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)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pasdecomplot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Been sanctioned?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:--11th Panchen Lama controversy--.jpeg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 01:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

"aligning left for easier reading again"

Hi. FYI: {{outdent}} or {{od}} will create an out-dented reply, that looks this:

A message

A reply

Another reply

Another reply

Another reply

It's getting crowded over here

Outdented reply after {{od}}

new intended reply to that

another reply

A new thread having nothing to do with the above

a reply to that

Also, typing four hyphens "----" will create a horizontal rule, like this:

---

And that lets you separate off one section from another. It's somewhere in between outdenting and starting a new subheader.

There's a script called WP:REPLYLINK that makes all this much easier. If you haven't already, go to preference->gadgets and check the box for "Install scripts without having to edit JavaScript files", which will activate the script installer button. Then go to WP:REPLYLINK and click "install". You'll then see a "reply" button after talk page comments, and you can click "reply" and write your message in the box, and it takes care of all the indenting for you so yo don't have to worry about it. Reply link was written by a volunteer editor and isn't perfect; in some threads it doesn't work; but most of the time it does work and makes communicating much, much easier. (There are lots of other scripts you also might find useful, listed at WP:USL.)

Oh and if you're wondering why we're using 1980s technology to communicate, see WP:FLOW and the links therein. HTH Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

So cool. Really challenged by using a mobile system - makes looking for proper editing code while editing tough, especially w/o PC perks. Thanks Levivich! Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Oh I didn't even notice you are editing on mobile. Bless your heart, that makes everything significantly more difficult! Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 17:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I hate editing by smartphone, especially when it decides all by itself to switch on predictive text (ugh) and I haven't noticed. You might find this an interesting read. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks GirthSummit and Levivich. Must always remember to disable auto-correct! I'll read the piece. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:32, 27 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)

C edits [1] Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

eee edits [2] and [3]

tt [4] and BLP tag #Tangential Notice [5] involved discussion [6]. WP:INVOLVED at tt, BLP, WP:WW attempt at ElC. self [7]

Cu response; eee PA [8] "IMO an extremely bad answer. Someone please protect the other editor from this ongoing harrassment by PDC, as I cannot. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2020 (UTC)". Zeal and reply (not accessible in searches) unanswered [9]. Involved but [10]

Bk involved 14Nov [11] but closes 17Nov [12]

Advice after Cu [13]

Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:17, 20 November 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.

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. If you have a problem like that again, report it at WP:VPT.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Vchimpanzee • talk

This request to overturn the Ban and Block from 17NOV is based on the serious problems with the ANI presented by Valereee, most notably the sweeping accusation of "ongoing" behavior problems. The position is not an accurate portrayal of the issue, and is an incomplete rendering of events as well as an inaccurate assessment of my current editing on Wikipedia.

The accusations and generalizations together with diffs purporting to be evidence of the accusations happen to effectively avoid the actual source of chronic behavior problems: CaradhrasAiguo, the editor connected directly or indirectly to Valereee's diffs.

There's also a valid concern of a lack of pinging on the reopened ANI after I pinged EdJohnston on El_C's talk, which wasn't answered [14], which aided in my misunderstanding that it wasn't reopened, since I had also asked about an interaction ban. Thus, I didn't participate in the discussion after checking if it was progressing and not receiving any pings. And, the ANI process needs to be approached with respect and with care.

Although the involved administrator Valereee has gained the trust of their colleagues, as they say [15], and thus, possibly, their version of events becomes credible by default, their ANI misrepresents events and manages to obscure behaviors by CaradhrasAiguo, and by Valereee themself. The ANI also echos an earlier attempt by Valereee to misrepresent a BLP topic ban in order to extend a block on editing.

• I've contributed as a user since 01JUN, then began avoiding Valereee after 29JUN by going to another area in the project. This was after two blocks on 12 and 21JUN - the second for "refusing to learn to indent" [16]. A BLP ban by El_C via Valereee occurred on 29JUN (after trying to include RS and text on the dragging of George Floyd's dead body by Chauvin. By the way, all of these admin actions were for RS and discussions on the Killing of George Floyd page talk.).

• On 10SEP, I interacted for the first time with CaradhrasAiguo (user page highlights: knows Chinese geography and speaks Chinese). From then through to 30SEP it was very difficult editing [17]. I was reprimanded, and modified my styles. CaradhrasAiguo wasn't reprimanded and was mass-deleting edits on very specific pages dealing with Tibetan history, Tibetan Buddhism, and current Chinese policies which RS states is cultural genocide in Tibet, the areas in which I am working with expertise. Editing became increasingly difficult due to that editor's chronic behaviors as indicated by their blocks [18].

• Not mentioned at all in the ANI is Valereee was coordinating with CaradhrasAiguo. On 15SEP Valereee tagged a Bio I was editing, that CaradhrasAiguo was repeatedly reverting [19], as a BLP [20]. Their coordination wasn't just "tangential" as of 16SEP [21]. Valereee (began?) also posted "warnings" without diffs or reason, as on 15SEP [22], basically accusations of PA's which they themself authored. This pattern of accusations has continued thru to the ANI Talk:11th Panchen Lama#Edit warring on talk.

• Going further, Valereee attempted to extend a block for edits I made to the page before its tagging as a BLP [23] (and see back channel). Apparently, El_C was convinced briefly, but Usedtobecool and I prevailed, then El_C removed the block extension [24]. El_C also issued the advice to "tone it down", which I've since followed.

• Also not mentioned in the ANI, I had tried ANI for CaradhrasAiguo .diff. but poorly represented the issues, for which I apologise. I simultaneously tried Teahouse for Valereee Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1076#Huge_problems_with_an_administrator,_help_needed_fast as they were attempting to block for the so-called BLP violations, and threatening other things. There, CaradhrasAiguo entered the discussion, reverted formating, mischaracterizes quotes and attempts to disrupt call for help. Then CaradhrasAiguo continues to disrupt and hound into another follow-up discussion for help [25]

• Two RSN topics I began were entered by the same editors Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Views_on_International_Campaign_for_Tibet,_UNESCO,_Tibet_Post_International/The_Tibet_Post,_Tibet_Watch,_Unrepresented_Nations_and_Peoples_Organization,_Free_Tibet,_Radio_Free_Asia and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_313#Views_on_ Central_Tibetan_Administration, without really contributing to the overall discussions, while CaradhrasAiguo threatened two editors on the first RSN above. This was a pattern that was established at the Teahouse, and continued, especially into that editor's edit summaries.

• Another attempt, with Cullen328, to address CaradhrasAiguo's behaviors began [26] and then was completed on 03OCT, but no administrative actions resulted [27], unlike an earlier sanction on that editor by Cullen328 [28]. Valereee entered the discussion, with a personal attack [29], which signifies Valereee was aware of the discussion requested by Cullen328 on what constitutes "bad faith" behaviors on Wikipedia.

• After 03OCT, CaradhrasAiguo and Valereee briefly stopped the behaviors. On 15OCT, it began again with reverts [30], and accusations of "ongoing" behaviors which applied to the reverter, as the edit summary explains[31]. CaradhrasAiguo was again mass-deleting edits with confirmed RS, and again refusing to use talk on multiple pages, which only left edit summaries as a place to communicate. The distinct words "bad faith" had been replaced as advised by longer summaries, and finally once by a phrase of '...not examples of good faith editing'... The coordinations also recommenced with the misplaced "warning" from Valereee.

• Afterwards, both Valereee, on 31OCT, and CaradhrasAiguo, on 05NOV, enter move requests I had begun. The behaviors and coordination again recommenced. This is fully detailed by the text and diffs in my response on the original ANI [32], before it was unarchived and closed, before I even knew it was unarchived successfully. Please note that none of the comments specifically addressed this response, while ProcrastinatingReader was quick to understand the possible inaccuracies in the ANI allegations. It appears an assumption was present at ANI that the allegations were accurate, despite there being diffs which do not support the associated text and allegations. Please note also that even with Valereee's diffs as evidence, the connections to CaradhrasAiguo and to Valereee's coordinations with them were somehow completely overlooked.

• This is the context which is omitted from Valereee's ANI. All of Valereee's actions from this point forward corresponds to parallel actions at the requests for moves: from the 07NOV accusation on talk at the move request and the 08NOV double accusation[33]and[34]on user talk which correspond to the 08NOV ANI; and the discussion at the other move request on 12NOV [35] which respectfully disagreed with a table of POV on RS and sources, that led to the 13NOV request to reopen the ANI and the 14NOV ANI proposal for a Block and Ban. It appears from this side the 13NOV restart efforts were a result of disagreeing with Valereee's POV. But, Valereee's ANI doesn't mention these connections, as it likewise doesn't mention their involvement in a running dispute of their administrative actions that began in June.

At ANI, Valereee's diffs obscure this accurate portrayal and current picture, and are misleading.

• An accurate picture of my ongoing attempts at dealing with these coordinated behaviors is here[36].
• But, it's misrepresented by "November 7: diff 11", which leads to an edit and not to a warning; Another misrepresented diff is "Warning at article talk seen: 12", since the diff does not indicate whether or not a warning was seen.

• Another misrepresentation: there wasn't a warning from GirthSummit, but Valereee's diff shows a discussion of allegations made by Valereee in which GirthSummit again refers to CaradhrasAiguo's ongoing reverts of confirmed RS, which are repeatedly misrepresented in their edit summaries as 'advocacy groups'. GirthSummit had also began a BLPN on a page which they hadn't edited before[37]. It led to another noticeboard discussion which Valereee entered while not really contributing, but instead repeatedly forked the conversation by changing the topic, to discuss an editor's work that was not participating in the BLPN, which was off the main topic[38].

• Then, really misrepresented is the coordinated double accusatory "warning" that was actually and with some impunity posted on my user talk. Both CaradhrasAiguo[39]and Valereee[40]proceed to accuse me without diffs or other evidence of disruptive editing, of personal attacks, and Caradhras threatens a block. Instead of this accurate portrayal, Valereee's version at ANI says, "November 8: warning seen and removed with an edit summary accusing the editor leaving the warning of acting in bad faith: 13". But, the edit summary was not an accusation of anything - that's Valerie's interpretation of a philosophical question that references duality and dream-like appearances .diff.

• I might also mention that Barkeep49's pre-involvement with Valereee was on 14Nov: They provided suggested text for the ANI[41] which was used by Valereee to officially reopen the ANI that day, and was referred to as "advice". [42]. I wonder about Barkeep49's role as the ANI closer since the pre-involvement connects them to the ongoing dispute of Valereee's administrative actions.

What all of this signifies is that I have listened, learned, and changed, and that the ANI was a serious misrepresentation of events by an involved administrator, Valereee, which omitted their role in creating (and even churning) accusations and in coordinating with another editor, CaradhrasAiguo. And, it signifies that the judgement by the participants was unfortunately based on these same misrepresentations and omissions. As such, and given the accurate portrayal provided here and provided earlier at ANI, I request that the Block be lifted since it was enacted based on incomplete and misrepresented information. I also request the Ban likewise be lifted, for the same reasons, and also since it is too broad of a ban and not defined enough so as to prevent misuse, by Valereee or others as happened in September.

Thank you for your consideration.

Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligence

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Tibetan unrest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aba.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

repaired. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pasdecomplot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Question re missing first name of article, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2008 Tibetan unrest, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tibetan Uprising and Chori.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed already Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 1987–1989 Tibetan unrest into Protests and uprisings in Tibet since 1950. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

um...provided a note of pasting in edit summary when published; in section created where copied text was pasted, a tag to main article was also published. But, thanks, @Diannaa. I'll look at the policy to see if I missed something. BTW, I fixed all those refs and reprovided the information (dates, authors, article names, etc) deleted during your formatting at Larung Gar. No worries. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I did see the edit summary, but it did not mention which article you copied from, and the edit itself did not clear things up, because it linked to 1987-1989 Uprising protests, which does not exist. The edit summary needs to mention the specific article from which you got the content, as demonstrated here. Thanks,— Diannaa (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe the link has already been repaired, but I'll check again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it was done on both pages, at 18:00 and 18:07 on 1 Nov 2020. Before your last note. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pasdecomplot! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, History of a move, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wylie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Corrected Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Palden Sherab, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mipham.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

addressed. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A complaint about your edits has been restored to ANI

Hello Pasdecomplot. See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Pasdecomplot

This is a complaint about your edits. It had been posted at ANI but the thread was archived before any action was taken. The original posting admin, User:Valereee, had asked what to do with archived complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#discussion archived unclosed and got some feedback there. Since Valereee has added a new section at the bottom about possible actions, this creates an opportunity for you to comment further if you wish. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this a joke? No actions were taken; Thread archived.

Now, the author still wants to belabor their POV? On ANI??

Meanwhile, no comments were made on the diffs providing illustrations of author's mischaracterizations and unproven accusations. No comments on obvious Admin Abuse and hounding. No comments about how I've taken advice on edit summaries long before the ANI. And, other admins aren't shutting the abuse off? I must have overlooked the policy that says policy doesn't apply to that particular admin. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

We haven't formally met but I think I participated in all 3 ANIs about you (in a rather favourable manner). Your response above indicates the issue here. There are a number of admins that engage in unbecoming conduct, but valereee in my experience is not one of them. You could do a lot worse on the admin lottery, some of which might've pushed to have you blocked a long time ago, or misrepresented your diffs; valereee has done neither.

The issue here seems quite simple, to be honest. You seem to have developed a slight "me against the world" attitude. I don't know much, but I have a few tips. First, give this a read. Second, life is a lot easier when you don't quote not-directly-related or conduct policy pages on people (CON, VAND, TEND, etc etc). Engage normally, assume people are trying to engage with you in good faith but simply disagree with you on a matter of content. Perhaps due to their ignorance, or your own. Discuss and debate merits. Sometimes your ideas will prevail, sometimes they won't, and that's how life goes. If you fail, even if you were right, the reason usually is because you didn't make the persuasive argument. Most active editors on here aren't spending their finite living hours trying to vandalise or be disruptive, they're trying to improve the encyclopaedia in their own way. It always helps to remember that. I cannot promise you'll 'win' more disputes, but I can guarantee viewing any place (Wikipedia or not) less as a battleground will make you happier. You will never convince someone they're wrong by attacking them, so consider what you're trying to achieve here...

To be more specific, accusing editors of vandalism, hounding, etc, has to stop. Even if you're sure you're right, and other editors are being malicious, don't say it. Assume the fault is your own in not getting your point through clearly. Stay focused on your argument, and the content. And this is also why aggressively quoting policy pages is usually a bad idea. In this case, "notCON" does not apply because WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a thing. Bold moves are perfectly acceptable, and if it sticks for 10 years without dispute some level of implicit consensus for the title is created. Most closers are not incompetent, they can dig through and pick out real arguments, and most uninvolved editors don't have an agenda to push - have some faith in them to see valid arguments.

And BTW, the argument valereee makes is also valid. The article on the person is Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and the article on the title is Panchen Lama. 11th Panchen Lama is implicitly creating an article on a single person, the same as 44th President of the United States or CEO of IBM, or even 10th Panchen Lama (all redirects). There are some cases where it might be appropriate as an article, but the people who disagree with you aren't completely wrong or acting in bad faith in their arguments. It's your job to make a persuasive argument on why the title shouldn't be a redirect. Telling opponents that they're wrong and acting in bad faith is not persuasive. You definitely won't get points from the closer for that, and if you keep doing it you'll get blocked or banned. I'd like to see you around, personally, so I hope you'll consider what I (and others) have wrote.

Happy editing, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ProcrastinatingReader for your comments.

I appreciate your points about the requests for moves at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, and the 11th Panchen Lama. Both requests are attempts to move beyond CON vs nonCON vs IMPLICITCON since the issue is the establishment on Wikipedia of the commonly agreed upon and commonly used personal identity for the page's subject. All of which means the request for move at Gedhun Choekyi Nyima and the counter-request by the involved admin at 11th Panchen Lama are more far-reaching than stability policies. Might you agree?

BTW, I did just search through both those requests, and looked for the instances where I told editors they were wrong or accused others of bad faith -might you indicate those instances so I can learn?

I'd like to add that just for the sake of being clear, of course the ANI didn't illustrate a "me against the world" viewpoint, and I've found & interacted with civil editors, such as yourself and others, which are cherished. But, I must add that what isn't cherished are nitpicking, constant, unequally based, and coordinated edits shadowing me through Wikipedia since last June's block for not indenting, which taken together makes a very hostile editing environment. Of course and as policy suggests, I stopped interacting, and began deleting repeated attempts to interact as well as deleting personal attacks.

So, the issue at ANI wasn't one of refusing to heed warnings, but rather refusals to interact, and refusals to be baited by warnings based on accusations which are baseless. Bold words, indeed.

But, let's move on from the archived thread: I did find the link to OFWV before today. It's an excellent concept, and I do wish warring editors would abide [diff].

Again, I truly appreciate your vote of confidence and would appreciate your additional thoughts on the requests for moves, if possible. Regards, Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the naming situation to comment too much, and so I'm afraid I may inadvertently mislead you; it's a bit of a pickle and will need an experienced requested moves closer (which is not me). But my understanding would be that you can't have two pages on the personal identity of the subject. If you want 11th Panchen Lama to exist as a non-redirect, it has to be approached in a way distinct from both the person and the controversy. But this would be approaching the situation from the wrong angle. Instead of thinking the question "what can I do to make this page exist?", you instead have to look at the current article and ask "what is the appropriate title for this article?". The answer may or may not be the same, but the question and process to an answer is totally different.

Regarding the issues, see Talk:11th_Panchen_Lama#Requested_move_31_October_2020, and some edits like Special:Diff/987211195/987263667, on an editor who hasn't even edited for 2 years. There's a big difference between accusing an editor of misconduct, and characterising (part of) an edit as problematic in some way or another. I acknowledge you're not the only one with questionable messages on that talk and in edit summaries, but currently it is your conduct that is being scrutinised. If you're right, let others dig their own hole, and you can respond on ANI with diffs of their conduct. That's the position you want to be in, if anything. How you should've responded to the requested move is by making one or two well-researched comments based on content and article title guidelines, and then letting the process run its course, adding when you have something to add. At some point or another, implying every other person is trying to whitewash the truth just comes across as less believable. The point isn't whether or not you're right, it's what you can convince other editors of. If you cannot convince anyone, your changes will not get through. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Block and editing restrictions

Pasdecomplot, there was a community consensus to enact a 1 month block for ongoing personal attacks. You are also subject to a six month ban on commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI. If you wish to appeal either the block or the ban on commenting on editors' motivations I suggest you read the guide to unblocks. This block is only appealable to the community. If it is about your block, or during your block, you may post your appeal here and another editor or I will place it on the administrator's noticeboard for community consideration. If you have any questions about your ban please feel free to ask me and I will attempt to answer. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

What a surprise @Barkeep49. I wasn't pinged that the ANI was reopened.

I'd of course want to appeal. The links to the ANI thread don't lead to the thread.

What's super curious is that the diffs I provided at ANI in response to the allegations on continuing PA's didn't seem to have been reviewed.

In fact, those diffs support the case whereby PA's were directed at me. Then, quotes from the PA were mischaracterized as a PA from me, then brought to ANI. Therefore, there were no "ongoing personal attacks" from me, but from CaradhrasAiguo, and simultaneously ongoing unproven allegations of PA from Valereee. Did you happen to look into the diffs presented in my defense, which fully support this statement?

The editor/admin which brought the ANI is an involved admin, and there's a history of that admin and CaradhrasAiguo, and a history where I've asked for help - at Teahouse, with other admins, before Teahouse, etc. I can provide the diffs.

I've bettered my editing, and tried to not be baited. But, a blatant PA targeting me (see ANI response) shouldn't be reinterpreted then used as a reason for a Block/Ban.

Can an ANI be reopened and a Block/Ban instituted without pinging the subject of the ANI, without giving the subject an opportunity to respond?

It seems the Block/Ban needs to be lifted, at least until I can reply in defense, and I believe reversed after a review of the defense is made. Where do I go to make this happen? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 11:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

"I wasn't pinged that the ANI had been reopened". Pasdecomplot, please check my message to you of 13 November which is still visible, higher up on your talk page: User talk:Pasdecomplot#A complaint about your edits has been restored to ANI. You did reply to that notice on this page, so you were aware of the reopening. The archive of the new ANI discussion can be seen at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi EdJohnston. Yes, I pinged you in reply, to a notice about a request to reopen the ANI here and at El_C's talk. There was also some language about reopening El_C's earlier ban, all of which was very disturbing and appeared to be going nowhere. When the decision was made to actually allow the reopening of Valereee's allegations, I should have been pinged. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Link to ANI topic Thread, Link to Community Discussion (?) Thread

Hi. I sent a ping from my user page earlier, and couldn't post at your user talk Barkeep49, so here are a couple more specific requests:

• For a link to the ANI thread (been digging w/o success) and a link to the Community discussion (?) thread, if the topic left ANI and went elsewhere. The diff you supplied here [Special:Diff/989216369|community consensus] is only to the closing, not to the discussion itself. (So it's kinda hard to prepare a request without the discussion itself.)
• If you could and would, some clarification would be very helpful, since I wasn't pinged and didn't participate in nor did I read the thread, or threads, after the ANI was pulled from the Archive:
• 1 month Block for "Ongoing personal attacks": I'm really unsure exactly what formed the evidence for the block, besides allegations. Could the 'evidence' be made more clear, so I can address it?
• Ban on discussing editor "motivations" except on ANI: I'm also unsure what this means, since 1.) I learned to include this sort of info on edit summaries from more experienced editors, 2.) Policy flags speak about motivation (for example, such as WP:PA and WP:HOUND and WP:ADMINABUSE, right?), 3.) It would be very easy to allege a topic ban violation on such a broadly undefined ban, don't you think?

Thanks for the help, in advance.

Block prevents reviewing/editing Important Move Requests

Hi again. So, Barkeep49, the allegations which led to the block/ban are preventing me from overseeing two real important requests for moves.

Of course, the person who brought the allegations to ANI opposes the moves, one of which occurred before their involvement. There's a third request equally important, but neither Valereee nor CaradhrasAiguo have opposed, unlike at the other two move requests.

Thought you should be aware, and there are the accompanying diffs, again, which at the ANI thread that I haven't been able to find, thus far. In case you'd prefer the direct page links, 11th Panchen Lama is where a preliminary move was already made on 31OCT to fix an earlier redirect/move [43], which was then contested by Valereee the same day. And, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima where a request has been posted since 24OCT. Thanks for your attention. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pasdecomplot. You've written a lot to me so my reply will be rather long as well. I know being blocked and having a topic ban is upsetting so I get why you have so many questions and concerns.

• You wrote that you weren't notified of the thread. I'm sorry that you were confused about this but you were notified and even replied to the notification: User_talk:Pasdecomplot#A_complaint_about_your_edits_has_been_restored_to_ANI. According to procedure, a talk page notification, rather than a Wikipedia ping, is what is required in this situation. If you had not been re-notified I would have notified you instead of closing the thread. However, three days elapsed after the thread had been unarchived during which time, as noted a couple sentences ago, you had clearly seen the notification because you were upset that the ANI thread was not resolved.
• I'm not sure if you found the complete thread or not (you say you haven't but then seem to mention things from it) but if you haven't you can find it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot. I understand that the diff I provided does not let you see the whole thread easily on mobile.
• You ask if I saw the diffs you posted. I did. Before I continue let me be clear about something. My role here was to interpret and carry out community consensus. While I did read and examine everything to make sure there wasn't some fundamental flaw in the consensus that had formed, I did not block or topic ban you as an individual administrator. In fact I don't have authority in this context to topic ban you, only the community does.
• I agree Valereee, who filed the ANI thread and who had it unarchived, is an involved administrator. Valereee agrees she's involved administrator. This is why she did not block you herself, but instead, just like any other editor, had to propose a sanction at ANI and have that sanction achieve community consensus.
• I don't know if you're familiar with WP:BOOMERANG but it speaks to how the conduct of everyone is examined while at ANI. In this instance other editors did not find the diffs from CaradhrasAiguo compelling. The discussion focused on you and your conduct. Right now that's what we should focus on as well so that is what I will do for the rest of my reply.
• You ask which evidence was used against you. Hopefully now that you can see the full thread you are also able to see the evidence that other editors used to make their judgement.
• You also ask about what the ban on discussing motivations means. You are correct that there is policy about user conduct and you cite three conduct policies. Let me give you an example about what discussing motivation means. In this diff you write Text was deleted in bad faith/feuding revert . Undid revision 981146051 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk). The motivation there is bad faith/feuding. So that edit summary could be Text was deleted in revert. Undid revision 981146051 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) and then you are still explaining what you did without saying what the other editor's motivation was. Let me give you a second example. In this diff you write Bad faith/feuding editor revert undone. Opinion of feuding editor is contrary to RS; editor habitually reverts this page in desire to create feud, and without knowledge of RS, of subject, nor of a previous history of editing page. Undid revision 981145513 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk). That could be rewritten, without the motivation, as Revert undone as contrary to RS. Undid revision 981145513 by CaradhrasAiguo (talk) (added word in italics). I hope that helps.
• Wikipedia has no deadline. After your block has ended you can continue to oversee the moves. If I am not understanding the urgency behind them (i.e. is there a WP:BLP violation that's not immediately apparent to me?) let me know.
• Now that you can see the discussion against you, hopefully you have what you need in order to write an appeal. As I noted in my blocking statement, if you wish to appeal the block you can write it here and I will post it to the administrator's noticeboard for you. If you wish to appeal the topic ban, you may either do that, or wait until your block has ended and then do the appeal yourself.

If you have further questions please do ask them. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the diffs.

• The requests for moves are important for several reasons, and immediately predate Valereee's ANI, and the ANI reopening corresponds to Valereee's edits at the moves; The ANI and the moves are intertwined, obviously. Also, as the author of the move and request for move, responding is part of the process, which the Block obviously prevents, since I cannot open talks on pages.
• About the pinging: EdJohnston pinged about a request to reopen, which appeared to go nowhere. He did not ping about a successful request to reopen, nor about a reopening itself. Thus, it seems I wasn't pinged properly.
• A large fault with the ANI, which I mistakenly thought was apparent, are the dates: The date on the first and the second diffs you kindly provided are 30SEP. After that date, it was brought to my attention that edit summaries should be limited. I heard El_C's advice to "tone it down", and I did and changed. Therefore, Valereee's characterization of an "ongoing" problem is not correct.
• Furthermore, the 30SEP edit summaries do not depict the context of CaradhrasAiguo's behaviors, and their refusal to use talk for CON, so I followed their lead in explaining issues in edit summaries.
• WP:BOOMERANG could have returned to Valereee and CarasdhrasAiguo but it apparently didn't. Strange.
• Stranger still is a blatant personal attack by CAiguo was judged as uncompelling: As an WP:INVOLVED party, you are not permitted to bold disclaimers such as "Note to closer", especially with obnoxious caps. The attempt to smear Rigley's contributions without "any" connection to the merits of the move, and only of the move, is despicable. As is the packing of this article with sub-optimal, some even advocacy, sources, and unilateral major changes. 23:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• The above blatant PA by CaradhrasAiguo includes two PA's with despicable and obnoxious; an accusation of motivation with smear, and another PA with you are not permitted.
• This PA led to a series of accusations against me by Valereee; a rush to condemn as an "ongoing" problem, which it certainly was not; an officially reopened ANI discussion that I was unaware of; and an unjustified Block/Ban for responding to a blatant PA, per policies.
• For the record on the involved admin: Valereee has directly Blocked me twice - the 2nd time was for failure to indent. Then, Valereee pushed for a BLP Ban. It failed, then they pushed again and EL_C did a BLP Ban. All three admin actions were related to George Floyd, the last for trying to get the RS on the dragging of his dead body by Chauvin included in the page. (NOTE: A lengthy POV discussion - of whether or not Floyd had been "hooping" and whether or not it meant basketball or was he or was he not taking drugs anally - was deemed as BLP-worthy, but the RS on the dragging of Floyd's dead body led to the BLP Ban.)
• Afterwards, I purposefully went to another area at the project, to avoid Valereee. To not interact. But, then the editor appeared in Tibetan Buddhism pages, without any specific knowledge. Notably, Valereee added a BLP tag to a Bio page on Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, which effectively protected CaradhrasAiguo's reverts with incorrect information - on a BLP Valereee just created. While I was editing. Valereee then tried to extend a block for a BLP ban violation. Luckily, El_C caught it, and reversed. This ANI has echos of the earlier attempt to wrongly extend a block.
• Then, the involved admin went into RSN's, then into a BLPN, then most recently lodged a counter-move - all in topic areas in which they're unfamiliar.
• Now, this ANI, again from the same involved admin from whom I've begged for protection.
• So. Focusing on me isn't addressing the real issues, since I have heard and addressed the complaints before the ANI was written. I'll provide copious diffs.
• The real issue is Valereee and CaradhrasAiguo. I can also provide copious diffs. Therefore, I'd ask if requesting a reversal, based on Hound and TagTeam, would be seriously reviewed, or are involved admins allowed to Hound and TagTeam whenever they choose, with whomever they choose? (For context, I prepared a excellent off-ANI on CaradhrasAiguo 5 weeks ago or so, which was the last time I tried to get admin help against chronic policy violations, TEND, HOUND, WARRING, and ettiquette. Nothing happened. Valereee launched a PA on the thread, after which I was ridiculously accused of "demonizing" China - I can provide copious diffs. And it appears that editor, from the diff above on the ANI closing, is busy deleting edits with RS (NYT, TR, etc) on cultural cleansing in Tibet. Again.)

If not the real issues, what would a request to reverse the Block/Ban be based on Barkeep49? (Fyi, holding off on the diffs for now, unless you think sharing them now before a formal request would help.) Also, I'd like to receive permission to post the request myself, since it's more direct. Altogether, the Block/Ban is really excessive and unwarranted, as ProcrastinatingReader seemed to be suggesting in the ANI discussion thread (thanks for the link). There are editing projects in the field's history, language, biographies, I've begun that could be worked on, instead of waiting to be unblocked. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

On the notification piece, the notification to this page linked you to the re-opened thread at in the second sentence after a hello. In the body it then linked you to the noticeboard thread where that re-opening was discussed [44]. For the moves I left messages at Talk:Gedhun Choekyi Nyima [45] and Talk:11th Panchen Lama [46] on your behalf. As for the rest, you are free to write whatever you want in your unblock message. Have you read the guide to unblock requests? That has a lot of advice for how to maximize your chances of success and so I strongly recommend reading it. However, if/when you compose a request I will post it on your behalf. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

A few points which may have been overlooked Barkeep49:

• Re the pings: Here's the thread at El_C where a ping wasn't answered by EdJohnston [47]. I followed his link, checked into El_C's page; no word, no pings. Without any notifications, I continued editing.
• Please take a look at the last plea for help against Valereee Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1076#Huge_problems_with_an_administrator,_help_needed_fast.
• And, please take a look at the last plea for help against CaradhrasAiguo[48] superbly prepared for Cullen with 41 diffs.
• Thanks for the notes at the requests. The info on the Block isn't a real confidence builder, in that context. BTW, Valereee's approval or disapproval of the 24OCT request for move is meaningless. They authored the 31OCT request as a counter request to a correction move I made. There, their approval could have meaning.
• With the Block, I can't access Sandbox to prepare the request. Can that be changed? Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you looked at the thread on El C's talk page rather than the one on your own talk page. However, appropriate notification was given for you in this situation in my judgement. If you want to argue that as part of a potential unblock request you of course can. In terms of preparing a request you can come into wiki to compose in your sandbox. Then you can go into source mode and copy and paste the code offwiki to save it. Then when you're finished you can place it here. I know it's a bit annoying but I can't unblock you from your sandbox. Does that make sense? I'm not sure what you're asking me about the move requests. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:47, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Possible?

Sorry to ping you here ProcrastinatingReader, but you seemed the most compassionate editor at the ANI. And El_C, apologies for the bother again, and for the ping here.

So, I've found a few diffs, while preparing for a request to overturn the block. They reveal a few possibly serious wp:involved issues, and I now wonder if it's possible, based on the info in the diffs, to request the ANI be overturned.

At issue is Barkeep49's involvement with Valereee on 14Nov: they provided suggested text for the ANI [49] which was used by Valereee that day at the ANI's official reopening, and referred to as "advice". [50]

Barkeep49 later was the closer on 17Nov [51] and on my talk writes that they just interpreted at the closing, prevents reviewing/editing Important Move Requests

Likewise, the vote from Cullen328 [52] was after being very involved in the exact same issues with Valereee and CaradhrasAiguo [53] as presented at ANI, and here's the final edit there [54]. As the diffs indicate, Cullen328 was very involved at least until 03Oct.

As a note, the focus of the ANI was "ongoing" issues. But, they stopped after the last diff above, on 03Oct after Cullen328's "zeal to demonize" comment, and Valereee was fully aware of the discussion, as their PA in the same thread indicates [55].

There's also a valid concern of a lack of pinging on the reopened ANI after I pinged EdJohnston on El_C's talk, which wasn't answered by EdJohnston [56].

Is it possible to overturn the Block and Ban? Humble thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for seriously considering the subject. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

It is worth noting that WP:INVOLVED only applies to admin actions. Admins are still editors first, and are able to do anything an editor can. An admin is only in violation of WP:INVOLVED if they take an administrative action against you, whilst involved in a dispute with you. Reporting an editor to ANI is not an administrative action, and neither, really, are warnings. As far as I'm aware, I don't think either Valereee or Cullen took administrative actions against you (or did they?). As for your block, since it was imposed by community discussion I think it will be fairly difficult to overturn before it expires. As for the ban, which restricts you from commenting on editors' motivations outside of ANI, is not a very big deal. It's not really something an editor has to do anyway (and in many cases shouldn't), and it should not interfere with your editing once you are unblocked. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ProcrastinatingReader Cullen's vote at ANI was an administrative action, as was Valereee's vote, or so is my understanding. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Any editor may vote to impose sanctions at ANI. They were commenting in their capacity as editors. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I have kept a partial and incomplete eye on some of this WP:WIKILAWYERING from this user since it started, and, apart from being heartily sick of it, I would also comment that my impression was that Cullen's !vote at ANI was purely as that of an editor, albeit one with administrative experience. They didn't appear to me to have been involved in any dispute over editing with you, and thus were not WP:INVOLVED. In my view a decision by the community should stick unless clearly shown to be flawed and based upon an incomplete picture, and also that it would be advisable to sit it out, lest next time around that same community felt all this fuss and nit-picking is becoming too much of a time-sink for the benefits it brings. I apologise if this sounds rude, but that's just how I see it from the sidelines. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks ProcrastinatingReader for the info. Just wondering, is there a policy on votes by admins being counted as made in their editor capacities? I mean, can we be sure, without it being written at the time of voting? Sorry to belabor.

Thanks for your viewpoint Nick Moyes, and the ANI did present a very 'incomplete picture', as you say. BTW, maybe venture beyond appearances and take a look at the diffs re Cullen328, might change the viewpoint on the same subject at ANI. Not wikilawering (whatever that is), just very very concerned. Cheers Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, to the best of my recollection, I have not edited any of the articles that are the locus of your various disputes, and have not expressed any opinions about the content, except that it should comply with the neutral point of view. Accordingly, I am not involved. My concern has been only about your behavior rather than the content. And all of our interactions have been about your behavior. I am acting as an editor who happens to be an administrator and also happens to think that you need to stop assuming bad faith about other editors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from the policy: "Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'." That sentence perfectly describes my interactions with you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen for those well phrased comments. @Pasdecomplot I see you've now raised concerns that the advice I gave to Valereee make me involved. I gave advice to her, using her own wording, just as I gave advice to you, about how not to question the motivations of others, using your own wording. I hope you find that reassuring. I see you've begun formulating your appeal. I will off you similar advice that I offered to Valeree: keep it short. I think your last paragraph is the strongest by far. Submitting that (with diffs showing where you've listened for instance) will, in my experience, give you the best chance. While I understand that some background might be necessary what you have now is beyond what most people will read and so I would recommend omitting it and/or putting it into a collapsable template. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi PdC, I'd just like to chime in here, in response to a couple of your questions and comments above. First of all, I don't think you would be able to convince anyone that either Cullen328 or Barkeep49 were involved in this case - I'd advise you to drop that, it won't help your case.

Second, you ask about whether people should indicate whether they are commenting as an admin or as an editor. My answer to that is that there isn't any difference. Yes, some people are more likely to take an experienced editor's views more seriously than those of a fresh newb, that's human nature. However, when the community is making a decision, anyone from the community, be they involved or uninvolved, veteran admin or IP editor, can comment; the strength of their argument is (or should be) what determines how the closer will weigh their comment or !vote, not their status. With a discussion of this nature, the closer, who weighs and implements the consensus, is the only one who needs to be an uninvolved admin. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 11:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice Barkeep49.

I guess we agree to disagree Cullen328: We were discussing CaradhrasAiguo's behaviors, and how policy defines those behaviors as bad faith. I do not assume bad faith. When chronic disruptions to the project are experienced, I review policy to understand what is happening.

Unfortunately, our interactions did not solve those chronic behaviors of CaradhrasAiguo, as evidenced by Valereee's ANI. I would also respectfully agree to disagree that mischaracterizing the request for help, and its 41 diffs, as only a "zeal to demonize" could be construed as "calm and reasonable". In fact, it was a little scary to read. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 12:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me give you some friendly advice, Pasdecomplot. You seem to think that providing 41 diffs is a good idea. The vast majority of experienced editors see that as bizarre bludgeoning. Carefully selecting the three or four or five most persuasive diffs results in a concise and convincing presentation. You object to my "zeal to demonize" comment, but if you had taken that remark to heart along with the feedback you have received from quite a few other editors, and had adjusted your own behavior accordingly, you would not be where you are today, with a one month block and a six month editing restriction. Please ponder that carefully. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have pondered it. I have adjusted accordingly since 03OCT. It's curious there's an opinion that I haven't, especially after the 41 diff answer and the many fewer diff answer at ANI. The ANI by Valereee is not an accurate account. But, obviously, CaradhrasAiguo's behaviors have not changed. If CaradhrasAiguo had been sanctioned again, as you've previously done with the editor, none of us would be dealing with this ANI. So, I ask you to please, again, look at the true problem -CaradhrasAsigo. Thanks Cullen328. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The "true problem" under discussion here is your behavior, and until you fully understand and acknowledge that, it is highly unlikely that the block or the editing restriction will be lifted. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, still haven't found WP:TEFLONSHIELD to help me understand the avoidance of discussing CaradhrasAiguo ;) but here's a diff on their sanctions [57]. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The multiple characterizations of Valereee coordinating with myself are bizarre. 1) I was not notified, either on-wiki or via email, of the AN/I discussion that had led to PdC's current block: 2) Valereee is likely watching Talk:11th Panchen Lama after having initiated that move request, and her post asking both PdC and myself to revise our comments came as a result of that, not any notification of her: Indeed, my last post at her talk page was in regards to an unrelated dispute. 3) On 16 Sep, I posted on Usedtobecool's talk on my own volition; Valereee advised that Usedtobecool's talk was already well-watched. Hardly "coordination" against PdC.

Usage of the talk page while blocked is not to be dominated by launching a slew of grievances against others. Pinging @Barkeep49: to reconsider talk page access. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What I've seen can reasonably be incldued in an unblock request so I do not see a reason to revoke talk page access at this time. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. The diffs reveal a different story than what that editor says above. What's additionally remarkable is this talk page isn't ANI, and the above message indicates that editor is inappropriately crawling through this talk page. That editor's chronic behaviors (which include harassing threats ie "pinging... to reconsider talk page access") and nonsense is not only on this talk page, but spills ontoEdit warring. As Flickotown writes, that editor just isn't here to build an encyclopedia, are they? Thanks so much for the ongoing examples - I can use them for diffs! Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you read WP:NOTTHEM? Because this comment does violate it and further violates your restriction against speculating about the motives of others, specifically the above message indicates that editor is inappropriately crawling through this talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

So sorry. I don't understand where the speculation about motive is in the statement, since it's not about motives. It addresses results: "inappropriately" is not a speculation about the editor's motives, but a description of the digging through discussion threads to find the diffs used in the draft, which would be appropriate at ANI but not on a draft for ANI on a user's talk page. I am not addressing motives, since I have no idea what that editor's motives are; "crawling" also doesn't seem to be a speculation about motives.

Please help me to understand how the phrase is a violation. After reading that editor's exchange with Flickotown, knowing about warring with Horse Eye's Back and Amigao, and reading that editor's statement just above, as in launching a slew of grievances against others which *definitely* speculates about motives, I thought the statement no different or possibly gentler than the others used. But, if you could help me to understand Barkeep49, I'd appreciate it a lot. I'll also read NOTTHEM again. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm willing to concede the language might have just been loaded with negative connotations rather than outright speculating on motives. It certainly doesn't assume good faith of others. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just to check that we read the same edit: that editor pinged you to block me from my user talk, as I've been drafting a request for ANI. Might you possibly explain Barkeep49 in what way did that editor assume good faith, or where good faith from that editor is in evidence? I really need to understand. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes we read the same edit. While you're blocked you should not be preparing to take others to ANI. Any attempts to take them to ANI by you will have to wait until your block is over. What's more important at the moment is how you are, or aren't, assuming that others are also assuming good faith. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I didn't mention that the concession is appreciated. But, what the recent request for clarification is centered on is the statement: It certainly doesn't assume good faith of others. To describe an event as it occurred doesn't involve assumptions of good faith or bad faith. Events occurred and are described. What's confusing is that it seems I am to understand from your responses that even describing a series of events, as have undeniably occurred, will be mischaracterized as speculating on motives, and as not assuming good faith? I ask since you've offered to post the request to overturn the block, which in itself now seems to be misunderstood as an ANI report: While you're blocked you should not be preparing to take others to ANI. Any attempts to take them to ANI by you will have to wait until your block is over. All of which brings me again to the question, and deepens the concerns, noted at the beginning of this discussion thread and sent to ProcrastinatingReader, of whether or not there's an issue with pre-involvement. From a technical understanding, not, but from a practical understanding based on the responses in question, the concerns have not been alleviated but heightened. *Could an impartial admin please examine the ANI and its unarchived process in which Barkeep49 was openly involved; examine my response to the original ANI before archiving; review the lack of pinging issue via EdJohnson; review the close on the block and ban by Barkeep49 which occurred before I responded; examine the draft request to remove the block at Talk:Pasdecomplot#Your Help Desk question; and review this discussion thread for compliance with block policies, and to ascertain if the block is actually an invalid block? It would be much appreciated! Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)