User talk:Pasdecomplot: Difference between revisions

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) 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)

Le quagmire

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

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

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

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)

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[1] 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)

Looks like a static IP for colo/servers [2], 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)

Thanks for the link 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)

Sorry Normchou, it's Panchen Lama to which the editor made edits. (Looks more like Chuckie's sockpuppet...). Thanks! Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

• 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)

  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)

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)

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)

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

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 Thanks - 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. After months of experience, 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[3], where the links provided used the 2008 Tibetan unrest as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today.

MarkH21 commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest reoccurred on 29Dec[4], which MarkH21 continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond, during my first invalid block by GirthSummit. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by admins 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.

Please also note repeated requests were made on 17Nov and after regarding the undefined TBan. I asked for clarification but was denied by Barkeep49 [5] [6], and others kind enough to respond. I pointed out the undefined TBan could be easily abused. Requests for reviews of the ban during the block went unanswered [7] [8] and appealing to ANI was discouraged [9]at least two times.

Gross Abuse

1. 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. On 31Dec, I warned the editor, while they were in the act of shredding 2008 Tibetan unrest and while copying some identical 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)[10]. These reedits and identical text had already been reverted by another editor, but Mark ignored the edit history. Here's the warning on their talk[11]. GirthSummit then ignored the BLP issues and made a false claim[12] 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. 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[13], all of whom falsely claimed I was addressing motivation. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. I shouldn't have to remind admins like Cullen and Girth of policy. The block was an abuse of admin tools, on New Year's Eve, made while I was also being blocked from accessing the internet.
2. 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[14], so as to keep the info private. Barkeep writes a rude and hostile message [15]; I say the message is clearly way outside the parameters of the TBan[16]. His response was this block. He also actually edited my sandbox[17] without respect nor requesting permission.
3. (16Jan invalid block reasons not specified by Barkeep but assumed given the admin's chronic behavior patterns) After his New Year's Eve block was over, Girth brought the same false accusation of false claims to an RfC[18], where BLP concerns and necessary inline citations of CCTV (not just "Chinese state-run television broadcasters") were suppose to be discussed. There, the flurry of activity which kept CCTV's name out of inline attribution continued. Multiple requests at their talk for corrections of the accusation were denied by Girth[19], who only made more rude and hostile comments in the same thread, then brought those into the same RfC. He then wanted a quotation from him removed while refusing to correct his own false accusations and direct rudeness. It can be assumed that Barkeep is alluding to Girth, in his vague reasons for the block, or to another secret reason.

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 [20]. Several of the same admins involved here refused to provide support, including Cullen (refused on 03oct[21]) and Barkeep (refused while drafting the original TBan response[22]) before Chuckie was revealed as a sockpuppet. 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. 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[23].)

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[24] 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 [25] [26] [27] and [28] (the lead-up to the 31 Dec block), and after [29]. 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 Thanks - '''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. After months of experience, 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 the links provided used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. MarkH21 commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest reoccurred on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which MarkH21 continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond, during my first invalid block by GirthSummit. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by admins 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. Please also note repeated requests were made on 17Nov and after regarding the undefined TBan. I asked for clarification but was denied by Barkeep49 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113], and others kind enough to respond. 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. '''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. On 31Dec, I warned the editor, while they were in the act of shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and while copying some identical 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]. These reedits and identical text had already been reverted by another editor, but Mark ignored the edit history. 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. 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 addressing motivation. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. I shouldn't have to remind admins like Cullen and Girth of policy. 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 reasons not specified by Barkeep but assumed given the admin's chronic behavior patterns) After his New Year's Eve block was over, Girth brought the same false accusation of false claims to an RfC[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard], where BLP concerns and necessary inline citations of CCTV (not just "Chinese state-run television broadcasters") were suppose to be discussed. There, the flurry of activity which kept CCTV's name out of inline attribution continued. Multiple requests at their talk for corrections of the accusation were denied by Girth[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999936436], who only made more rude and hostile comments in the same thread, then brought those into the same RfC. He then wanted a quotation from him removed while refusing to correct his own false accusations and direct rudeness. It can be assumed that Barkeep is alluding to Girth, in his vague reasons for the block, or to another secret reason. 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]) before Chuckie was revealed as a sockpuppet. 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. 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 Thanks - '''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. After months of experience, 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 the links provided used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. MarkH21 commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest reoccurred on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which MarkH21 continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond, during my first invalid block by GirthSummit. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by admins 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. Please also note repeated requests were made on 17Nov and after regarding the undefined TBan. I asked for clarification but was denied by Barkeep49 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113], and others kind enough to respond. 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. '''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. On 31Dec, I warned the editor, while they were in the act of shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and while copying some identical 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]. These reedits and identical text had already been reverted by another editor, but Mark ignored the edit history. 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. 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 addressing motivation. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. I shouldn't have to remind admins like Cullen and Girth of policy. 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 reasons not specified by Barkeep but assumed given the admin's chronic behavior patterns) After his New Year's Eve block was over, Girth brought the same false accusation of false claims to an RfC[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard], where BLP concerns and necessary inline citations of CCTV (not just "Chinese state-run television broadcasters") were suppose to be discussed. There, the flurry of activity which kept CCTV's name out of inline attribution continued. Multiple requests at their talk for corrections of the accusation were denied by Girth[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999936436], who only made more rude and hostile comments in the same thread, then brought those into the same RfC. He then wanted a quotation from him removed while refusing to correct his own false accusations and direct rudeness. It can be assumed that Barkeep is alluding to Girth, in his vague reasons for the block, or to another secret reason. 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]) before Chuckie was revealed as a sockpuppet. 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. 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 Thanks - '''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. After months of experience, 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 the links provided used the [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] as a pivot point for illustrating Xinhua's extreme unreliability, which several RS indicate continues today. MarkH21 commented behind me at the RfC. Massive reedits of 2007 Tibetan unrest reoccurred on 29Dec[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/996870177], which MarkH21 continued shredding unchallenged on 31Dec and beyond, during my first invalid block by GirthSummit. Then, direct insults, rudeness and false allegations by admins 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. Please also note repeated requests were made on 17Nov and after regarding the undefined TBan. I asked for clarification but was denied by Barkeep49 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994850795] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/993461113], and others kind enough to respond. 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. '''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. On 31Dec, I warned the editor, while they were in the act of shredding [[2008 Tibetan unrest]] and while copying some identical 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]. These reedits and identical text had already been reverted by another editor, but Mark ignored the edit history. 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. 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 addressing motivation. HOUND correctly describes, as I then also was, the editor's actions, and DOES NOT SAY ALL HOUND IS DUE TO SPECIFIC MOTIVATION. I shouldn't have to remind admins like Cullen and Girth of policy. 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 reasons not specified by Barkeep but assumed given the admin's chronic behavior patterns) After his New Year's Eve block was over, Girth brought the same false accusation of false claims to an RfC[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard], where BLP concerns and necessary inline citations of CCTV (not just "Chinese state-run television broadcasters") were suppose to be discussed. There, the flurry of activity which kept CCTV's name out of inline attribution continued. Multiple requests at their talk for corrections of the accusation were denied by Girth[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/999936436], who only made more rude and hostile comments in the same thread, then brought those into the same RfC. He then wanted a quotation from him removed while refusing to correct his own false accusations and direct rudeness. It can be assumed that Barkeep is alluding to Girth, in his vague reasons for the block, or to another secret reason. 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]) before Chuckie was revealed as a sockpuppet. 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. 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))

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

1. Motivation : "a reason for actions, willingness, and goals. Motivation is derived from the word motive, or a need that requires satisfaction."
2. 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 [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] that my private question was warranted after finding this. Seemingly uncontrollable disruption continued - a ref was deleted[36] another ref disassociated [37] which required more repairs [38] [39] [40] [41] [42].

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)