User:Pasdecomplot/sandbox

Working Notes

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MovePage&action=submit

(Unable to edit, without notice, while requesting a page move per WP instructions.)

Possible pages:

• Tsasum Lingpa
• Gochen Monastery
• First nunnery in Deer Park (Sarnath), the Orgyen Samye Chokhor Ling Nunnery
• Shechen Rabjam Rinpoche
• 4th Katok Rinpoche.

Both are notable for lots of reasons, including being asked to serve or actually serving as head of Nyingma school.

• Palri/Pelri monastery, a early Six Mother monastery according to user Sherabgyatso
• Sherab Ozer

Palri Monastery

Looking for information on Palri monastery (there isn't a page), one of the original Six Mother Monasteries of the Nyingma school. Not finding much in searches. Wondering about available journals.

The monastery's formal name is Chongye Palri Thegchog Ling [1]

The founder is noted as Drodul Lingpa, formal name Trengpo Tertön Sherab Özer, also noted as Sherab Ozer [2]

• Treasury of Lives:

"The ruler (zhabs drung) of Chonggye, Hor Sonam Dargye (hor bsod nams dar rgyas, d.u.), who received Sherab Ozer’s teachings of the Sphere of Liberation, became his disciple and conferred upon him the title of official chaplain (ti shri) of the Chonggye court. He repeatedly requested Sherab Ozer to establish a Nyingma monastery on his territory, the location of the ancient Tibetan emperors’s tombs. Sonam Dargye died before seeing his wishes fulfilled. His son and successor, Hor Sonam Tobgye (hor bsod nams stobs rgyas, d.u.) followed his father, and finally Sherab Ozer agreed to establish a Nyingma community in Chonggye."

'Accordingly, the monastery of Pelri Tekchen Ling (dpal ri theg chen gling) was established in 1571 and the Chonggye ruler offered the domain, the properties and the temple’s sacred objects. Dikteng Rinpoche Ngawang Lobzang (sdig stengs rin po che ngag dbang blo bzang, d.u.) was appointed abbot (mkhan po). The community followed both sūtra and tantra, with key-points of practices performed according to the instructions of Longchenpa. The community upheld the traditions of service and attainment (bsnyen sgrub) of the Mahāyoga, the earlier and later treasures, and the treasures of Sherab Ozer and his son."

"As detailed in both the history of Tibet and the autobiography of the Fifth Dalai Lama, Ngawang Lobzang Gyatso (ngag dbang blo bzang rgya mtsho, 1617-1682), born later into the ruling family of Chonggye, Prajñāpāramitā texts, the Life-Story of Padmasambhava (padma bka' thang) and Longchenpa’s works of the Nature of Mind Healing Suffering (sems nyid ngal gso) were printed on the occasion of the consecration of Pelri Monastery."

"Late in his life Sherab Ozer became sick, allegedly due to black magic performed against him by political rivals. He gave his last instructions concerning the funerary treatment of his body, and exhorted his community in this way: You, members of the Buddhist monastic community, devote yourselves mainly and without interruption to study, reflection and meditation for each of the teachings. Engage in practice; face every situation by applying the antidotes [of virtues] without being soiled by the stains of transgressing the three vows [of monastic conduct, bodhisattva and tantric adept]. Consider all sentient beings as your own parents. If you want to establish a connection with me, accomplish the practice of the Sphere of Liberation, Auto-Liberation of Intention and my volume of instructions."

"During his last moments, Sherab Ozer is described as having been continuously immerged in visionary experiences of deities, empowerments, blessings and pure realms. He interpreted that this disease was the result of former bad actions, and that he would be henceforth liberated from their correlative obscuring veils."

"Sherab Ozer intended to transfer his consciousness and leave his body on the tenth day of the sixth Mongol month of the water monkey year (1584). However, his son and successor at the abbacy of Pelri Monastery, Gyelse Karma Kunzang with his wife, children and others, prayed him to stay. As a result he lived three more days, and eventually during the early morning of the thirteenth, he passed away. According to the hagiography, he is said to have unified his mind with Padmasambha in his aspect of Pawochenpo Tope Dumbutsel (dpa' bo chen po thod pa'i dum bu rtsal) in the city of great bliss named Śāntapurī, in the pure realm of Pelri Padma Wo (dpal ri padma 'od)."

"Sherab Ozer was also known as Drodul Lingpa ('gro 'dul gling pa)..." https://treasuryoflives.org/biographies/view/Sherab-Wozer/8964

• Palri full name =

Chongye Palri Thegchog Ling, monastery, central Tibet; founded by _________

• "Trengpo Tertön Sherab Özer (Wyl. 'phreng po gter ston shes rab 'od zer) (1518-1572/84), also known as Drodul Lingpa or Prajñāraśmi, was an important tertön in central Tibet who revealed the Droltik (dam chos grol ba'i thig le) or Gongpa Rangdrol cycle. The student of Drikung Rinchen Phuntsok (1509-1557) (the father of Chögyal Phuntsok), he was the founder of Palri Monastery. "His three immediate reincarnations were:

"Tsele Natsok Rangdrol (body incarnation) (b.1608), Minling Terchen Gyurme Dorje (speech incarnation) (1646-1714), and Pema Dechen Lingpa (mind incarnation) (1627/63-1713)."

• See also TBRC on Sherab Ozer, but mention of Palri?

• See also mentions in:

Refs[3]

Larung Gar & Yarchen Gar

• Jigme Phuntsok 1yr detention after threats, then after; Larung, Apollo Mapping photos

https://www.tibetwatch.org/larung-gar

• Early images Larung (pre-1980?)

https://wordsofjigmephuntsok.org/news/news_290720/

• LeMonde photos (via Google, Apollo mapping)

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/10/25/dans-les-regions-tibetaines-une-cite-monastique-cible-de-demolitions_6016944_3210.html

• RFA photos

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/yachen-demolition-10012019181505.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/sichuan-yachengar-08282019173854.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

• Reeducation camps

Tashi Choedron, Navigating the experiences of detained Tibetan Nuns of Yachen Gar in Tibet, (06 August 2019) Tashi Choedon, https://tibetpolicy.net/navigating-the-experiences-of-detained-tibetan-nuns-of-yachen-gar-in-tibet/

• Yarchen

https://www.tibetanreview.net/china-rounds-up-tibetan-monks-and-nuns-expelled-by-it-at-re-education-detention-centres/

https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2019/10/25/dans-les-regions-tibetaines-une-cite-monastique-cible-de-demolitions_6016944_3210.html

• Both

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/03/29/china-major-tibetan-buddhist-institution-faces-further-demolitions

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/nun-02142020172455.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/nuns-12062019173001.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

• The Panchen Lama, Larung Gar, and Yarchen Gar

https://tibet.net/us-state-department-calls-for-the-immediate-release-of-tibets-panchen-lama/ "The statement issued on April 26 by Heather Nauert, [US State] Department Spokesperson read: “On April 25, we marked the birthday of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has not appeared in public since he was reportedly abducted two decades ago by the Chinese government at age six. The United States remains concerned that Chinese authorities continue to take steps to eliminate the religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of Tibetans, including their ongoing destruction of communities of worship, such as the Larung Gar and Yachen Gar monasteries. We call on China to release Gedhun Choekyi Nyima immediately and to uphold its international commitments to promote religious freedom for all persons.”

• Jigme Phuntsog, 1980 Larung Gar

https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/china-places-new-controls-center-tibetan-buddhist-studies Also start of demo https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/abbot-urges-monks-against-protest-china-razes-buddhist-academy https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/chinese-workers-dismantle-tibetan-study-site-evict-people

Other centers, political prisoners https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/centers-01022020164534.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/tibet-monks-still-detained-since-november-01062020170841.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

https://www.rfa.org/english/monk-death-03192020193829.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

• Tourism as political violence

http://www.tibettravel.org/tibet-group-tours/4-days-lhasa-tour.html Sera & Drepung monastery 'tours'

Panchen Lama

Tibet Society missing poster, 2015 https://tibetsociety.com/disappeared-tibets-panchen-lama

Only photo note (verify) Video https://www.rfa.org/english/video?v=1_3tv710jq

https://tibet.net/where-is-11th-panchen-lama-bbc-broadcasts-the-image-of-11th-panchen-lama-24-years-after-the-abduction-by-chinese-government/ "...the fact that he plays an essential role in the recognition and education of Dalai Lamas, and vice-versa apparently makes his disappearance politically crucial for the Chinese Government..."

"Today, there are two Panchen Lamas, one recognised by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and respected by all Tibetans and another six-year-old picked and installed by the Chinese government, known as Panchen “Zuma” Fake Panchen." "Given Chinese statement of Gendun Choekyi Nyima, the 11th Panchen Lama, leading a “normal life as an ordinary Child”, there are some pressing questions that the Chinese authority must address to the international community. Firstly, what makes China keep on declining the request of the international community, including UN human rights mandate holders, to see Gendun Choekyi Nyima?" "Secondly, If Gendun Choekyi Nyima is leading a normal life as China claims, why has he been not seen in a public place?"

"After nearly 25 years, the deep concern for the well-being and whereabouts of Tibet’s Panchen Lama continues and with the availability of one picture of His Holiness the Panchen Lama, ITN’s new project on the Forensic Image of Panchen Lama has sparked interest and excitement amongst many Tibetans and supporters. Moreover, BBC’s interest in the case of the missing Panchen Lama and the new forensic image has made a short film called ‘Where is Panchen Lama?’ for ‘ The One Show’, a primetime UK programme."

Tibetan uprising

[flickr files seem to only include CCP produced images, here, due to expulsion of journalists/crackdown on social media?]

• Dalai Lama statements from News Archive: March 2008

• An Appeal to the Chinese People, March 27, 2008
• Clarification, March 18, 2008
• Press Release, March 18, 2008
• His Holiness the Dalai Lama Meets Members of the Media, March 16, 2008
• Press Release, March 14, 2008
• Statement of H.H. the Dalai Lama on the 49th Tibetan National Uprising Day, March 10, 2008

https://www.dalailama.com/news/archive/2008/3

• Tibetan Review

- Tsering Woeser compiled best docs (BBC (find RS again) agrees?); is academic source?

- 150 self immolate after 2008/9?

- 10 March details add; more RS

https://www.tibetanreview.net/the-2008-uprising-and-the-olympics/

• Olympic in Greece

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/mar/24/tibet.olympicgames2008

• Images, cities & dates

https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2008/mar/14/1

• Lots of refs

https://freedomhouse.org/report/2017/battle-china-spirit-tibetan-buddhism-religious-freedom

• 1989 Hu history in Tibet, March 2008 Dalai Lama statement. Jim Yardley, Violence in Tibet as Monks Clash With the Police, https://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/15/world/asia/15tibet.html

"The Dalai Lama released a statement on Friday [14?] calling on both sides to avoid violence and appealing to China’s leaders to “address the long simmering resentment of the Tibetan people through dialogue with the Tibetan people.” A spokesman for the Dalai Lama called China’s accusations “absolutely baseless.” "

"In the past China has not hesitated to crush major protests in Tibet or to jail disobedient monks. President Hu Jintao, who is also the general secretary of the Communist Party, served as party boss in Tibet during a violent crackdown in 1989. His support for the bloody suppression of unrest that year earned him the good will of Deng Xiaoping, then the paramount leader, and led directly to his elevation to the Politburo Standing Committee and eventually to China’s top leadership posts."

Occupation timeline guide

• 1949/1950: Chinese [military] invasion; Battle of Chamdo
• 23 May 1951: China's 17 point agreement signed under duress
• [1954-1955: The Dalai Lama visits China]
• [1955: after his return, Kham & Amdo klans announce rebellion against Chinese for destroying monasteries and for land reforms]
• [1956-'58, beyond: Gompo Tashi leads rebellion; CIA begins aid in '58, arms drops until 1965; by 1968 aid announced to end; Nixon travels to China]
• 10 Mar 1959: tens of thousands [check for #] take to streets
• 12 Mar: 15,000 Tibetan women uprising
• 30 Mar 1959: Dala Lama escape party crosses border
• 1959-'65: UN passes 3 resolutions of grave concern re suppression of fundamental hr

Palden Gyatso article, NYT link https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/tibetan-monk-tortured-3-decades-chinas-prisons-dies

• 1960-'62: Tibetan famine under Mao's "Great Leap Forward", hundreds of thousands die [find #]
• 1966-76: 6,000 monasteries & sites destroyed during "Cultural Revolution"
• [Early 1970's: Middle Way developed- find info]

[4]

• [1982: delegation sent to China; China refuses discussion on Middle Way; total of 6 delegations sent to China in 1980's]
• 21 Sep 1987: 5 point peace plan by Dalai Lama rejected by China
• Sep-Oct 1987: large scale protests against China by Tibetans in response
• [1988: Strasbourg Proposal
• Mar 1988: Protests in Lhasa, 30 Tibetans killed [find refs]
• Sep 1988: 9 Drepung monastery monks protest in Barkhor
• 10 Dec 1988: Chinese police open fire on protestors in Lhasa, international incident
• 1989: 10's of 1000's protest in Lhasa; brutal force and martial law; foreigners expelled. Dalai Lama awarded Nobel Peace Prize
• [1994: CTA stops sending delegations to China]
• 1995: 11th Panchen Lama kidnapped, becomes China's political prisoner at 6 years of age.
• 1996: "patriotic reeducation" campaign launched
• 2001: China wins Olympics
• [2002: Dalai Lama "Middle Way" proposal continues, one delegation per year until 2008]
• Oct 2007: US Congressional Gold Medal awarded to Dalai Lama, China responds with show of force
• Mar-Jun 2008: Tibetan Uprising: 100's killed, +2000 arrested
• Aug '08: Olympics
• [2008: 3 Tibet-China meetings, China rejects Middle Way officially?; find info]
• 2009-2018: "In February 2009 a young monk named Tapey set fire to himself in Ngaba, eastern Tibet."; self immolations spread, 150 deaths

https://tibetuprising.org

• 2015?: Sinicization announced

Sinicization

Statement of His Holiness the Dalai Lama on the Sixth Anniversary of the Tibetan National Uprising Day https://www.dalailama.com/messages/tibet/10th-march-archive/1965#

CTA on Xi https://www.rfa.org/english/news/tibet/sinicize-08312020195200.html?searchterm:utf8:ustring=%20Tibet

VOA on Sinicization 03SEP2020 https://www.voanews.com/east-asia-pacific/rights-groups-slam-xis-latest-calls-sinicize-tibetan-buddhism "International rights groups and officials of the Tibetan government in exile say Chinese President Xi Jinping's latest calls to "Sinicize" Tibetan Buddhism are a threat to Tibetan identity and culture." "Xi's comments came at a recent senior Communist Party meeting on Tibet’s future governance, where the president said Beijing must build an “impregnable fortress” to maintain stability in Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) and Tibetan areas in Sichuan, Yunnan, Gansu and Qinghai provinces. He also called for enhancing China’s national security by educating the masses in the struggle against "splittism," or deviating from the party’s official policies." "China has long viewed Tibetan Buddhism as a source of “separatist power,” which Beijing has targeted with "reeducational patriotism" campaigns that force Tibetan monks to denounce Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama." "In the past decade or so, the Communist Party of China (CCP) officials have been posted in major TAR monasteries and communities closer to China, such as Larung Gar in Sichuan province, one of the world’s foremost centers of Tibetan Buddhist study." "Xi's vow to build a "new modern socialist Tibet that is united, prosperous, culturally advanced, harmonious and beautiful" would be achieved primarily via secondary school reforms that “plant the seeds of loving China deep in the heart of every youth." And by "actively [guiding] Tibetan Buddhism to adapt to the socialist society and promote the Sinicization of Tibetan Buddhism,” Xi said." " "No one is fooled by his claims that these policies respect Tibetans or Buddhism," [Sophie Richardson, HRWChina] said." "Broadly defined, Sinicization is a campaign to reform or mold the belief systems and doctrine of any religious faith into compliance with CPC values." "In 2015, Xi discussed a plan to Sinicize the beliefs of the five largest religious groups in China: Buddhism, Daoism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Islam." "In 2014, Chen Quanguo, then-CPC secretary of TAR, said “the government must actively promote intermarriages,” between Tibetans and Chinese in order to promote “ethnic unity.”" Matteo Mecacci, director of the U.S.-based International Campaign for Tibet, recently told Reuters that Xi's remarks are an indication of China's failure to integrate Tibet into Chinese society." " “If Tibetans really benefited as much from Chinese leadership as Xi and other officials claim, then China wouldn’t have to fear separatism and wouldn’t need to subject Tibetans to political reeducation,” he said in an email, according to Reuters."

Tibet | Xinjiang

• AP and CTA Mar2020

https://apnews.com/article/0e489e69ba7c7985f300720196f620e3

• Sep2020 Gulag (same as UNPO link?) demo'ed in Chamdo

https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/sports-complex-comes-up-at-gulag-site-in-tibet-autonomous-region-1726316-2020-09-28

• Oct2020

Forced labor camps (06 October 2020), https://www.contactmagazine.net/articles/thousands-of-tibetans-coerced-into-forced-labour/

UN letter https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-race-and-ethnicity-tibet-hong-kong-united-states-a69609b46705f97bdec509e009577cb5

• Kelsang Dolma, Tibet Was China’s First Laboratory of Repression, Xi Jinping is bringing methods honed in Xinjiang back to the Himalayas, (31 August 2020)

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/31/tibet-china-repression-xinjiang-sinicization/

"In the early 2000s, the Free Tibet movement galvanized the world. From celebrity endorsements to Simpsons cameos, the media launched the plight of Tibet into the Western imagination; the suffering of Tibetans under a foreign regime became well known. But today, with atrocities in Xinjiang and Hong Kong dominating the narrative and Tibet now more sealed off than ever, news about the Himalayan region has been reduced to stray sentences in coverage on Chinese aggression."

"Yet oppression in Tibet has only gotten worse. On Aug. 29, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced plans to “strengthen unity and socialism” in Tibet by building an “impregnable fortress” to ward off splittism. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) views Tibetan disobedience, violent or nonviolent, as separatism, which, in Beijing’s eyes, threatens national security and expansionism. So when the 2008 Tibet protests erupted, fomented by discontent with decades-long repression, the CCP ruthlessly responded by killing and arbitrarily arresting protesters. But these immediate measures were not enough. The CCP began to plan a long-term policy of forced assimilation."

"Chen Quanguo, then a rising star in the CCP, arrived in Tibet as the new party secretary in 2011 and rapidly transformed Tibet into one of the most pervasive police states in the world, a model that would soon be adopted in Xinjiang against the Muslim Uighurs. Chen implemented an urban design—a panopticon-like system that is euphemistically referred to as “grid-style social management”—that enables CCP police officers to easily surveil Tibetans. Also in the name of counterterrorism, Chen oversaw the formation of “double-linked households,” an Orwellian social system in which family members are encouraged to report one another to the authorities at any hint of transgression. In 2016, Chen became Xinjiang’s Communist Party secretary and nationalized these policies, bringing the techniques practiced on Tibetans to Xinjiang."

"...Nepal and China signed a contentious extradition treaty in January. Xi arrived in Nepal to negotiate diplomatic proposals between the two countries. One proposal was a treaty that would extradite newly arrived Tibetan refugees from Nepal. After initial reports that Nepali officials would not authorize the treaty, Xi met secretly with Nepal’s foreign minister, Pradeep Gyawali, to sign it. This agreement condemns captured Tibetan refugees in Nepal to the rarely merciful penal system of mainland China.

"Meanwhile, the techniques honed in Xinjiang may be returning to their birthplace in Tibet. The CCP passed a bill titled “Regulations on the Establishment of a Model Area for Ethnic Unity and Progress in the Tibet Autonomous Region” this spring, which aims to Sinicize Tibetans. While the bill’s title seems innocuous, similar ethnic unity regulations in Xinjiang preceded the detention camps for Uighurs and other ethnic minorities. The CCP strives to promote an “All ethnic groups in China are one family” narrative, since CCP totalitarianism necessitates conformity and obedience—anything to the contrary is considered a threat to CCP legitimacy. It has become clear what this means in Xinjiang. Ethnic unity means incarcerating millions of Uighurs in political reeducation camps, where detainees are forced to renounce Islam and profess devotion to communism. Ethnic unity means that children can be forcefully separated from their parents at a CCP official’s whim. Ethnic unity means that the Uighur identity must be beaten out of the individual."

"Meanwhile, the techniques honed in Xinjiang may be returning to their birthplace in Tibet."

"Although attention has been understandably focused on Xinjiang’s vast network of prison camps, the increasing oppression of Tibetan human rights should cause equal alarm. The new ethnic unity bill in Tibet is likely to presage a new round of cruel ethnonationalist policies under the guise of reeducation in Tibet. This June, the CCP ordered the destruction of Tibetan Buddhist prayer flags, justifying it as “behavioral reform,” and Tibetan Buddhist monasteries are steadily restricted by CCP-appointed officials. The CCP is fixated on “fostering ethnic unity” by dismantling Tibetans’ and Uighurs’ faith; after all, according to Karl Marx, religion is the opium of the masses. Though state-ordered family separation is not as common in Tibet, enforced political reeducation has been integral to Tibetan prisons. Other than the erasure of religion, increased language Sinicization will almost surely occur given that the CCP considers the Tibetan language as a vessel for separatism. The ethnic unity dilemma may not be reserved for Tibetans and Uighurs either. Recently, the CCP widened its language Sinicization; teachers in Inner Mongolia will be forced to replace Mongolian-medium education with Chinese-medium education beginning in September."

"The upcoming months may see an international resurgence of Tibet coverage. In a rare move, five independent mandate holders at the United Nations, including two working groups and three special rapporteurs, recently demanded that the CCP provide more information regarding the whereabouts of Gedhun Choekyi Nyima—Tibet’s 11th Panchen Lama. The Panchen Lama, second only to the Dalai Lama’s lama rank in Tibetan Buddhism, was kidnapped by the CCP in 1995 as a 6-year-old and was replaced by a Chinese-chosen figure."

"Understanding the future fate of Uighurs and Hong Kongers can be strengthened by studying the historical and ongoing repression of Tibetans. The Associated Press first reported in June on the Chinese government’s accelerated forced sterilization of Uighurs—a genocidal policy that was diabolically imposed on Tibetans decades ago. Now, more than ever, journalists and foreign-policy makers must focus on Tibet to contextualize current events across the Asia-Pacific and to bear witness to the splintering human rights of Tibetans; the lack of human rights has become so unbearable that 156 Tibetans have self-immolated since 2009. Based on the history of repression of Tibetans and Uighurs, which seems to work in tandem, the new ethnic unity bill in Tibet is a menacing harbinger for what may come next."

• UNPO, Tibet: Satellites Show New Internment Camps in Tibet, 07 March 2019, https://unpo.org/article/21403

Image of monks with placards around necks and under arrest is Wiki commons

"Internment camps like those built in East Turkestan for the Uyghur population are now spreading into Tibet. New satellites images show the recent construction of several prison-like camps in Chinese occupied Tibet. The name used by the Chinese Communist Party to describe those prisons is even more ridiculous than the “Reeducation Camps” used to describe the ones in East Turkestan, as the CCP calls them “Buddhist Temples”."

"Recently, The Print used satellite images to prove that at least three “re-education camps” are currently under construction in Tibet. The author of the survey, Vinayak [Dhat], is a colonel retired from the Indian military intelligence unit and is a well-known satellite image research expert. He has repeatedly revealed Chinese military deployment dynamics through satellite photos. This time, he revealed construction done by Chinese authorities in Tibet. The so-called “temple” of Tibetan Buddhism is actually a concentration camp that is surrounded by high walls and guard towers and has the same structural design as a prison. Observers warned that China may soon start mass detention of Tibetans following the model of concentration camps for Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang."

"Historical data has shown that, from 1949 when the CCP began to invade Tibet to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1979, the CCP’s rule caused a total of 1.2 million deaths in Tibet [find #'s] (including the surrounding provinces), accounting for nearly 20 percent of the entire Tibetan population of 6 million. The destruction of more than 6,000 monasteries caused irreparable damage to Tibetan culture."

• Col. Vinayak Dhat, Ret., China claims it has no ‘Gulags’, but satellite imagery shows 3 new ones coming up in Tibet, (12 February 2019), ThePrint, [ link from UNPO ]

https://theprint.in/defence/china-claims-it-has-no-gulags-but-satellite-imagery-shows-3-new-ones-coming-up-in-tibet/190940/#

"ThePrint has identified at least three re-education centres - or 'Gulags', as the Soviet-era equivalents were called - under construction in Tibet."

"ThePrint had last August reported the existence of such major camps in the western province of Xinjiang. These camps were also indicated in the United Nations and the US Congressional-Executive Commission on China."

"Image credit[s]: Col. Vinayak Bhat (retd.)"

"These monasteries, it is suspected, are used as correction facilities or Gulags for Tibetan monks who are unwilling to follow the diktats of the Chinese Communist Party."

"Recently-updated satellite imagery has also revealed that massive structures are being created by Chinese authorities in the Tibet Autonomous Region. They are what are referred to as ‘extremist eradication’ schools or ‘re-education’ schools."

"These are allegedly used as detention centres for political indoctrination. The detainees are also allegedly used as forced labour in government factories and projects during the day time or as per shift timings. At least three such facilities can be identified through satellite imagery, though none of them is fully constructed yet."

"All three ‘Gulags’ have high wall fencings, with the inner wall fencing taller than the outer wall. The inner walls have round guard posts at the corners."

"The indoctrination centres are located outside the main high inner walls and have administrative and other support buildings co-located."

• Torture Journal 25May2019

https://www.voanews.com/south-central-asia/tibetan-re-education-camp-journal-tells-chinas-tactics-now-used-uighurs Image https://im-media.voltron.voanews.com/Drupal/01live-166/styles/608x401/s3/2019-06/B863B870-F666-4AEE-94A4-36BB91FE60F3.jpg?itok=pONyhxzm "At the Sog County “reform through re-education center” in Nagchu Prefecture of the Tibetan Autonomous Region, “Those who the officials didn’t like would be captured and tortured with electronic devices. When they become unconscious, [the torturers] would splash water on their faces until their victims regained their consciousness. After doing that for a long time, they would use a black rubber tube as well as electronic baton to torture people. The bruised bodies of the prisoners turned blue and black, and people become half-dead. For some [strange] reason, their bones were not broken." "Cultural anthropologist, historian and University of Colorado professor, Carole McGranahan, the author of “Arrested History: Tibet, the CIA and Memories of a Forgotten War,” reviewed the journal and found it an “authentic recounting of what it is like to be a prisoner in a re-education camp in Tibet.”" " "The details given correspond to our understanding of what such re-education centers look like, and these re-education camps, detention camps, internment camps are found not only in Tibet but right now, [in] 2019, there are also many in which Uighurs — Uighur Muslims — are prisoners in Xinjiang as well. So we are seeing this in both Tibet and Xinjiang,” she told VOA." " “Tibet is the precursor to what is happening,” McGranahan said. “The Chinese architect of the Uighur ‘re-education’ or concentration camps is Chen Quanguo. Where was he before Xinjiang? In Tibet from 2011-2016, in charge of surveilling, policing and oppressing Tibetans." "

Xinjiang

• RFI, European countries demand UN access to China’s Xinjiang camps after new leaks, (26 November 2019), https://www.rfi.fr/en/20191126-european-countries-demand-access-china-s-xinjiang-education-camps-after-new-leak

"Last Monday, the Washington-based International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) published the China Cables, consisting of seven classified documents detailing the inner workings of Beijing’s program of detention, mass-surveillance and “re-education” of its Muslim Uyghur minority."

"Mass surveillance": "The China Cables also contain four “bulletins,” providing details and reasons for the daily use of the “Integrated Joint Operation Platform,” a mass-surveillance and predictive-policing program which analyzes data from Xinjiang and was revealed to the world by Human Rights Watch last year."

"The ICIJ says the leak represents a first-ever glimpse “revealing the inner workings of the camps,” and give support to an earlier leak of over 400 pages published on November 16, reproduced by the New York Times in their Xinjiang Documents leaks."

"The combined documents paint a sinister picture of Beijing’s well-advanced plans to “integrate” its complete Uyghur population of some 12 million through what critics say is detention, intimidation, brainwashing and physical and mental torture."

• HRW, How Mass Surveillance Works in Xinjiang, China ‘Reverse Engineering’ Police App Reveals Profiling and Monitoring Strategies, https://www.hrw.org/video-photos/interactive/2019/05/02/china-how-mass-surveillance-works-xinjiang

"All of this data is being entered into centralized, searchable government databases. While Xinjiang’s systems are particularly intrusive, their basic designs are similar to those the police are planning and implementing throughout China."

• ICIJ, Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, Exposed: China’s Operating Manuals for Mass Internment and Arrest by Algorithm, (24 November 2019), https://www.icij.org/investigations/china-cables/exposed-chinas-operating-manuals-for-mass-internment-and-arrest-by-algorithm/

"The classified intelligence briefings reveal the scope and ambition of the government’s artificial-intelligence-powered policing platform, which purports to predict crimes based on these computer-generated findings alone. Experts say the platform, which is used in both policing and military contexts, demonstrates the power of technology to help drive industrial-scale human rights abuses. "

"The China Cables reveal how the system is able to amass vast amounts of intimate personal data through warrantless manual searches, facial recognition cameras, and other means to identify candidates for detention, flagging for investigation hundreds of thousands merely for using certain popular mobile phone apps. The documents detail explicit directives to arrest Uighurs with foreign citizenship and to track Xinjiang Uighurs living abroad, some of whom have been deported back to China by authoritarian governments. Among those implicated as taking part in the global dragnet: China’s embassies and consulates."

RS on Chinese state censoring of information

Here's good RS on Chinese monitoring, censoring, and crackdowns on online speech under Xi Jinping: the social media crackdown in 2013 [5], and on the 39 Chinese companies agreeing to aid in censoring efforts in 2011 [6], and (live link?) [7], and on the 2 million "public opinion analysts" hired to help in 2013 [8], and on Xi's intensified crackdowns in 2016 against "dissenting versions" of China's history [9].

Here's more good RS on China's censoring of BBC affiliates and their blocking of access to English Wikipedia as well as Chinese Wikipedia before Xi in 2008, [10] which includes mention of blocking access to sites that report on Tibet, But other domains are still blocked, The BBC says, including sites for the Hong Kong newspaper Apple Daily, human rights groups like Amnesty International, and organizations promoting Tibetan independence..

Another on China's blocking Wikipedia, from 2006, [11] and a quotation, The Communist Party polices these emerging Internet communities with censors and undercover agents, and manages a Web site that it said received nearly a quarter-million anonymous tips about "harmful information" online last year. But the methods the party uses to control speech and behavior in the real world have proved less effective in cyberspace, where people get away with more, and where the government is often a step behind. When authorities catch up, citizens often have already weakened the party's grip on public life and succeeded in expanding civil society. They have organized charity drives for rural schoolchildren and mobilized students for anti-Japanese protest marches. And they learned to work together to write an encyclopedia. The point? China has a history of blocking access to English Wikipedia, and is censoring reports on history which involves China.

China also has a history of blocking access to BBC China. Here's a good RS on the 2008 Tibetan uprising in Lhasa and clashes with Chinese security forces, which is offered as an illustration of the unreliability of Chinese state media, as versus the reliability of BBC UK in reporting on the events, including the mention of difficulties in verifying reports due to Chinese controls:[12] with quotations, 'Eighty killed' in Tibetan unrest... Chinese troops were out in force in Lhasa on Sunday...At least 80 people have been killed in unrest following protests by Tibetans against Chinese rule, the Tibetan government in exile says. Indian-based officials said the figure was confirmed by several sources, even though China put the death toll at 10. The Dalai Lama called for an international inquiry into China's crackdown, accusing it of a "rule of terror" and "cultural genocide". Chinese troops were out in force in Lhasa, Tibet's main city, on Sunday. Hong Kong Cable TV reported that about 200 military vehicles, each carrying 40 to 60 armed soldiers, had driven into the city. Loudspeakers broadcast messages, such as: "Discern between enemies and friends, maintain order." China tightly restricts Western journalists' access to Tibet and it is sometimes extremely difficult to verify what is going on. The Chinese official news agency Xinhua says 10 people died on Friday, including business people it said were "burnt to death". But the Tibetan government in exile later said at least 80 corpses had been counted, including those of 26 people killed on Saturday next to the Dratchi prison in Lhasa. Other bodies were spotted near the Ramoche Buddhist temple, and near a Muslim mosque and a cathedral in Lhasa, said Tenzin Taklha, a senior aide to the Dalai Lama. "These reports come from relatives, from our people inside and from contacts of our department of security. They have all been confirmed multiple times," he said. In an interview with the BBC, the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, said he feared there would be more deaths unless Beijing changed its policies towards Tibet, which it has ruled since invading in 1950. "It has become really very, very tense. Now today and yesterday, the Tibetan side is determined. The Chinese side also equally determined. So that means, the result: killing, more suffering," he said. "Ultimately, the Chinese government is clinging of policy, not looking at the reality. They simply feel they have gun - so they can control. Obviously they can control. But they cannot control human mind," he warned.

Based on this report and the other RS, the Chinese state controlled efforts to censor media also extends outside the internet and into the communities of Tibet, into which foreigners are denied access.

In the last few days, four different pages related to Tibet in the English Wikipedia project have been reverted by an editor, responsible for deleting RS and associated text. The RS included reports from BBC, The Statesman (India), International Campaign for Tibet, Free Tibet, governmental entities Central Tibetan Administration and UNESCO, International Tibet Post, The Tibet Post, and from UNPO. On a page entitled the 11th Panchen Lama controversy, the remaining RS detailing the 1995 abduction and forced disappearance by China of the recognized Panchen Lama were from a Chinese source (without translation) and from a criticised academic source, among another also without verifiability, found likewise on other pages. Image files were also deleted. One of the images was reinserted.

In 2020, RS indicate the abduction and forced disappearance of the Panchen Lama continue to be condemned by the international community - recently, by 159 international organizations acting together with the UN - but the deleted RS and text also removed this information.

The given reason? The editor opined all the RS were from "advocacy groups", without providing RS to support the opinion. No additional reason was given for deleting the image files.

In 2008 China blocked sites that report on Tibet, and then intensified efforts in 2016 to crackdown on "dissenting" versions of history. Sources that support the Chinese government's censored version of events also effectively advocate for censored versions of history.

In this editor's opinion (allowed on talk), the reverts and deletions on the pages follow a exceedingly similar patterns used by China's state controlled media outlets, which can be defined as advocacy groups, and by its corps of "public opinion analysts" to block access to information or to the reporting of historical events which China deems "dissenting".

Other

Links

WP:Library https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/OA

Study Buddhism [13]

Treasury of Lives, bios [14] search [15]

AP news https://apnews.com/article/0e489e69ba7c7985f300720196f620e3

RFA https://www.rfa.org/english/search?submit.x=22&submit.y=24&b_start:int=180&search_text%3Autf8%3Austring=Tibet

CoC

40 reverts/reedits/deletions of refs on 4 pages + Nyingchi = 45 and 5. At least.

C+BoC C edits [16] Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

eee edits [17] and [18]

tt [19] and BLP tag #Tangential Notice [20] involved discussion [21]. WP:INVOLVED at tt, BLP, WP:WW attempt at ElC. self [22]

Cu response; eee PA [23] "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 [24]. Involved but [25]

Bk involved 14Nov [26] but closes 17Nov [27]

Advice after Cu [28]

Pasdecomplot (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

C=T

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)

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)

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)

BoC

Followed into RfN, and then DR; states doesn't know topic, does not read refs; Deleted ref at DR[29] with tagging; Sanction joex encore ?

DRAFT TEXT The ANI is completely without merit as it's a coatrack of diffs crafted together with an alleged "concern" about good faith.

Most recently, the involved admin, with a history of coordinating with an author of a blatant PA, has stepped actively and aggressively into two requests for moves[30] [31] in a topic area for which they admit (see above) to not having knowledge. The admin has previously been warned by El_C to either edit or admin pages, not both. Then while again blending roles, the admin ignored a blatant PA, then mischaracterized edits as "edit waring" then doubled down to further mischaracterize the events as "disruptive editing", then tripled down to mischaracterize the complaint of the PA itself as a personal attack, then quadrupled down to bring it to ANI.

Which makes the notice all the more curious since good faith is always assumed. But, PA's are not defined in policy as examples of "good faith", nor are repeated unfounded accusations of personal attacks and accusations of disruptive editing, nor are disturbing messages left by the involved admin on talk (02OCT on talk [32] then[33] then[34]. Then on another talk[35] then[36]).

To detail why the ANI is especially inappropriate at this time, a blantant PA was found on a request for move (that also totally mischaracterized posting of diffs showing work by the editor responsible for moving the page without CON). The PA was deleted, per policy[37] The author of the PA posts the same PA again, and deletes the text citing reasons the PA was deleted[38]. The reposting of blatant PA was again deleted per policy[39]. Author of PA posts same PA for the third time[40]. The very involved admin then mischaracterizes the policy-approved deletion of PA as "edit waring"[41]. The failure to cite the blatant PA by the involved admin is made[42], and the complaint of the PA, which was deleted by the author of the PA, was posted here[43] and on the talk where it was first posted[44]. The admin further mischaracterizes quotes of PA as a personal attack from me[45] and both involved admin and author of blatant PA accuse me of disruptive editing and personal attacks on my user talk[46].

An ANI citing "concerns" for good faith is not in any way appropriate, and especially not appropriate for these repeated unaddressed blatant PA's by another editor, nor for escalating mischaracterizations by both the involved admin and the author of the repeated blatant PA's.

gaming drafts

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

Thanks Vchimpanzee • talk

"Hooping"[47]

The block/ban submitted by an involved administrator [48] 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 [49]. 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 [50] before it was archived.

The archiving signifies the accusations were not convincing.

Somehow, it was reopened with the "advice" of the future closer [51], which heightens concerns of WP:ADMINCONDUCT, of WP:INVOLVED, and of WP:TOOLMISUSE, which are ongoing [52] (seen towards the bottom). Simultaneously, a request for information on an IBAN was not answered [53].

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 [54] and interaction.

On 10Sep, I began interacting with an involved editor [55] and my attempts at navigating through their chronic behaviors [56] were criticised. I listened, learned and responded to advice to "tone it down" by 29Sep [57], and then explained policies on good faith while attempting to clear myself and have the other editor's behaviors addressed by 03oct [58], but was unsuccessful [59]. I received another PA there from the involved admin [60], and more PA/harassment diffs are at the ANI [61].

Regardless, I changed per advice, as seen in these diffs: [62] and [63] and [64] and [65].

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 [66] 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 [67].

Nor was the history of coordinations between the involved admin and involved editor examined:[68] and [69] and [70] and [71], and the infamous double accusation [72] and [73].

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 [74] using misleading and inaccurate information, and appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [75]. 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 [76] by the involved admin [77], 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 [78] 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 [79], afterwhich I incorporated the concerns into edit summaries and into civility practices in dealing with an editor [80] and in general throughout the project. The changes are evidenced by the diffs of numerous talk requests here [81] and [82] and [83] and [84], 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 [85], labelling the reverted page as a BLP [86] and coordination again [87] and a PA here [88]), 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 [89] 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 [90]and by the involved admin [91].

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 [92] using misleading and inaccurate information, and appears to be a punishment for disagreeing with POV on 12Nov [93]. 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 [94] by the involved admin [95], 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 [96] 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 [97], afterwhich I incorporated the concerns into edit summaries and into civility practices in dealing with other editors [98]. The changes are evidenced by the diffs of numerous talk requests here [99] and [100] and [101] and [102], 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 [103], labelling reverted page as a BLP [104] and coordination again [105] and a PA here [106]). 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 [107] 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 [108]and by the involved admin [109]. 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 [110] and at the original ANI [111].

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 [112], 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 [113], 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 [114], 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" [115]. 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 [116]. 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 [117].

• 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 [118], as a BLP [119]. Their coordination wasn't just "tangential" as of 16SEP [120]. Valereee (began?) also posted "warnings" without diffs or reason, as on 15SEP [121], 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 [122] (and see back channel). Apparently, El_C was convinced briefly, but Usedtobecool and I prevailed, then El_C removed the block extension [123]. 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 [124]

• 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 [125] and then was completed on 03OCT, but no administrative actions resulted [126], unlike an earlier sanction on that editor by Cullen328 [127]. Valereee entered the discussion, with a personal attack [128], 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 [129], and accusations of "ongoing" behaviors which applied to the reverter, as the edit summary explains[130]. 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 [131], 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[132]and[133]on user talk which correspond to the 08NOV ANI; and the discussion at the other move request on 12NOV [134] 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[135].
• 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[136]. 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[137].

• Then, really misrepresented is the coordinated double accusatory "warning" that was actually and with some impunity posted on my user talk. Both CaradhrasAiguo[138]and Valereee[139]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[140] which was used by Valereee to officially reopen the ANI that day, and was referred to as "advice". [141]. 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)

Notes

WP:BLPN#Chen Quanguo.

Chuckie WP:ONUS The diffs indicate issues of WP:HOUND ("Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia ." " The important component of hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or disruption to the project generally, for no overridingly constructive reason.") and issues of WP:TEND ("Thus a single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed." "Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline" "There is nothing wrong with questioning the reliability of sources, to a point. But there is a limit to how far one may reasonably go in an effort to discredit the validity of what most other contributors consider to be reliable sources, especially when multiple sources are being questioned in this manner. This may take the form of arguing about the number of or validity of the information cited by the sources. The danger here is in judging the reliability of sources by how well they support the desired viewpoint.") Also WP:TEND includes "Ignoring or refusing to answer good faith questions from other editors" "Failure to cooperate with such simple requests may be interpreted as evidence of a bad faith effort to exasperate or waste the time of other editors."

Repeated issues of HOUND and TEND began after 08SEP, increased on 11SEP and unfortunately reappeared again on 30SEP. As WP quotations specify, WP:HOUND can disrupt the project with no overidingly constructive reason, and WP:TEND can be interpreted as bad faith effort.

Interestingly, of the six million plus pages in English Wikipedia, a group of four pages with diffs occur - on subjects directly related to Chinese human and religious rights abuses in Tibet - where HOUND and TEND by editor occur. And interestingly, a group of three of the four page are also specifically included in a US State Department 26APR2019 statement: "On April 25, we marked the birthday of the 11th Panchen Lama, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has not appeared in public since he was reportedly abducted two decades ago by the Chinese government at age six. The United States remains concerned that Chinese authorities continue to take steps to eliminate the religious, linguistic, and cultural identity of Tibetans, including their ongoing destruction of communities of worship, such as the Larung Gar and Yachen Gar monasteries." [diff from CTA, haven't dug through US.gov site yet [142]]

The group of pages where diffs indicate patterns of HOUND and TEND include:

• Sinicization of Tibet: Where attempts to use talk, assumption of good faith to build CON with editor, began on 08SEP[143], then continued on 09SEP[144], and on 10SEP[145]. These efforts were followed by repeated TEND after again editing text here[146]and here[147]and here[148]and here[149]and here[150] which were mischaracterized as "deft hackery" and revertedhere[151].
• 11th Panchen Lama controversy is a page with edits from 15Jun[152]. The editor had never edited page before[153], but on 11SEP2020, editor reverted multiple edits from June, to an earlier version of page with numerous factual errors and POV issues here [154]. Another attempt on early 14SEP to use talk for CON is here[155]. By late 14SEP, assumption of good faith is officially weakened due to ignored errors in content, which also support POV of page subject's abductors; as recommended in such cases, I reverted here[156]. TEND and HOUND are indicated again by editor's revert here[157]. Editor does not address WP:V and WP:RS issues, so this revert [158] follows. Editor doubles down, reverts again, and incorrectly cites BLP category ban for a Bio with non-living category page here[159]. Eight hours later, editor coordinates BLP note on page[160] which effectively protected content with multiple serious errors on a BLP page. On 29SEP, effort again made to assume good faith here[161].
• Yarchen Gar is another page never edited by editor before 06SEP. The first revert by editor is here[162] where a Facebook source is untouched, but a source Tibet Watch is deleted. Basic info is deleted in opening, including the words 'Tibetan', 'nuns', and 'with both Tibetan and Han Chinese students'. Deletions were reverted on 11SEP [163], but kept editing and was again reverted while all RS & sources were deemed "advocacy groups" in editors opinion. Editor adds detailed geography notes [164]. Here's an attempt to use talk[165] and a request to stop reverts on 17SEP[166], but editor did not respond to the good faith requests, which meet the definition of interpretation of bad faith effort in TEND. Editor responds instead with another revert[167].
• Larung Gar is another page not edited by editor before 06SEP[168]. The page is related to Yarchen Gar page in subject, and in RS on international concerns of persecution of nuns and monks; both pages were reedited by editor. Here's the 06SEP revert of Larung Gar by editor[169]which deletes NYT RS, replaces Tibetan people's name with Chinese versions, reedits text associated with BBC RS, and deletes source and text from Free Tibet while pushing opinion that source Radio Free Asia should be basically deprecated.
• WP:RSN: To settle matters while still hoping for good faith, topics were opened on 17SEP[170]* and[171]* on RS & sources disputed by editor and editor's opinions. In these topics, editor again indicates HOUND and TEND in the 2nd thread, while later inappropriately calling for a double block in the 2nd topic. CON on 2nd topic states general policy on sources, but makes the point that reliability of each source has not been established separately.
• With these guidelines, fresh edits were undertaken again on 30SEP at Yarchen Gar here[172] with a reference to earlier bad faith effort which meet TEND definitions, and here[173] and here[174] and here via RS Buddhist Door[175]. Editor again reverts before examining RS and calls for a block in an edit summary[176] which signifies HOUND and TEND by editor are continuing. The lack of RS review by editor before revert was noted as was editor's history of blocks for feuding, here[177]. Editor again reverts here[178] while wrongly claiming "You have been told Tibet Post is not a WP:RS", but the RSN review did not specify that finding. Next, editor re-ads a South China Morning Post source provided by me[179], a re-adding that supports the interpretation of bad faith effort, since the earlier revert was therefore made without review and meets the definitions of HOUND and TEND. The re-adding also indicates editor's TEND issues are based on POV (the apparently non-independent Scmp POV fails to mention fully the notable topic of the demolitions, and includes a tone slightly disrespectful to the nuns). Editor's revert was undone, bad faith/feuding cited among other issues here[180]. An image of Yarchen Gar was added here[181].

To address other related topics, I would like to add that while the editor has said the reference to previous blocks is "intolerable"[182] I took editor's more experienced lead to include mention of the feuding block [183], based on the editor's mention of the BLP parameter ban (see diffs) - if following the lead was a mistake, I apologise. I would also add that I hope the good faith efforts made at Sinicization of Tibet and 11th Panchen Lama and their diffs might clarify any misunderstanding in regards to a Tea House thread, where quotations from those talk pages and good faith efforts were used: "The first sentence states clearly that Sinicization of Tibet is a term used by critics of China; then, the rest of the page is largely written from the POV of China, imo in flowing CCP-apparatchik goobolee-gook phrases." and "Those statements don't address the serious issues. Goldstein's bias diff [1]; Rice, Kissinger, and Albright do not change the issues. Also in the first paragraph are non-standard references to the Chinese government, as in "Chinese leadership" and "leadership in China". Twice. Hum." After a requoting, a light-hearted but possibly poor attempt at joking (humbly offering AKGG as possible WP policy) was made. No personal attacks were intended towards editor, nor was disrespect towards policy at all intended - I apologise if I caused a misunderstanding. But, editor exhibited more HOUND instances by following into that request for help, and into another helpful discussion afterward.

I trust the copious amounts of diffs and this very lengthy response to be good enough to explain the interpretation of bad faith effort by the editor. I also trust that the good faith edits I've been providing as a recently joined editor to the project are as apparent, if not more so. Thank you most sincerely, and I look forward to continuing the editing. ___________________

• Archive diff for RSN topic CTA and RSN topic for International Campaign for Tibet, UNESCO, Tibet Post International/The Tibet Post, Tibet Watch, Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, Free Tibet, Radio Free Asia is[184]

Verify sources

BARNETT

• From Barnett, Viewpoint: Are Tibet burnings plot or policy failure?

16 November 2011 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-15738522,

1. Verify:" 'Premeditated' "In the eastern Tibetan monasteries which have seen recent immolations, the pressures have been more serious than this. Since 2006, government spending per person on security in the Tibetan areas where the immolations have occurred has been 4.5 times greater than in neighbouring non-Tibetan areas and has increased at twice the rate." "This suggests that a security build-up had begun in these areas at least a year before the first major protest occurred there in 2008, probably because they included one of the largest monasteries on the plateau."
2. Cites Xinhua as evidence of plot: "But in fact, there is one piece of evidence that one protest was planned: the Chinese government arrested two Tibetan monks in August for sending photographs to an exile of a fellow monk three days before he set himself on fire, thus "proving that the self-immolation was premeditated", according to Xinhua, China's official news agency." "But no other evidence of a plan has been produced by the Chinese government,..."

• TIN

http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no93014814/ Sourcewatch https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Tibet_Information_Network Fr.wiki https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet_Information_Network Hiring report in Lhasa https://savetibet.org/tag/tibet-information-network/

• 60th anniversary event

https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2011/08/22/chinas-liberation-tibet-rules-game/

Diffs

02OCT on talk [185] then[186] then[187]. Then on another talk[188] then[189]