User talk:Pasdecomplot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:25, 17 December 2020

Welcome!

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

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

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

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

Pasdecomplot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

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

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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 create a new thread.

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

"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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks GirthSummit and Levivich. Must always remember to disable auto-correct! I'll read the piece. Pasdecomplot (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le quagmire

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

mobile editing

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

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

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)[reply]

Thanks Vchimpanzee • talk

"Hooping"[14]

The block/ban submitted by an involved administrator [15] is not necessary since the ANI text is comprised of accusations of incivility which are not supported by diffs, and/or are inaccurate versions of events.

Blocks are for serious disruptions to the project, and not to be used to punish or retaliate, as in WP:NOPUNISH. The request for a block appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [16]. The earlier archived ANI appears to stem from the involved admin's accusation of edit warring and accusation of PA, both of which are proven to be false by the diffs I provided at ANI [17] before it was archived.

The archiving signifies the accusations were not convincing.

Somehow, it was reopened with the "advice" of the future closer [18], which heightens concerns of WP:ADMINCONDUCT, of WP:INVOLVED, and of WP:TOOLMISUSE, which are ongoing [19] (seen towards the bottom). Simultaneously, a request for information on an IBAN was not answered [20].

As a recent contributor beginning from June, I had to learn about policy while editing. After being wrongly blocked by the same involved admin, I went to another area of the project to avoid constant harassment [21] and interaction.

On 10Sep, I began interacting with an involved editor [22] and my attempts at navigating through their chronic behaviors [23] were criticised. I listened, learned and responded to advice to "tone it down" by 29Sep [24], and then explained policies on good faith while attempting to clear myself and have the other editor's behaviors addressed by 03oct [25], but was unsuccessful [26]. I received another PA there from the involved admin [27], and more PA/harassment diffs are at the ANI [28].

Regardless, I changed per advice, as seen in these diffs: [29] and [30] and [31] and [32].

This accurate version of events and the changes I made are omitted from the block request, which instead wrongly portrays another story.

Also missing are the series of events at two requests for moves, which I either initiated or participated in, directly linked to the 07Nov ANI and the 14Nov request for block. I detailed these events at ANI [33] but its significance was maybe not understood. The completely mischaracterized presentation by the involved admin was not closely examined, possibly since they are an administrator [34].

Nor was the history of coordinations between the involved admin and involved editor examined:[35] and [36] and [37] and [38], and the infamous double accusation [39] and [40].

These are the reasons the block/ban is not necessary: it was made based on mischaracterizations of events, on omitted previous changes to behaviors, and on an inaccurate rendering of the history of harassment and PA's by the involved admin, after which I attempted to avoid all interaction. I've already stopped the behaviors, and have also recently learned there are other forums at which to bring issues as detailed here, instead of edit summaries. Thank you.

__________________

inaccurate portrayals of "ongoing" behaviors deftly manages to mischaracterize the role of the involved administrator(s) that submitted the request, and their coordinations with an editor that is directly connected to all of the events.

_____________ Additionally,

behaviors  were previously addressed by 03 oct, and were stopped.

Also, the block does not conform to block policy in that it continues to show apparent issues of WP:ADMINCONDUCT and apparent issues of WP:INVOLVED, leading to more concerns of WP:TOOLMISUSE.

Blocks are for serious disruptions to the project, and not to be used to punish an editor or to retaliate, as in WP:NOPUNISH. The reopening of the closed ANI and its request for the block was presented by an involved admin [41] using misleading and inaccurate information, and appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [42]. Its portrayal of "ongoing" behavior issues is incorrect. While NOTTHEM is very clear about what to say and not say at a unblock request, it's nearly impossible to explain the inaccuracies without an accurate portrayal of events.

After the archiving of the ANI, the block was requested at its reopening on 14Nov, then granted on 17Nov. Being that the characterization is incorrect, it's also difficult to simply provide a mea culpa, while the diffs provided here evidence the accurate portrayal including the previous behaviors.

Additionally, issues of INVOLVED may have spread to what was then the future closer of the ANI [43] by the involved admin [44], as evidenced in the text at the reopened ANI on 14Nov. Although the "advice" appears to technically meet policy, the appearance of a conflict of interest is of increasing concern, and presented for review below.

To better explain, before the ANI, the issues with assuming good faith were already addressed by 29 Sep [45] and the advice of "toning it down" was closely followed. A throrough presentation of what constitutes good faith vs bad faith at the project was presented by 03 Oct [46], afterwhich I incorporated the concerns into edit summaries and into civility practices in dealing with an editor [47] and in general throughout the project. The changes are evidenced by the diffs of numerous talk requests here [48] and [49] and [50] and [51], and at numerous other pages where I've edited, without mass reverts using an admin rollback tool, and without conflict or issues.[108]

Which brings us to the inaccurate portrayal of events and behaviors within the ANI. If I hadn't changed and responded in good faith to the raised issue of not accusing others of "bad faith" in edit summaries, then this request to UNBLOCK would be much different. But, when the same editor repeated the mass rollback reverts, and didn't respond to multiple talk page discussions (in diffs above), it seemed necessary to remind them of using good faith, a reminder which was made in good faith.

A troubling result of the ANI's inaccurate portrayal is the absence of text and diffs revealing the apparent coordination between the involved admin and the editor (another mass rollback revert [52], labelling the reverted page as a BLP [53] and coordination again [54] and a PA here [55]), all of which occurred before 03oct.

While earlier verifying sources at RSN in good faith, and discussing in good faith NOTABLE vs COATRACK at BLPN, both editor and involved admin also entered discussions I'd begun or was involved in, including a later request for move on 24Oct. Meanwhile, the involved admin began a counter-move request on 31Oct for a correction move I made that day.

I've been editing with good faith, and have learned, and am still learning, about various policies while contributing since June. I value the work on the project. I'm very careful about personal attacks, and delete PA's and harassment's from the user page, including those by the involved admin listed in the ANI. Then, in 05Nov, the editor made a personal attack, three times via reverts (as detailed here [56] The PA was deleted, per policy[610]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[611]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[612]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[613]) in a request for move. For following policy in deleting PA's, I was accused by the involved admin of edit warring, then of disruptive editing by the editor, and accused of a PA by the involved admin for quoting the PA, in an apparent double accusation, without diffs, by the editor [57]and by the involved admin [58].

Unfortunately, the apparent coordination by the involved admin and the editor is the common denominator throughout the ANI, and throughout the accurate portrayal of events here [120] and at the original ANI [121].

These events at the requests for moves directly predated the ANI, but were not described by the involved admin. Blocks from June were also not mentioned, which caused an editor at ANI to question why the information was missing.

As such, the block/ban is not necessary since it was administered based on an incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of events, from June through to 03Oct, and then through to 14Nov. It is also inaccurate in not mentioning the events occuring between 07Nov and 14Nov, as the ANI was posted, closed, and then reopened.

Created also is an inaccurate portrayal of the changes in behaviors and the ongoing efforts to abide by civility norms when faced by chronic behavior issues of another editor, behaviors leading to issues that I do not initiate, but only deal with after they begin.

A few questions as to the validity of the block had emerged and were addressed, then just reemerged as a potentially serious issue worthy of a review. The text is added: 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., from [122], as seen towards the bottom of the discussion.

These heightened ADMINCONDUCT, INVOLVED, and TOOLMISUSE concerns are not accusations of bad faith whatsoever, but only concerns based on the stated intentions behind policies governing blocks. It certainly appears as if there might be a conflict of interest and involvement. If the review agrees with this concern, then the block/ban could be found as invalid.

Possibly worth mentioning in this context, before the ANI was unarchived, I asked about an IBAN on the involved admin but didn't receive a response [123], and thus didn't even know the request for reopening was successful, after checking a few times.

Thank you for your attention. I promise to continue to edit in good faith, to continue to not accuse others of "bad faith", and to begin using appropriate forums when dealing with issues that cannot be solved through good faith talk page discussions.

Thank you for your attention. The block and ban are not necessary, and the block does not conform to block policy in that it continues to show apparent issues of WP:ADMINCONDUCT and apparent issues of WP:INVOLVED, leading to more concerns of WP:TOOLMISUSE.

Blocks are for serious disruptions to the project, and not to be used to punish an editor or to retaliate, as in WP:NOPUNISH. The request for the block was presented by an involved admin [59] using misleading and inaccurate information, and appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [60]. An accurate portrayal of the events makes it difficult to agree with the inaccurate premises of the block request granted on 14Nov, and difficult to simply provide here a mea culpa, while the diffs provided here evidence the accurate portrayal.

Additionally, issues of INVOLVED spread to the future closer of the ANI [61] by the involved admin [62], as evidenced in the text at the reopened ANI. Although the "advice" appears to technically meet policy, the appearance of a conflict of interest is of increasing concern.

To better explain, before the ANI, the issues with assuming good faith were already addressed by 29 Sep [63] and the advice of "toning it down" was closely followed. A throrough presentation of what constitutes good faith vs bad faith at the project was presented by 03 Oct [64], afterwhich I incorporated the concerns into edit summaries and into civility practices in dealing with other editors [65]. The changes are evidenced by the diffs of numerous talk requests here [66] and [67] and [68] and [69], and at numerous other pages where I've edited without the editor's mass reverts using their admin tool.

Which brings us to the inaccurate portrayal of events and behaviors within the ANI. If I hadn't changed and responded in good faith to the raised issue of not accusing others of "bad faith" in edit summaries, then this request to UNBLOCK would be much different. When the same editor repeated the mass reverts, and didn't respond to multiple talk discussions (in diffs above), I had to remind them of using good faith, a reminder which was made in good faith.

A troubling result of the ANI's inaccurate portrayal is the absence of text and diffs revealing the apparent coordination between the involved admin and the editor (ongoing mass reverts using an admin tool [70], labelling reverted page as a BLP [71] and coordination again [72] and a PA here [73]). While verifying sources at RSN, and at BLPN, both have also entered discussions I've begun or was involved in, including a request for move, while the involved admin began a counter-move request for a move.

I've been editing with good faith, and have learned about various policies since June. I'm very careful about personal attacks, and delete PA's from the user page. When the editor made a personal attack (three times via reverts as detailed here [74] The PA was deleted, per policy[610]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[611]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[612]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[613]) in a request for move. For following policy in deleting PA's, I was accused by the involved admin of edit warring, then of disruptive editing by the editor, and accused of a PA by the involved admin for quoting the PA, in an apparent double accusation, without diffs, by the editor [75]and by the involved admin [76]. The apparent coordination by the involved admin and the editor is the common denominator throughout the ANI, and throughout the accurate portrayal of events here [77] and at the original ANI [78].

As such, the block/ban is not necessary since it was placed based on an inaccurate portrayal of events. And it was placed for an inaccurate portrayal of the efforts to abide by civility norms when faced by chronic behavior issues of another editor. In addition, the validity of the block had emerged, then just reemerged as a potentially serious issue: 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., from [79], as seen towards the bottom of the discussion.

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 [80], 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 [81], 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" [82]. 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 [83]. 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 [84].

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 [85], as a BLP [86]. Their coordination wasn't just "tangential" as of 16SEP [87]. Valereee (began?) also posted "warnings" without diffs or reason, as on 15SEP [88], 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 [89] (and see back channel). Apparently, El_C was convinced briefly, but Usedtobecool and I prevailed, then El_C removed the block extension [90]. 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 [91]

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 [92] and then was completed on 03OCT, but no administrative actions resulted [93], unlike an earlier sanction on that editor by Cullen328 [94]. Valereee entered the discussion, with a personal attack [95], 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 [96], and accusations of "ongoing" behaviors which applied to the reverter, as the edit summary explains[97]. 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 [98], 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[99]and[100]on user talk which correspond to the 08NOV ANI; and the discussion at the other move request on 12NOV [101] 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[102].
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[103]. 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[104].

Then, really misrepresented is the coordinated double accusatory "warning" that was actually and with some impunity posted on my user talk. Both CaradhrasAiguo[105]and Valereee[106]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[107] which was used by Valereee to officially reopen the ANI that day, and was referred to as "advice". [108]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Hi Editor2020. I trust this good faith ping isn't a violation of a block I hope to have unblocked. It's only focused on bettering the project with correct page info. About your recent reverts to Fuzheado's version at Vajrayana: the reverted edits are from RS by a highly respected Nyingma scholar, noted in the ref and links. I invite you to read it, accessible via the ref & link, while more texts on the subject are also available. The info is like Vajrayana 101. The RS is very clear on the foundations of Tibetan Vajrayana by Padmasambhava, and of Buddha's previous secret teachings on tantra, which is known in Tibetan Buddhism as the Vajrayana - the basis of the Nyingma school and a basis of the other schools. This is just an fyi. I'll ping again when the block is over. Thanks so much. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AdoTang. Just noticed the major rewrite of the lead at 2008 Tibetan unrest. It was previously reedited as per the talk notes, but POV (ie. "alleged", the changed image) seems to have been reintroduced. Maybe bring those changes to talk. Thanks, will re-ping when a current block is over. Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pasdecomplot. I'm not sure what you're referring to. When I came across the page, I noticed it seemed to be really pro-Tibet in some areas and pro-China in other areas. In my personal opinion, the Chinese government sucks, but this is Wikipedia, and things have to be neutral. So I did the cleanup, and yeah. I added "alleged" because, frankly, I don't know much about the topic, and I thought "hey, this line implying they directly persecute them sounds a bit biased considering this happened 12 years ago". I'll go remove that, I guess. Maybe the link too, though we'll need a better article that's actually about persecution of Tibetans in China. Maybe I'll find one, maybe not.

I'm not sure what you mean by the image, though. You mean me moving the image of Tibet's land boundaries down to the Background section and moving the photo of the monks in custody up to the lead? I felt the former would fit more in a section about things leading up to the unrest, while the latter actually depicted something that occurred during the unrest, so of course the latter would fit more, right? If there was an image of an actual riot scene from the unrest that we had on hand, I'd use it.

I'd like for a few more examples of the ways I apparently "reintroduced" the POV. I came in there, saw that the article was biased from the first two sections alone, and got to work, cleaning up poor grammar and rewording things I believed were, while informative, worded in a biased manner. In case you think the article being pro-whatever-your-stance-is-on-this makes it neutral and good enough for Wikipedia, it doesn't. Not implying that's what you believe (I really hope it's not), but yeah.

Though thanks for reminding me of that page, since I noticed I forgot to add a word in a sentence. That ain't fun, given it's in the lead section.

AdoTang (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 create a new thread.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 create a new thread.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

...

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Thank you for your attention to this ANI which was opened on 07Nov, then closed without administrative action; then reopened and modified to a request for a block. The resulting block and ban are not necessary, since the behaviors were already and previously addressed and modified, and were stopped.

Also, the block does not conform to block policy in that it continues to show apparent issues of WP:ADMINCONDUCT and apparent issues of WP:INVOLVED, leading to more concerns of WP:TOOLMISUSE.

Blocks are for serious disruptions to the project, and not to be used to punish an editor or to retaliate, as in WP:NOPUNISH. The reopening of the closed ANI and its request for the block was presented by an involved admin [109] using misleading and inaccurate information, and appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [110]. Its portrayal of "ongoing" behavior issues is incorrect. While NOTTHEM is very clear about what to say and not say at a unblock request, it's nearly impossible to explain the inaccuracies without an accurate portrayal of events.

After the archiving of the ANI, the block was requested at its reopening on 14Nov, then granted on 17Nov. Being that the characterization is incorrect, it's also difficult to simply provide a mea culpa, while the diffs provided here evidence the accurate portrayal including the previous behaviors.

Additionally, issues of INVOLVED may have spread to what was then the future closer of the ANI [111] by the involved admin [112], as evidenced in the text at the reopened ANI on 14Nov. Although the "advice" appears to technically meet policy, the appearance of a conflict of interest is of increasing concern, and presented for review below.

To better explain, before the ANI, the issues with assuming good faith were already addressed by 29 Sep [113] and the advice of "toning it down" was closely followed. A throrough presentation of what constitutes good faith vs bad faith at the project was presented by 03 Oct [114], afterwhich I incorporated the concerns into edit summaries and into civility practices in dealing with an editor [115] and in general throughout the project. The changes are evidenced by the diffs of numerous talk requests here [116] and [117] and [118] and [119], and at numerous other pages where I've edited, without mass reverts using an admin rollback tool, and without conflict or issues.[108]

Which brings us to the inaccurate portrayal of events and behaviors within the ANI. If I hadn't changed and responded in good faith to the raised issue of not accusing others of "bad faith" in edit summaries, then this request to UNBLOCK would be much different. But, when the same editor repeated the mass rollback reverts, and didn't respond to multiple talk page discussions (in diffs above), it seemed necessary to remind them of using good faith, a reminder which was made in good faith.

A troubling result of the ANI's inaccurate portrayal is the absence of text and diffs revealing the apparent coordination between the involved admin and the editor (another mass rollback revert [120], labelling the reverted page as a BLP [121] and coordination again [122] and a PA here [123]), all of which occurred before 03oct.

While earlier verifying sources at RSN in good faith, and discussing in good faith NOTABLE vs COATRACK at BLPN, both editor and involved admin also entered discussions I'd begun or was involved in, including a later request for move on 24Oct. Meanwhile, the involved admin began a counter-move request on 31Oct for a correction move I made that day.

I've been editing with good faith, and have learned, and am still learning, about various policies while contributing since June. I value the work on the project. I'm very careful about personal attacks, and delete PA's and harassment's from the user page, including those by the involved admin listed in the ANI. Then, in 05Nov, the editor made a personal attack, three times via reverts (as detailed here [124] The PA was deleted, per policy[610]. The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[611]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[612]. The author of the PA posts same PA for the third time[613]) in a request for move. For following policy in deleting PA's, I was accused by the involved admin of edit warring, then of disruptive editing by the editor, and accused of a PA by the involved admin for quoting the PA, in an apparent double accusation, without diffs, by the editor [125]and by the involved admin [126].

Unfortunately, the apparent coordination by the involved admin and the editor is the common denominator throughout the ANI, and throughout the accurate portrayal of events here [120] and at the original ANI [121].

These events at the requests for moves directly predated the ANI, but were not described by the involved admin. Blocks from June were also not mentioned, which caused an editor at ANI to question why the information was missing.

As such, the block/ban is not necessary since it was administered based on an incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of events, from June through to 03Oct, and then through to 14Nov. It is also inaccurate in not mentioning the events occuring between 07Nov and 14Nov, as the ANI was posted, closed, and then reopened.

Created also is an inaccurate portrayal of the changes in behaviors and the ongoing efforts to abide by civility norms when faced by chronic behavior issues of another editor, behaviors leading to issues that I do not initiate, but only deal with after they begin.

A few questions as to the validity of the block had emerged and were addressed, then just reemerged as a potentially serious issue worthy of a review. The text is added: 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., from [122], as seen towards the bottom of the discussion.

These heightened ADMINCONDUCT, INVOLVED, and TOOLMISUSE concerns are not accusations of bad faith whatsoever, but only concerns based on the stated intentions behind policies governing blocks. It certainly appears as if there might be a conflict of interest and involvement. If the review agrees with this concern, then the block/ban could be found as invalid.

Possibly worth mentioning in this context, before the ANI was unarchived, I asked about an IBAN on the involved admin but didn't receive a response [123], and thus didn't even know the request for reopening was successful, after checking a few times.

Thank you for your attention. I promise to continue to edit in good faith, to continue to not accuse others of "bad faith", and to begin using appropriate forums when dealing with issues that cannot be solved through good faith talk page discussions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:WALLOFTEXT. This is approximately 1750 words. Please see WP:GAB. You'll want to reduce this by an order of magnitude or more. Yamla (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please, Yamla, I just read WALLOFTEXT, which isn't warned of in unblock requests. There's a long quotation which could be deleted, but the request seems to require proof of inaccuracy in ANI - thus the length. After I delete the quotation, would you please reconsider and possibly read (if you haven't) the request? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, quotation deleted. Yamla can you read it now? Also, might you know why the diffs no longer work, and their text no longer appears in edit mode? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the edits made to the request: The diffs were modified by you Yamla. I would like to undue your work, so as to edit. Ok? Is disassociating diffs a standard practice with which I'm not familiar? But, how can another admin review the request without the diffs? Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit or remove declined unblock requests, please. You are free to make a new unblock request. Your links were lost due to how unblock templates work, not (I promise) from any malicious actions from me. You can find your complete unblock request here, prior to my decline. Please make a new unblock request and please reduce it by at least an order of magnitude. Unblock reviewers are all volunteers and nobody has time to read ten or more pages of an unblock request, I'm afraid. --Yamla (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Yamla. This is confusing, since instructions say requests can be edited, and don't say anything about WALLOFTEXT as a reason for denying an unblock request. Instructions also say multiple requests are not really appreciated. Thus, I deleted 1/3 of the text in response to the decline in hopes you'd reconsider. I see it was readded, but all of the diffs were not.

Just for perspective, I gotta say: I drafted the request carefully over a two week period due to the mess of the block request. It appears it was declined without being reviewed, in less than 20 minutes, for a reason not specified in the instructions.

Also, the nearly instant decline instantly prevented other admins from reviewing the request (per info box), since the formatting was changed, and the diffs were actually struck through and renumbered, which seems a curious default-bot-system for declined unblock requests.

Please be sure there's only the assumption of good faith, as I did ask if disassociating diffs was normal procedure.

So, please excuse me for asking, but it appears you aren't open to actually reading the abbreviated request? Thanks for comments and clarity. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make a new unblock request. Another admin will review it. You are also free to ignore WP:WALLOFTEXT but I warn you, there's absolutely no chance another admin will review an unblock request of that length, either. You are correct, I didn't read it. I explained why I didn't read it. WP:GAB clearly indicates you are required to stick to the point ("be brief", it says). I'm not trying to be difficult here, but it's outright abusive to expect volunteers to read more than 1750 words of an unblock request and you risk losing access to your talk page if you refuse to follow WP:GAB. Please understand, none of this is meant to be a threat, though I understand it's hard to tell my tone here. I'm trying to point you to policies (WP:GAB) and guidelines (WP:WALLOFTEXT) and explain why these exist (we are volunteers). Also, I've pointed out you are not permitted to edit declined unblock requests, but you are free to make a new request! The way to ensure your next unblock request has the highest chance of success is to be brief and follow the guidelines in WP:GAB, avoiding another wall of text and paying attention to the other points. Removing 1/3 of the text is nowhere near sufficient, either. As I pointed out, you should be aiming to reduce it by an order of magnitude. 175 words instead of 1750, though even this would put it at the far extreme for unblock requests I generally see around here. --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pasdecomplot, I know you had wanted a new admin to weigh in here so I didn't say anything as you did your formal unblock request. However, let me clarify something as I don't want you to be misled. If you follow Yamla's advice and radically shorten your unblock request, you will still not be able to have it undone by a single administrator. As the sanction was placed on you by the community, only the community or ArbCom can lift it. This is why I have offered, more than once, to put an unblock request of your choice at the appropriate venue - WP:AN - when you are ready. I'm happy if you would prefer that this be done by a different administrator, in which case using the unblock template is a way to attract that administrator's attention, but that will still be the process. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional help Yamla.

Thanks for the repeated offer Barkeep49, but posting the request there means I won't have access to the request or editing control since I can't open docs there in edit mode. Could you also explain where, and how, the block request left the ANI community and entered another process referred to as "the community"? Was that a product of the advice you gave? Just asking in good faith, still learning. Thanks. Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI is a community forum. Consensus reached there is considered a community sanction. It would be different if an individual admin had blocked you on their own initiative. Most blocks are done by individual administrators so that's how the guide is written. However, in this case, the community imposed the block and restriction so that is who it must be appealed to. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 I'm still curious. Where was the point at which an individual administrator decided not to sanction? At the archiving? If so, again, can you point to the specific place where since an individual admin refused to act, it was officially brought to the "community" instead? It seems since the bar to get community consensus on an unblock is higher, I would think there should be a clear process with policy, for both entering into and exiting from those sanctions. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's confusing, hopefully this helps clarify. When the sanction was proposed at ANI and then gained consensus it became a community sanction. Until then any administrator could have chosen to block you on their own authority. This does happen at ANI - someone reports a disruptive user and an administrator reading it blocks or otherwise deals with the disruption. Individual administrators may not normally place topic bans so that could only have been done by the community. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's still unclear Barkeep49 what the process was after archiving and before unarchiving. Asking again in good faith: the ANI was archived without sanctions. No admin actions. It appears a consensus was made off ANI to bring it back onto ANI as a "community" sanction, as EdJohnston's ping on El_C's talk suggests? The ping you mentioned you wished I hadn't seen (earlier discussion); the ping where I replied and asked for info on an IBAN?

The shift in process allowed an involved admin to vote, and allowed a vote by another admin that previously reviewed the exact same issues by 03oct, after which their concerns were addressed. (The changes were very apparent.) But, the shifted process let them vote not as involved admins or somewhat involved admins, but as editors? Is that understanding correct?

Also, I believe I read that an independent administrator can override the block. Is that also correct? Thanks again, and sorry for all the requests for information. Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When something is decided by formal consensus at ANI it is a community consensus. So Valeree made a proposal about a sanction and enough people agreed that there was consensus. Because it was at ANI, Valeree being involved did not matter. That's the way any editor, administrator or not, can seek help for editor's they're having a problem with. And no an independent admin can't override community consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the WP:AE text I was referring to Barkeep49: Modifications by administrators: No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Pasdecomplot (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement is a very specific kind of administrative action that does not apply in this situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't AE apply Barkeep49 - if the block/ban process and sanction were reviewed and found to conflict with policy? I'm also still very concerned about the ban and very concerned about the previous accusation of not adhering to the ban, from which you did thankfully step back. Much appreciated. But, it appears, given that example, the ban is too broad and could easily be misinterpreted arbitrarily - for six months (which also seems slightly excessive since the ban is so broad). Would you be willing to review and modify the parameters and length for both of our benefits? Thanks again.

Pasdecomplot, Barkeep49 won't have received your ping because you didn't sign your post. To answer your questions though: no, WP:AE wouldn't apply in this case, since that covers Arbitration Enforcement, a specific process that wasn't involved in this case. Barkeep49 won't be able to modify the duration or the conditions of the ban - that was determined by community consensus at the ANI thread, all Barkeep49 did was to close the thread and implement that consensus.

As an aside, I'd add that no individual admin is going to be able to accept this unblock request - as BK49 has already explained, this kind of community sanction isn't one that an individual admin can overturn, it will need to be posted at AN for discussion. If you want that to happen, you will need to ask someone to post the text at AN on your behalf; my advice to you though is just to wait until the block is over, which will be in just a few days now. If you want to appeal your TBan after that, you will be able to create a thread for yourself. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 11:50, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also think you should just wait the 5 more days, Pasdecomplot. Girth gives very good advice. An appeal to AN can also risk further restrictions being added. It just isn't worth it for 5 days. I also suggest you find a way to put this all behind you and forget about it. After the block expires your ban is just on "commenting on other editors' motivations anywhere but at WP:ANI" - as I said above, this is not very restrictive, and you can keep editing in all the areas you edited in beforehand. Consider it as a challenge to only find ways to make arguments based on content merits. Sometimes it's better, regardless of who was right or wrong, to just move on from it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Girth Summit wrote. Just to explain but AE is about issues in specific areas, such as American Politics or Eastern Europe. It has its own rules. These don't apply to you. In theory you could appeal to the Arbitration Committee but they are unlikely to overrule the community and it would likely take them longer to reach a decision than you have left in your block. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Girth Summit, was wondering why there wasn't a response from 10Dec [127] - because I didn't sign the edit! Still learning.

And, thanks again ProcrastinatingReader, but it's difficult to put something behind when the editor(s) still haven't been sanctioned. Also, it seems as if an appeal at AN - addressing the ongoing concerns about the ban, and requesting another administrator if the ban isn't lifted - is the only forum. No other options? As stated to Barkeep49 in this thread, the ongoing concerns are based on the earlier accusation of violating the ban at the "Possible?" talk discussion topic above [128]. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC) UTC)[reply]

I think that’s understandable. My thoughts were/are from the perspective of an objective onlooker - who, despite having dug through some of this at the time, hasn’t dug through most of the below - on the easiest way forward. Community bans can only be appealed to the community (via WP:AN). An admin will probably agree to copy your appeal on request but some advice if you want to proceed: trim your argument into a few bullet points. A couple of reasons for this. The first, the community (as a bunch of humans) has a low attention span. A lot of issues hit AN/ANI, all requesting uninvolved input. Fewer people will thoroughly read and investigate long cases. Second, usually long paragraphs citing lots of policy pages tend to be pointless rants with no basis, in my experience, which makes them appear dubious. Succinct summaries with some diffs (don’t even bother quoting the policy, most of the time) are enough for an uninvolved editor to dig in and extract the problems. You want to make it real easy for people to know who’s done what and who has how many fingers in the pudding. Note I haven’t really looked into how valid your claims are, this is mostly general advice at a skim of the below appeal, and I haven’t been in your exact shoes either so perhaps the admins above can clarify if they would recommend similar. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the advice about how to formulate a good request though I am skeptical the community will be receptive to this particular one. In a couple days you'll be able to make the appeal on the topic ban yourself as the block will have expired. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks ProcrastinatingReader. Is the issue that the same admins/editors also review the request to modify the ban and/or change the ban's administrator Barkeep49? Is that the reason for skepticism regarding receptiveness? Thanks for clarifying, in advance. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this was not something I decided as an administrator. This was something decided by the community (or at least those members of the community who participated in the discussion). The community may change its mind of course. I am just suggesting you don't get your hopes up about that happening. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Barkeep49. Sorry to ask again, but will a fresh set of community admins/editors review the request? Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll probably get some editors who looked at it before and some looking at it for the first time. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

edited version

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

The block/ban submitted by an involved administrator [129] is not necessary since the ANI text is comprised of accusations of incivility which are not supported by diffs, and/or are inaccurate versions of events.

Blocks are for serious disruptions to the project, and not to be used to punish or retaliate, as in WP:NOPUNISH. The block request appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [130]. The earlier archived ANI appears to be directly related to the involved admin's accusation of edit warring and accusation of PA, both of which are proven false by the diffs provided at ANI [131] before being archived. The ANI and its diffs of baseless "warnings" is also WP:SANCTIONGAMING.

The archiving signifies the accusations were not convincing.

Somehow, it was reopened with "advice" of the future closer [132], which heightens concerns of ADMINCONDUCT, of INVOLVED, and of TOOLMISUSE, which are ongoing [133] (seen towards the bottom). Simultaneously, a request for information on an IBAN wasn't answered [134]. As such, I also request an independent administrator to remove the block/ban [135], and need advice on if the block/ban can or should be appealed at WP:AE.

As a recent contributor beginning from June, I learned about policy while editing. After being wrongly blocked for not indenting by the involved admin, I went to another area of the project to avoid constant harassment [136] and interaction.

On 10Sep, I began interacting with an involved editor [137] and my attempts at navigating through their chronic behaviors [138] were criticised. I listened, learned and responded to advice to "tone it down" by 29Sep [139]. Then I explained policies on good faith while attempting to clear myself and have the other editor's behaviors addressed by 03oct [140], but was unsuccessful [141]. I received another PA there from the involved admin [142], and more PA/harassment diffs are at the ANI [143].

Regardless, I changed per advice, as seen in these diffs: [144] and [145] and [146] and [147].

This accurate version of events and the changes I made are omitted from the block request, which instead wrongly portrays another story.

While NOTTHEM is clear, it's impossible to present events accurately without mentioning others. Missing are events at two RfM's, which I either initiated or participated in, directly linked to the 07Nov ANI and the 14Nov block request, detailed at ANI [148]. The significance was maybe not understood, possibly due to the involved admin's previous vetting [149].

Nor was the coordination history between the involved admin and involved editor examined:[150] and [151] and [152] and [153], and the infamous double accusation [154] and [155].

These are the reasons the block/ban is not necessary: it was made based on mischaracterizations of events, on omitted previous changes to behaviors, and on an inaccurate rendering of the history of harassment and PA's by the involved admin, after which I attempted to avoid all interaction. I've already stopped the behaviors, do not initiate conflicts, and have also recently learned about other forums for issues, instead of edit summaries. I will be even more careful while editing. Thank you. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

The block as imposed by Barkeep49 was an appropriate evaluation of the consensus at the ANI discussion and I don't see a basis for overruling it at this time. The ban can be appealed at AN once the block expires in 2 days, although given the level of unanimity at the relevant ANI discussion, the odds of it being overturned are slim. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@@ Line 438: / Line 438: @@
 : addressed. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 19:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
-== Possible? ==
-Sorry to ping you here {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}}, but you seemed the most compassionate editor at the ANI. And {{u|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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/988670058] which was used by Valereee that day at the ANI's official reopening, and referred to as "advice". [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#]
-Barkeep49 later was the closer on 17Nov [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/989216369] and on my talk writes that they just interpreted at the closing,
-[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pasdecomplot#Block prevents reviewing/editing Important Move Requests]
-Likewise, the vote from Cullen328
-[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/988704534] was after being very involved in the exact same issues with Valereee and CaradhrasAiguo [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/981513436] as presented at ANI, and here's the final edit there [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/981584405]. 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=981582787].
-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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/988550897].
-Is it possible to overturn the Block and Ban? Humble thanks for reading, and thanks in advance for seriously considering the subject. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk:ProcrastinatingReader|talk]]) 20:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
-:: {{u|ProcrastinatingReader}} Cullen's vote at ANI was an administrative action, as was Valereee's vote, or so is my understanding. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 20:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
-:::Any editor may vote to impose sanctions at ANI. They were commenting in their capacity as editors. [[User:ProcrastinatingReader|ProcrastinatingReader]] ([[User talk: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.  [[User:Nick Moyes|Nick Moyes]] ([[User talk:Nick Moyes|talk]]) 21:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
-::::: Thanks {{u|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 {{u|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 [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 21:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
-{{od}}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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 23:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
-::Thanks Cullen for those well phrased comments. @[[User:Pasdecomplot|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 [[Template:Collapse top|collapsable template]]. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk: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 [[User:Girth Summit|<span style="font-family:Impact;color:#006400;">Girth</span><span style="font-family:Impact;color:#4B0082;">Summit</span>]][[User talk:Girth Summit|<sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)</sub>]] 11:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
-::: I appreciate the advice {{u|Barkeep49}}.
-:::: I guess we agree to disagree {{u|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. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 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 {{u|Cullen328}}. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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. [[User:Cullen328|<b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328</sup>]] [[User talk:Cullen328|<span style="color:#00F">''Let's discuss it''</span>]] 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 [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ACaradhrasAiguo]. Thanks. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 08:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
-The [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pasdecomplot&diff=prev&oldid=990113152 multiple characterizations] of {{u|Valereee}} {{tq|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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3A11th_Panchen_Lama&type=revision&diff=987572610&oldid=987431095 post] asking both PdC and myself to revise our comments came as a result of that, not any notification of her: Indeed, my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=984456466 last post] at her talk page was in regards to an unrelated dispute. 3) On [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=978703839 16 Sep], I posted on Usedtobecool's talk on my own volition; Valereee [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=978730271 advised] that Usedtobecool's talk was already well-watched. Hardly "coordination" against PdC.
-Usage of the talk page while blocked is [[WP:NOTTHEM|not to be dominated]] by launching a slew of grievances against others. Pinging {{Ping|Barkeep49}} to reconsider talk page access. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>[[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]]</small>) 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. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk: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 onto[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring?markasread=205074135&markasreadwiki=enwiki#User:Flickotown_reported_by_User:CaradhrasAiguo_(Result:_)|ANB Edit 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! [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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 {{tqq|the above message indicates that editor is inappropriately crawling through this talk page}}. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk: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 {{u|Flickotown}}, knowing about warring with {{u|Horse Eye&#39;s Back}} and {{u|Amigao}}, and reading that editor's statement just above, as in {{tqq|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 {{u|Barkeep49}}, I'd appreciate it a lot. I'll also read NOTTHEM again. Thanks. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk: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 {{u|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. [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|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, [[WP:AAGF|assuming that others are also assuming good faith]]. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
-{{od}} 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: {{tqq|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: {{tqq|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 {{u|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 which also notes a request for info on an IBan; review the close on the reopened ANI and the block/ban by Barkeep49, which occurred before I responded; examine the draft request to remove the block/ban at [[User 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. (Reasons to invalidate include the participation of involved administrators, a lack of pinging, on top of unproven accusations of personal attacks, incomplete and inaccurate portrayal of edits, and the churning of warnings without providing proof of accusations.)
-:It would be much appreciated! [[User:Pasdecomplot|Pasdecomplot]] ([[User talk:Pasdecomplot#top|talk]]) 19:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 == ... ==