hours after the mistake was discovered.
She disrupted two page move requests at the 11th Panchen Lama while collecting more diffs that were used and misrepresented at ANI, in a much more massive sanction-game than the BLP tagging version of the game. Only one reviewer questioned her distorted presentation while none caught the false diffs. She failed in gaining a sanction.
Barkeep49 advised her on requesting the block and TBan, where she referred to me (and other editors) as "monkeys" [45]. She managed to reopen the ANI.
No individual administrators would grant the sanction. Instead, a group of admins and editors, supposedly acting only as editors, issued her requested sanction, the same that was earlier advised by Barkeep.
I stopped adding info regarding motivation to edit summaries and to edits on talks, which were the stated problems. Then, the goal posts shifted: so-called implied and inferred comments were flagged in what became constant harassment for me by Girth Summit. Then, goal posts shifted again as hounding and edit warring and direct rudeness couldn't be addressed since it led to false accusations of TBan violations. Valereee's TBan ushered in the block by Girth Summit on 31Dec.
Then, Barkeep issues a block indefinitely, based on an edit and diff about Valereee's rather outrageous and seemingly uncontrolled disruptions, which the sanction-gamed TBan again ushered in. Where's Valereee's warning, her sanction? And, I'd like to mention that boomerang is doubtlessly a form of victim blaming.

Valereee is not able to accurately describe anything about me or my contributions, nor is she a reliable source of information, of research and diffs, and her personal opinion of me is completely unreliable. As her block record reveals, she has issues with me which are uncontrollable. To pretend otherwise suggests unconsciousness, or an inability to hold herself accountable.

Girth Summit I already explained I wasn't accusing you of being a racist. But, you had suggested The Economist and I and/or Chinese policy could be "xenophobic" and "racist" - so, you're offended by imagining someone thinks you're a racist, but you feel free to imply everyone else could be racist? Am I understanding you? And, you still have not explained why your BLP concerns don't extend to Tibetan monks. "Deeply unpleasant" was the repeated inappropriately personal questions which were posed instead of providing answers to the above BLP issues. Unpleasantly brought from your talk to the RfC. What's with that?

El_C If the objectives are to censor content and cull editors through the nurturing of sanction-games and the permitting of gross administrative abuse, then that's another reality. That's not the reality portrayed by the policies. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The objective is to curtail you from committing any further violations (of various kinds), Pasdecomplot, which... isn't really working. And which does not seem to have ever actually worked, to be honest. El_C 22:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But the sanctions have worked. It seems to me this discussion is equal to ANI, since I'm blocked from editing there. I've stopped commenting on the motivations of others on edit summaries and talks; my sources are much, much better and range from good to excellent; the inline citations as well as inline attributions are adhered to per RSn's; my BLP concerns are higher than other editor's... I indent. So, El_C how does one deal, from 31Dec to today, with EDITWAR, HOUND and PA, ADMINABUSE, or even SANCTIONGAME while gagged?

I don't volunteer to participate in censoring. I don't buy the "stay away from controversial pages" rational, because that's where the free access to balanced information matters most. I left George Floyd to escape harassment. Harassment followed. Once again, I'm not into "hooping" PRC on "controversial" pages, and the pretence is wearing thin. Either I can edit and continue contributing without games and harassment, or not. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're clearly not understanding me. For me to say that we should avoid using a certain word in Wikipedia's voice because I perceive it as being loaded with certain connotations is one thing; for you to then talk explicitly about my actions in the same terms is another. If you had asked me to clarify my point at the time I would certainly have done so; when I asked you to remove or strike the comments about my actions, you refused to do so.

I don't understand why you think that asking whether English is your first language is an inappropriately personal question. Many of our contributors are multilingual, and I have enjoyed collaborating in the past with French and Italian contributors, who write interesting and well-sourced content, but who have asked me to go over their prose because their English grammar wasn't quite good enough to allow them to write polished articles independently. Understanding the limitations of one another's language skills is a normal part of editing here, to the extent that many contributors have userboxes indicating their levels of proficiency in different languages. Your username is in French phrase, and you seemed to be having difficulty in understanding the difference between a newspaper publishing a report, and a newspaper citing that report - in asking whether English was a second language for you, I was trying to find out whether comprehension issues were behind some of the issues you were having. I didn't mean it to be taken as rude or offensive, and I only repeated the question because you didn't respond to it the first time I asked. You still haven't answered it, but as soon as you told me that you thought it was rude, I didn't ask you again, and am only mentioning it now because you raised it.

I have already told you why I don't believe your BLP concerns are valid. I told you at my talk page, and then at RSN, where Newslinger told you the same thing. I don't know whether you haven't read the comments, or whether you don't understand them, but saying that I haven't explained it is not true.

I'll make one last suggestion here, and then I'd really like you to stop pinging me. A completely uninvolved administrator, Writ Keeper, gave you some really good advice when they first commented on this unblock request on 17 Jan. I don't know why, but rather than taking on board what they were trying to tell you, you reverted them; I'd suggest that you go back and look at that. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Why do you ask, Girth Summit? Are they by chance in OFWV with you and Valereee? With all due respect, it's really not your business. Why did you ping them? And, are you asking to not be pinged in this response?

But to answer: I deleted, not reverted, Writ Keeper's text which they began writing before the draft of the request was completed, even before the request was official. If you read the deleted text, you'll see that. It, for me, was following too closely. Plus, the only other time I've had the opportunity to interact with them, they reverted the striking of a directly rude and possibly trolling comment from Valereee on a noticeboard, in a discussion of which they were not a participant. That revert was also unhelpful, and clearly indicated, to me, a sense of non-independence, as in their comments, to me, were not independent.

And, I'm not into role-play games with a character called the 'writ keeper' [46][47][48], while the play name, to me, smacks of comparison with an extremist paramilitary fringe group called Oath Keepers [49], based in the US. Are you familiar with that paramilitary group? And that crown, which together with the other associations, is not a good look. And your question was...? Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked no question, and still ask none. I responded to some points you made, and made an observation and a suggestion. (BTW, if we're going to be pedantic about it, deleting someone's comment is reverting them, regardless of whether or not you use the 'undo' button.)

I have heard of the Oath Keepers, but the comparison had never occurred to me. I've never interacted with Writ Keeper as far as I can recall, but I've seen the username around; I'd always just assumed they were a fan of Homestuck. (Specifically this character, which might also explain the crown.) This is the issue in a nutshell though PdC - when faced with a username you don't understand, your mind went straight to far-right paramilitary groups. Someone made an edit that you disagreed with, you assumed that they are not independent. WP:TINC. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's ASPER, and it's unhelpful. I answered in good faith, and your response was more inappropriate edits and accusations, instead of respecting another POV different from your own, or edits with words not exactly those which you choose to use. That's incredibly toxic to me as it's coming from an administrator, and that's the real nutshell Girth. And, that's the thrust of the unblock request. Apparently you didn't read the entire reply. Sorry your coeditor has chosen what seems to be an unfortunate user name, and sorry they revealed themselves as not independent. Maybe you can role play with them, but leave me and this request out of the game. So, that's really enough, Girth. Stop with the unhelpful editing. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about re "roleplay"--as far as I know, "Writ Keeper" is the name of a minor character in Homestuck the webcomic, which I was a more-or-less casual reader of when I made this account in 2011. There's no roleplaying involved, I just liked the character and name. (I've also acknowledged the link to Homestuck before somewhere, I think in my RfA or RfB.)

As far as "Oath Keepers", I've never heard of the group until this year, I certainly don't know, support, or agree with anything at all about them, and the idea that my username is "unfortunate" because it shares a common English word with them is frankly nonsense. Fascist nutjobs (like the Oath Keepers) don't get to dictate language any more than they get to dictate anything else.

I guess by "not indepedent" you mean I'm involved? One interaction with you does not make me involved with you, but I wouldn't officially handle your unblock request regardless because of the "avoiding the appearance" clause, which I take very seriously. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies w/re: monkeys; that was a reference not to the editors in question but to the phrase "Not my circus, not my monkeys", which roughly means: Not my business per here. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop invalid block & admin abuse

The invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is [specific]. It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments on edit summaries, previously made while trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo, who was coordinating disruptive edits with Valereee[diff]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of sanction-gaming.

Since the sanction began, administrative abuses have spread from Valereee to Barkeep49 and to GirthSummit. After stopping the commenting on motivations on edit summaries, constant goal-post shifts and OR reinterpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, have created an increasingly hostile editing environment which includes deleted and disassociated refs, direct rudeness, trolling, and hounding on pages, on talks, on noticeboards, and on this user talk.

The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV. On 31 Dec, a TBan violation was alleged and used by GirthSummit to issue a block which protected the shredding of multiple editors' balanced POV on 2008 Tibetan unrest, undertaken by MarkH21 and supported by Culken328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My edits did not address the motivation [diff], but the accuser's OR interpretations did.

Now, another alleged 'comment on motivation' has been invalidly used by Barkeep to enact an indefinite block. Again, absolutely nothing in the text makes a comment on motivations[diff]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: meaning, these are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, while the clarifications are ignored.

Collaboratively editing does not mean being forced into "hooping" Chinese propaganda, but Barkeep's reasoning suggests it does. Collaboration based on policies means everyone is subject to the policies. If administrators are not subject to policy, and if policy only applies to recent editors (not liking PRC or US police POV shoved into their orifices), wiki's not a collaborative project but rather only another propaganda tool, and it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-gaming tools.

The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit without harassment and games. And as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the abusive TBan. Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 312: / Line 312: @@
 :::::I guess by "not indepedent" you mean I'm [[WP:INVOLVED|involved]]? One interaction with you does not make me involved with you, but I wouldn't officially handle your unblock request regardless because of the "avoiding the appearance" clause, which I take very seriously. [[User:Writ Keeper|Writ&nbsp;Keeper]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Writ Keeper|&#9863;]][[Special:Contributions/Writ_Keeper|&#9812;]] 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 ::Apologies w/re: monkeys; that was a reference not to the editors in question but to the phrase "Not my circus, not my monkeys", which roughly means: Not my business [https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=not_my_circus,_not_my_monkeys&oldid=61018382| per here]. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
+== Please stop invalid block & admin abuse ==
+The invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is [specific]. It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments on edit summaries, previously made while trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet CaradhrasAiguo, who was coordinating disruptive edits with Valereee[diff]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of '''sanction-gaming'''.
+Since the sanction began, administrative abuses have spread from Valereee to Barkeep49 and to GirthSummit. After stopping the commenting on motivations on edit summaries, constant goal-post shifts and OR reinterpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, have created an increasingly hostile editing environment which includes deleted and disassociated refs, direct rudeness, trolling, and hounding on pages, on talks, on noticeboards, and on this user talk.
+The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV. On 31 Dec, a TBan violation was alleged and used by GirthSummit to issue a block which protected the shredding of multiple editors' balanced POV on [[2008 Tibetan unrest]], undertaken by MarkH21 and supported by Culken328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My edits did not address the motivation [diff], but the accuser's OR interpretations did.
+Now, another alleged 'comment on motivation' has been invalidly used by Barkeep to enact an indefinite block. Again, absolutely nothing in the text makes a comment on motivations[diff]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: meaning, these are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, while the clarifications are ignored.
+Collaboratively editing does not mean being forced into "hooping" Chinese propaganda, but Barkeep's reasoning suggests it does. Collaboration based on policies means everyone is subject to the policies. If administrators are not subject to policy, and if policy only applies to recent editors (not liking PRC or US police POV shoved into their orifices), wiki's not a collaborative project but rather only another propaganda tool, and it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-gaming tools.
+The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit without harassment and games. And as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the abusive TBan. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 13:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)