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

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

[2]

____________________________

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[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)

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)

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)

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) )

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)

=

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:

1. She directly blocked once,
2. then twice; the second one was invalid as El_C clarified.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Barkeep49 advised her on requesting the block and TBan, where she referred to me (and other editors) as "monkeys" [5]. She managed to reopen the ANI.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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' [6][7][8], while the play name, to me, smacks of comparison with an extremist paramilitary fringe group called Oath Keepers[9], 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please stop the invalid blocks & admin abuse

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:

This invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is specific: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot (and I'm treating this request as if it was at ANI since I'm blocked from editing there). It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments made on edit summaries, while previously trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet [10] CaradhrasAiguo, aka Chuckie, who was coordinating disruptive edits with an administrator Valereee [11]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of sanction-game, along with their history of targeting me with sanction games, hounding, rudeness and disruptive editing.

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 re-interpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, escalated to create 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 [12].

The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV on Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. 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 Cullen328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My warnings did not address Mark's motivation here nor here nor here, but the accusers' OR interpretations did. Very notably, Mark has seemingly replaced Chuckie as the go-to editor for re-inserting the Chinese government's POV.

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[13]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses and deletes OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: These are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, but even 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 which are contrary to BLP standards), wiki cannot be a collaborative project but rather and unfortunately only another propaganda tool, while it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-game tools to cull certain editors.

The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit and correct minority opinions and fringe views without harassment and games. And, as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the repeatedly abused TBan. 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=This invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is specific: [[Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot]] (and I'm treating this request as if it was at ANI since I'm blocked from editing there). It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments made on edit summaries, while previously trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lieutenant_of_Melkor/Archive] CaradhrasAiguo, aka Chuckie, who was coordinating disruptive edits with an administrator Valereee [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of '''sanction-game''', along with their history of targeting me with sanction games, hounding, rudeness and disruptive editing. 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 re-interpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, escalated to create 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Imaginary_TBan_violation%3B_Repeated_abuse_of_TBan]. The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV on Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. 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 Cullen328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My warnings did not address Mark's motivation [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410 here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997489757 nor here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661 nor here], but the accusers' OR interpretations did. Very notably, Mark has seemingly replaced Chuckie as the go-to editor for re-inserting the Chinese government's POV. 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[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses and deletes OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: These are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, but even 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 which are contrary to BLP standards), wiki cannot be a collaborative project but rather and unfortunately only another propaganda tool, while it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-game tools to cull certain editors. The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit and correct minority opinions and fringe views without harassment and games. And, as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the repeatedly abused TBan. 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=This invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is specific: [[Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot]] (and I'm treating this request as if it was at ANI since I'm blocked from editing there). It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments made on edit summaries, while previously trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lieutenant_of_Melkor/Archive] CaradhrasAiguo, aka Chuckie, who was coordinating disruptive edits with an administrator Valereee [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of '''sanction-game''', along with their history of targeting me with sanction games, hounding, rudeness and disruptive editing. 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 re-interpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, escalated to create 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Imaginary_TBan_violation%3B_Repeated_abuse_of_TBan]. The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV on Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. 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 Cullen328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My warnings did not address Mark's motivation [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410 here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997489757 nor here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661 nor here], but the accusers' OR interpretations did. Very notably, Mark has seemingly replaced Chuckie as the go-to editor for re-inserting the Chinese government's POV. 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[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses and deletes OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: These are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, but even 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 which are contrary to BLP standards), wiki cannot be a collaborative project but rather and unfortunately only another propaganda tool, while it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-game tools to cull certain editors. The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit and correct minority opinions and fringe views without harassment and games. And, as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the repeatedly abused TBan. 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=This invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is specific: [[Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot]] (and I'm treating this request as if it was at ANI since I'm blocked from editing there). It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments made on edit summaries, while previously trying to deal with a chronic sockpuppet [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lieutenant_of_Melkor/Archive] CaradhrasAiguo, aka Chuckie, who was coordinating disruptive edits with an administrator Valereee [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/994851115]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of '''sanction-game''', along with their history of targeting me with sanction games, hounding, rudeness and disruptive editing. 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 re-interpretations of the TBan, that are not supported by text, escalated to create 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Imaginary_TBan_violation%3B_Repeated_abuse_of_TBan]. The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV on Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. 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 Cullen328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My warnings did not address Mark's motivation [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997474410 here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997489757 nor here] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/997514661 nor here], but the accusers' OR interpretations did. Very notably, Mark has seemingly replaced Chuckie as the go-to editor for re-inserting the Chinese government's POV. 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[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1000513051]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses and deletes OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: These are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, but even 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 which are contrary to BLP standards), wiki cannot be a collaborative project but rather and unfortunately only another propaganda tool, while it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-game tools to cull certain editors. The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit and correct minority opinions and fringe views without harassment and games. And, as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the repeatedly abused TBan. Thanks. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Pasdecomplot (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)