User talk:Saucysalsa30

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Al Anfal

Hi Saucysalsa, I appreciate your concern on the Anfal article, but sincerely, you can not expect that anyone just attempts to take more than one edit of more than 1000 bytes seriously if they repeatedly include terms such as insults etc. If you have an editorial conflict take it to WP:DRN or different views about sources to WP:RS. And just do the changes you want to the Anfal article, if there is opposition, you'll notice. Then you can write your concerns. If there is no opposition, why to fill the talk page with thousands of bytes?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just seen you've opened an ANI discussion. Thank you and good luck. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Paradise Chronicle, yes, I had created an ANI discussion. I think there's some confusion around the situation, but this wasn't an editorial conflict. The comment you appear to be referring to by TheTimesAreAChanging[1] had nothing to do with the Anfal topic. It was a personal attack on me, and he decided he would make that on the Anfal Talk page where I was active at that time. I was being attacked, unprovoked and unexpectedly, over a misrepresentation of edits on entirely different topics from 2020 to early 2021. That is, someone with a past grudge against me who, with discussion board assistance, I'd proven wrong multiple times in the past, stalked me to a Talk page where they had no prior activity, to make a comment of comment of insults, slander, and misrepresentation against me. I gave a couple other examples of harassment that TheTimesAreAChanging has brought against me on the ANI discussion. [2]

It was an obvious violation of WP:TPG, WP:STALKING, and WP:NPA and generally disruptive. Calling someone the same as a Holocaust denier, racially charged, among many other things, (and being wrong with every allegation) is not editorial dispute, especially when it isn't even related to the Talk page discussion or article. That's flat out ad hominem. I think we can both agree that is insulting. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Info concerning Discretionary Sanctions on Kurds and Kurdistan

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Evaluating and directing allegations of harassment

Incidents of real life harassment are obviously quite serious. In this case the specifics are ill served by public discussion. It is not helpful for you or the other party. Please contact the Arbitration Committee via email to discuss further. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thanks for the message but that was only one of the violations I was reporting. Why was the entire ANI section removed? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I understand that. In the email I sent to ArbCom I have asked whether we should discuss those issues as well or refer you back to somewhere onwiki to discuss those. Barkeep49 (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 Thank you for explaining. I'll contact the Arbitration Committee. The editor deciding to make this shocking lie as a "defense" of their reported behavior in ANI for personal attacks and harassment, warnings and blocks for personal attacks and a demonstrated track record for an aggressive and slanderous approach to Talk page discussions, should be foremost taken into consideration. I look forward to your response on next steps once you get a response to your email. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've emailed ArbCom and T&S over the false accusation against me. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49, echoing thanks both for continuing the case and for your informative direction. It's also fair, I think, to observe that the specifics from preceding talk page edits poorly served those public discussions. The other editor in question seems to me to fit a pattern of maximising and utilising public effect while minimising direct communication with an opposed editor. On the first point, Saucysalsa30 hadn't even mentioned the editor's name in the thread title. GregKaye 07:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  @GregKaye "maximising and utilising public effect" I agree, even to the point of making a disgusting charge of real-life crime in response to an ANI report on their personal attacks and harassment. It was a desperate move on their part. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

E-Mail

Please post any comments relevant to the Anfal campaign on the article's talk page, not in an email.

I prefer not to handle such matters via email as it may give rise to allegations of canvassing, especially when dealing with a heated topic.

Thanks (t · c) buidhe 03:29, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Just wanted to bring a chronological error to your attention before I made a Talk section. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:36, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging Yes, you have, as on previous occasions, stalked and insulted me on Wikipedia, this time making false accusations of things I didn't do such as "such as the implication that Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest", which I did no such thing. In fact, I didn't touch the section about that at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Galbraith#Involvement_in_Iraq's_constitutional_process If you're going to attack and make loaded accusations against people, at least get the details right please.

Ironically, I fixed very evident SYNTH/OR. You are, in fact, introducing OR and defending the same vandalism taken up by Devotedamerican on that page, who particularly focused on the "financial conflict of interest" part, trying to spin the narrative on that as you are currently doing on the article. You really need to stop hounding me, too. You have zero prior involvement on that article, and then when I do, you jump on it with typical personal attacks and disruptive editing as you've done several times before. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions applying to the topic of the Kurds, broadly construed

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

RAN1 (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is here. Thank you. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

A six-month topic ban from the topic of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed, including Peter Galbraith and Iraqi chemical attacks

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that Acroterion conceded on their Talk page that they did not read or understand my comments on the AE section before taking this action, claiming that I "failed to address the substance of the complaint"[3], which is absolutely false and unfortunately demonstrates laziness (understandable, I know admins do a lot and can't give much effort to any single thing) or a lapse of competence in this matter. I absolutely did address the complaint as is visible to anyone, in too much detail if anything. I handily refuted bad faith false accusations and misrepresentations against me (by a disruptive editor TheTimesAreAChanging who commonly does this to editors and that that has been harassing, stalking, and insulting me when I edit on Wikipedia since 2020, including just in the last couple weeks).

Acroterion did not disagree with me on their Talk page that the accusations against me were proven to be flat-out lies and misrepresentations (and I pointed out disruptive editing and even direct personal attacks by the accuser in the same case) but continued to sidetrack and even cast aspersions[4][5] in defense of their sanction. Acroterion considers discussions with several editors and building consensus, and editors joining the conversation from an RFC section, created by TTAAC and backfired on him, join the consensus I had built as, "unwillingness to consider any voice but your own" is casting aspersions and defamation. It's the opposite of reality. In any case, Acroterion by their own responses made this sanction in error or, more likely given their responses, in partiality. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Saucysalsa30, I am pinging Acroterion and El_C because two recent AfDs you have posted (Zainab Salbi and Amjad Atallah) are for the founders of Women for Women International, an organization that works with "populations of Iraqi women, displaced Yezidi peoples, and Kurdish women." Some clarification about the scope of the AE sanction seems as if it would be helpful. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the Arrest article for consideration

I had been looking at the two articles and wondering if the arrest article was needed. Thanks for bringing the issue forward. 😀 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz No problem. I was definitely curious too when I noticed its content overlapped almost exactly with the other. I notified the original article creator [6] about the AfD so that they can provide their input. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Phil_De_Luna

Hi, just a comment here rather than at AfD where things tend to get a bit intense. It probably wasn't a great idea to ping XOReaster since you and they have both !voted in the same direction; there's a risk that someone would interpret this as canvassing. I should emphasise that although I tend towards keep on de Luna, I am determined not to take things personally at AfD or harbour strong feelings about the article. I do find the existing article (at the time I read it) over-promotional. It can be difficult to handle biographical articles on people who are self-promotional. Obviously we have to filter out all the own-trumpet-blowing, but some of them remain notable, if annoying, after the filter has been applied! I personally think de Luna passes muster, you don't, and that's fine! Best wishes! Elemimele (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Hi, this veiled accusation of canvassing is completely uncalled for and warrants apology. XOR'easter has already been involved in the discussion since December 21 and had already voted and replied to others since[7][8] and, according to their user page, as a career physicist has valued expertise on the matter of paper citations. There is no canvassing.

Personal interpretations of notability guidelines are not suitable. You are correct in saying that your synthesis (original research) isn't being placed on an article but it is skewing the meaning of the notability criteria which is amounts to a poor argument for keeping it.[9] We can't be making significant departures from what policies are saying, to the extent of ignoring it, to make a case. "as demonstrated by independent reliable sources" is applicable, and not what you think it means.

It's not thinking or opinion or passing muster. The difference is that the nom and others have made substantial cases in line with policies for why the subject isn't notable. Your argument has been two comments not understanding the policy, which others have directly replied to.[10][11] Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

(1) Let's just leave the interpretation of policy to whoever closes the AfD. I honestly believe that Wikipedia's strength is through disagreements such as this, which make us all think about what we want to include, what we don't, what our policies actually mean (they are rarely crystal-clear), and how overall this encyclopaedia can be made better. It'd be a sad world if we agreed on everything - and even sadder if we can't agree to disagree. Just to make it clear: I am glad you disagreed with me there, and I regard those who disagree with me as colleagues, not opponents, working together, for the good of WP. (2) As for the canvassing thing, it genuinely wasn't intended as a veiled accusation, but merely a quite honest statement that AfD is a very dog-eats-dog environment where feelings run high. I don't personally believe you were canvassing, but there are, unfortunately, from time to time people at AfD who will exploit every sign of weakness in their "opponent" in order to "win". It's an environment where, in my experience, the assumption of good faith often wears very thin, so it's best to avoid giving anyone any ammunition they might use against you, even if it's totally baseless. I should have been more tactful about it, or more clear in what I meant. (3) But honestly, please let's not hate one another for this. I don't care all that much whether the article is kept or not. I'd keep it, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it being deleted. I would lose sleep over making an enemy amongst the others who make this encyclopaedia the good thing it is (i.e. you, and XOReaster), so I hope you can forgive me for my opinions or poor communication. Elemimele (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele I appreciate the thorough response and I agree with your points. I have no hard feelings, and nothing to have hard feelings about in our interaction. I don't care about "winning" personally and don't consider it a matter of "win" or "lose". Whether others do or do not is up to them. Any final decision is up to the closing admin's discretion, which can go in different directions considering admins are humans too and don't have the time to mull over every AfD to "get it right" with absolute certainty. The article creator is, in addition to creating the article and considering their stated work with the Canadian Green Party, affiliated with De Luna and the article is tagged with COI too, so I understand they may have feelings regarding the AfD. Personally I never heard of De Luna before this AfD but from all the reading I've been doing I think he's a very bright guy. I have a very positive opinion of him and respect his work, but personal sentiments don't play a role in AfD discussions. From my perspective and that of others on the AfD, replies have been in response to misinterpretations of policy, not any ill will, in my observation. 3 different people have separately and directly pointed out how WP:PROF#C6 is not met for example.

"AfD is a very dog-eats-dog environment" I've been noticing the same on AfD and there's lots to say about this on Wikipedia in general, on and beyond AfDs, too. A lot of passable, tolerated, or ignored interaction on Wikipedia would never fly in a professional workplace, and the same goes for any other social network I'm familiar with. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you've set my mind at rest. I'm going to be brave and suggest an overhaul of WP:NPROF as I think bits of it are open to varied interpretation, while other bits encourage articles on people about whom it's very hard to write anything useful. It needs tightening up. Also I take your point about COI. I suspect that quite a lot of articles on academics have been written or heavily edited by themselves, their co-workers and the comms departments of their universities, admittedly mostly without enormous ill-intent. They get away with it because these are the sorts of people who generally write factual, neutral information, but it's still not right! Wishing you season's greetings! Elemimele (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele Another realization: WP:PROF#C1, especially if we don't consider including supporting sourcing, could potentially mandate a Wikipedia article each for thousands of PIs considering their name is on every paper their graduate students and post-docs produce. The current wording in the policy leaves room for this slippery slope in my interpretation. Happy Holidays and Season's Greetings! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2022 (UTC)