User talk:Pasdecomplot

Welcome!

Hello, Pasdecomplot! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! O3000 (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Pasdecomplot, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pasdecomplot! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

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

Le quagmire

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

[2]

____________________________

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

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

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

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

mobile editing

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

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

Thank you for your diligence

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

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

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

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

Identical unsourced text repeatedly inserted by AdoTang, 103.205.9.224, and MarkH21 at 2008 Tibetan unrest:

• AdoTang, 27Nov: "The use of force by Chinese police and military forces during the demonstrations have been controversial, with some deeming it excessive force."(No ref; introduced text to page)[5]

• 103.205.9.224, 29Dec: "The use of force by Chinese police and military forces during the demonstrations have been controversial, with some deeming it excessive force." (No ref; typed into page)[6]

• MarkH21, 31Dec: "The use of force by Chinese police and military forces during the demonstrations have been controversial, with some deeming it excessive force."(No ref; typed into page again)[7]

I was looking through my contributions when I found your name. Why are 103.205.9.224, MarkH21, and I listed here?

Not every single line needs a reference. There's nothing wrong with that statement; it doesn't push a POV or anything.

Boo hoo, three people said something and the IP happened to be a vandal. And? Lay it off, Pas. AdoTang (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AdoTang: this editor is indefinitely blocked and so will not be able to reply to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Just read. I see it finally caught up to him. Thanks for the heads up. AdoTang (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Old note

Hi Pasdecomplot,

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

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

Sandbox

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

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

January 2021

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

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

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

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

  I understand you disagree with my block. Your unblock request is below and presents your thoughts for consideration by an uninvolved administrator who can consider your point of view and make a decision accordingly. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• You have not provided your opinion on where the TBan was violated by the diff. You also have not supplied your secret reason, after being asked twice. A disagreement has two sides: There's only one side here - mine, supported by the TBan text. Your side Barkeep49? Non existent. Thus, no disagreement, but rather logic based on collaborative community policy vs your secret alleged violations, like the Spanish Inquisition. Come off it, Barkeep. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  My message from 16:39 16 January immediately following the block provides a diff of where I believe you violated your topic ban. I also had asked you to remove it, which you declined to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valereee

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

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

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

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

1. She directly blocked once,
2. then twice; the second one was invalid as El_C clarified.
3. Then, she proposed a third block with a BLP ban, which El C granted. She seemed to really not want text on Chauvin dragging Floyd's dead body to the gurney.
4. I left to another area of the project. Tibetan Buddhism. She tagged a page I was editing as a BLP, and tried for another TBan violation, which was pure sanction gaming. El _C graciously removed the block less than 24 hours after the mistake was discovered.
5. She disrupted two page move requests at the 11th Panchen Lama while collecting more diffs that were used and misrepresented at ANI, in a much more massive sanction-game than the BLP tagging version of the game. Only one reviewer questioned her distorted presentation while none caught the false diffs. She failed in gaining a sanction.
6. Barkeep49 advised her on requesting the block and TBan, where she referred to me (and other editors) as "monkeys" [8]. She managed to reopen the ANI.
7. No individual administrators would grant the sanction. Instead, a group of admins and editors, supposedly acting only as editors, issued her requested sanction, the same that was earlier advised by Barkeep.
8. I stopped adding info regarding motivation to edit summaries and to edits on talks, which were the stated problems. Then, the goal posts shifted: so-called implied and inferred comments were flagged in what became constant harassment for me by Girth Summit. Then, goal posts shifted again as hounding and edit warring and direct rudeness couldn't be addressed since it led to false accusations of TBan violations. Valereee's TBan ushered in the block by Girth Summit on 31Dec.
9. Then, Barkeep issues a block indefinitely, based on an edit and diff about Valereee's rather outrageous and seemingly uncontrolled disruptions, which the sanction-gamed TBan again ushered in. Where's Valereee's warning, her sanction? And, I'd like to mention that boomerang is doubtlessly a form of victim blaming.

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

Please stop the invalid blocks & admin abuse

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:

This invalid block has now been in place for two weeks. The TBan's language is specific: Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions#Pasdecomplot (and I'm treating this request as if it was at ANI since I'm blocked from editing there). It's reasons were allegedly to halt comments made on edit summaries, made while previously dealing with a chronic sockpuppet [19] CaradhrasAiguo, aka Chuckie, who was coordinating disruptive edits with an administrator Valereee [20]. Valereee's ANI and TBan request meets the definition of sanction-game, along with their history of targeting me with sanction games, hounding, rudeness and disruptive editing[21].

Since this TBan sanction began, administrative abuses have spread from Valereee to Barkeep49 and to GirthSummit. After stopping the commenting on motivations on edit summaries, constant goal-post shifts and OR re-interpretations of the TBan, which are not supported by my text, escalated to create an increasingly hostile editing environment that includes deleted and disassociated refs, excessive tagging, direct rudeness, trolling and hounding on pages, on talks, on noticeboards, and on this user talk as detailed in the earlier unblock request.

The TBan is also being used to silence and delete balanced POV on Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism. On 31 Dec, a TBan violation was alleged and used by GirthSummit to issue a block which protected the shredding of multiple editors' balanced POV on 2008 Tibetan unrest, undertaken by MarkH21 and supported by Cullen328. HOUND correctly describes Mark's actions of following into at least 6 pages and reverting supported info at least on 45 occasions. My warnings did not address Mark's motivation here nor here nor here, but the accusers' OR interpretations did. Very notably, Mark has seemingly replaced Chuckie as the go-to editor for re-inserting the Chinese government's POV: On 31Dec, Mark reinserted the identical and unsourced Chinese POV text used by AdoTang and by 103.205.9.224 [22], also captured in this diff.

Now, another alleged 'comment on motivation' has been invalidly used by Barkeep to enact an indefinite block. Again, absolutely nothing in my text makes a comment on motivations[23]. Both blocks were made by editors of an encyclopedia which seriously addresses and deletes OR - yet, OR is being used as a method of administrative abuse: These are interpretations not supported by text and are misinterpretations that have been clarified, but even the clarifications are ignored.

This block and the 31Dec block are also both invalid since it's impossible to "violate" a sanction-game, a game evidenced by the IBan's misrepresented diffs and by my response to them at ANI Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1051#Pasdecomplot.

Collaborative editing does not mean being forced into "hooping" Chinese propaganda, but Barkeep's reasoning suggests it does.

Collaboration based on policies means everyone is subject to the policies. If administrators are not subject to policy, and if policy only applies to recent editors (those not liking PRC or US police POV shoved into orifices, POV contrary to RS and to BLP standards at numerous Tibetan Buddhist pages, and at Killing of George Floyd- where a severe example of a BLP violation includes the mention of alleged "hooping" that denigrates a victim just lynched by the US police), wiki cannot be a collaborative project but rather and unfortunately only another propaganda tool, while it's policies are available to be used simply as sanction-game tools to cull certain editors.

The pretence has been worn through. As a volunteer, I need to be able to edit and correct minority opinions and fringe views without harassment and games. And, as a volunteer, I don't promote propaganda. Please, remove the block and remove the repeatedly abused TBan. Thanks.

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. You were blocked because you violated your editing restriction and aren't able to edit collaboratively. Any unblock request would need to demonstrate either that you didn't do this or that you won't do it in the future. The key word here is "you". Accusations that a long list of other people have done all sorts of disruptive things don't say anything about you or your behaviour, except that it suggests you probably aren't going to be a collaborative editor if unblocked. Similarly complaints that the editing restriction was unjust/invalid/gaming aren't relevant, except to suggest that you probably won't abide by it if unblocked. You can appeal editing restrictions, but while they're in place you need to abide by them. I have to agree with the blocking admin that this edit was a violation of your editing restriction as it speculates that an editor you have differences with is acting that way because of a severe mental illness. This would be highly inappropriate even if there wasn't an editing restriction on you "commenting on other editors' motivations". Hut 8.5 18:20, 30 January 2021 (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.

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

• Two weeks have passed Barkeep49. Remove this invalid block. This block is invalid for multiple reasons: the primary being that the TBan is the direct result of Valereee's WP:SANCTIONGAMING in which you directly gave advice, then closed as the sanctioning administrator. The next being your OR interpretation of a diff was your reason for the block - OR doesn't work on wiki - while the disruptive editing at Dudjom Rinpoche was again overlooked.
• As for Girth Summit's invalid block on 31Dec, I've provided the above proof of the collaborators that repeatedly reinserted Chinese POV at 2008 Tibetan unrest, the last of which the timing of his invalid block corresponds.
• I'm not pretending anymore that the TBan or these recent blocks reflect some morsel of validity, especially after the numerous directly rude responses and castings of asperations which followed the previous unblock request.
• And, ProcrastinatingReader, I've followed the advise to simply move on after 17Nov, but that advise was undermined due to the TBan's underlying sanction game. Is there any uninvolved administrator that can take charge and end this sanction game and this administrative abuse, so I can edit again without targeted harassment and disruption? As detailed, the gaming and abuse are both effectively supporting pro-Chinese POV, and are not about alleged 'comments on motivations'. I'd appreciate your aide, if you're able to give it, a request of which I am also extending to Adoring nanny. Pasdecomplot (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined unblock request

Thanks for responding Hut 8.5. Your userpage presents the offer to tell you if you've made a mistake, so here are the reasons presented in good faith:

Barkeep49's reasons for the indef block are not supported. It alleges its reasons are "for violation of your editing restriction" and alleges "combative edits"; In a brief and imprecise note, Barkeep49 alleges related reasons, but has declined repeatedly to explain these reasons. The only reason clearly cited is a diff. Although the reasons that diff is problematic are now definitely understood, the diff itself does not violate the specific TBan. It may have violated other norms but not the TBan.

Content disputes are at the center of the TBan and at the center of the blocks for allegedly violating the TBan. Admin tools should not be used to resolve content disputes.

1. GirthSummit used their tools on 31Dec to block during a content dispute in which they were directly involved, without bothering to explain. In WP:TOOLMISUSE it states: Communal norms or policies – When a policy or communal norm is clear that tools should not be used, then tools should not be used without an explanation that shows the matter has been considered, and why a (rare) exception is genuinely considered reasonable. The proof of an ongoing content dispute and of collaborators reinserting POV after CON reverts is again provided here. It's also proof that pro-Chinese POV was being protected by GirthSummit's invalid block.
2. Barkeep49 issued this indef block during an ongoing content dispute with Valereee, the unnamed subject of the diff that has repeatedly and uncontrollably misused their admin tools, and misused (if policy applies to admins) the trust given to them by the administrative community. Barkeep claims the diff was brought to his attention, but again fails to say by whom. It appears the block was used again to completely resolve content disputes, as an extreme 'Final Solution' to end my supported and balanced contributions here, which have evolved to necessarily oppose minority pro-Chinese POV creeping into wiki.
3. Working in this way, the apparent purpose of the IBan is to cull me as an editor. In attempting to halt the culling, I've repeatedly provided evidence before the IBan was inacted in mid-Nov and afterwards, which evidence the IBan request was the result of Valereee's sanction-gaming and of grossly mischaracterized diffs that were outdated and patently false. Why was a sanction-game created? To apparently control content disputes.

I've already stopped the behaviors mentioned at the ANI, before the ANI was made. Remember, no individual admins would grant a sanction. But at this juncture, I can only treat this talk as if it was ANI, since I'm blocked from editing there, to address the motivations of other editors in a need to defend myself from their false claims and abuses: Numerous allegations of my own motivations, direct rudeness, combative edits and atmosphere, refusals to edit collaboratively and/or blanked and deleted content and references. These incidents I've thoroughly detailed in diffs.

As is apparent, the situation is out of control. After always accepting I was at fault, I have repeatedly changed. As hostilities intensified, requests for help have been ignored or denied and the deeper problems became more apparent. Now, I'm fully aware I am not the problem, whereas entrenched minority POV is the huge problem. NOTTHEM cannot apply when these issues are about THEM and their inserting, without sanctions and in fact with support, pro-Chinese POV. Of course wiki's editors have different POV's, but the entrenched POV runs directly to certain admins which are enforcing Echo chambers in topic areas, such as Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism, that furthermore subjectively omit recognized RS. To describe an echo chamber it's inherently necessary to describe 'THEM'. (How many other editors have been culled at this similar point, where naivety gives way to experience of the echo chamber?)

Another more simple question: If there are 1,115 admins, why has a single administrator, Valereee, constantly harassed my particular edits and contributions, blocked me and sanction-gamed repeatedly for the previous six months? If that doesn't seem odd to any other administrator, the problem is deeper than it appears. Pasdecomplot (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed your access to edit this page. You've made 127 edits to it since the block was imposed two weeks ago (for the benefit of other people reading this there's a lot more in the edit history). It's clear that you're using your talk page to continue the behaviour which led to the block in the first place: combative editing and making comments about the motivations of other editors. If anything you're getting worse because you're now comparing your opponents to Nazis. I suggest you move on and find yourself a new hobby, because it doesn't look like this place is suitable for you. Hut 8.5 10:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS 40665

UTRS appeal #40665 has been closed.

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. You have drastically understated the reasons behind your TPA removal. You violated your topic ban. Full stop. Nothing attempting to excuse or justify that changes the TBAN violation. You have gone on here to blame others in an effort to justify your behavior, as you did on your talk page. You have gone on here, as you did on your talk page, to accuse others of misconduct. This is not acceptable. In the relevant ANI thread, Valaree wrote, "My concern is solely the unwillingness to assume good faith and focus on the edits rather than making accusations about the other editors’ motivations." Based on what I've read, I cannot fault that assessment. I must warn you that should your next UTRS appeal 1) not address the reasons for your block, 2) and/or continue to attempt to shift blame, you may lose access to UTRS. Please reread the Guide to Appealing Blocks. You can use the link on your talk page. Thank you. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]