User talk:Saucysalsa30

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 [1] 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[2][3] 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.[4] 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.[5][6] 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)

Warning on WP:BLUDGEON

Saucysalsa30, please stop bludgeoning every editor who disagrees with you as in the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the End AfD. Concerns about this behavior by you were previously raised on the Administrators Noticeboard in this discussion, with that discussion revolving around the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zainab Salbi AfD. Wikipedia is a collaboration. This means sometimes individual editors are right and sometimes they're wrong but by working together we all help move Wikipedia forward. For example, that previous AfD resulted in Zainab Salbi being improved to the point where it was designated a good article. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia's etiquette guidelines. Anyway, this is an official warning for you to stop this behavior. If it continues you risk being blocked.--SouthernNights (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@SouthernNights A single response to a comment is not bludgeoning. Concerns about my behavior weren't raised. I created the Administrators' Noticeboard section to raise concerns about Beccanyr who was edit warring, bludgeoning, and PAs. Your response was to defend that terrible behavior and try to turn it on me.

Was it not enough that you engaged and defended in canvassing against me and followed me to ANI to defend someone's poor behavior on the section I made, which is very biased, selective behavior unbecoming of an admin? Why are you still harassing me? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

ANI notice board discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block consideration for Saucysalsa30 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. SouthernNights (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Saucysalsa30 (talk) 06:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

10 June 2023

After the strong advise that was given to you back in December on the Administrators Noticeboard, you perhaps haven't taken the same into account. Consequently, based on your recent edits specially those at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palace of the End, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. You also cannot accuse editors of hounding you or canvassing, unless you have strong diffs proving the same. These are strong allegations and will lead to escalating blocks, if repeated. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 07:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance to reply on the ANI section made just 10 hours ago and which I just saw 3 hours ago so I'll make points here. Why wasn't I allowed discussion there?

@Lourdes, yes, I took referenced advise into account and this is why I'm sincerely curious in understanding how is making only 1 reply each to 2 editors[7][8] (1 of whom included sources that aren't about the subject at all despite claiming it was; am I not allowed to point out an error like that?) on entirely different points "persistent disruptive edits"?

I've asked admins about this a number of times in the past, and during this same AfD I asked the help channel, where admins are present, and the response I got then and over the years is that's not "bludgeoning", ie. you can respond to individuals on new points, to point out errors, if they have a question, etc. Here, I made 1 reply each to point out erroneous statements and assertions. It only becomes "bludgeoning" when it's a continuous and forth on the same points, which did not happen on that AfD. Politely asking someone to elaborate on a non-vote is not "disruptive" either.

First, I want to apologize to @SouthernNights for having inadvertently provoked her. That was not my intention. She warned me for moving towards "bludgeoning" (more on that below) and I made no further comment on that AfD. I followed her instructions, so the ANI report is not for that. This isn't the first time she has unexpectedly (at least to me) popped up somewhere to make an point about me so I was startled and I asked her to stop and as evidenced, that upset her and this is why she created the ANI section as a response to that.

@SouthernNights and @Lourdes, I was not adequately clear apparently. The AfD she linked to from December 2022 was subjected to canvassing in the sense that there was an unnatural massive influx of !votes on 27 December. I did not mean SouthernNights was notifying people to join, if she interpreted it that way. What I meant was that SouthernNights, as she said herself in the ANI section, was involved on the AfD, one that was being canvassed. I used "engaged in canvassing" (probably mistakenly, but I've seen it used interchangeably with "being involved in a discussion being canvassed on their side") when the right phrase would have been involved in an AfD that was subjected to canvassing.

"Persistently" is the wrong word. SN warned me for providing only one single reply each to 2 editors making very different points to very different comments, to respectfully and thoroughly point out provably false statements[9][10] (I was not making the same argument over and over ie. bludgeoning), and one asking someone to elaborate after making a !vote (non-vote)[11]. There was no continued back-and-forth on my part or making the same point repeatedly, so not being disruptive.

Recent example where I avoid bludgeoning when someone else was: On this AfD, once I realized that an editor making the same points over and over bludgeoning against 4 editors pointing out that Twitter and blogs are not reliable sources, I stopped responding. I made the unique points I had to make and left it at that. Apparently admins did not find Cunard's actual bludgeoning problematic.

The off-topic note by SouthernNights on the AfD to demean me in that AfD was unexpected and I've never seen any admin do something like this, hopping into a discussion to demean and "warn against" someone like that, so I was startled. Had a normal editor done that, it would have been reverted for off-topic or PA.

This was not so random. Back in December, SouthernNights was involved in the aforementioned AfD, during which one editor Beccaynr had engaged in disruptive editing and personal attacks. I made a message on the editor Beccaynr's Talk page[12] but they continued, so I made an ANI section.[13] Since you asked about "hounding", SouthernNights had been keeping a close eye on me from the AfD, because just 44 minutes after I made the ANI section, she made the first of her several edits on the section to immediately redirect the ANI's attention away from Beccaynr.[14]. Beccaynr apologized to me so I withdrew the ANI section[15], but someone brought it back because apparently you can't withdraw ANI reports. Really, with Beccaynr's apology I had no more issue, but then the ANI section went on unnecessarily and this went with the "advise" you mentioned, with none given to Beccaynr for violations of editing policy and uncivil behavior. Regardless, the case was later settled and I left it at that.

The rapid response on the ANI section was not the only occasion in that time period. Shortly after that, SN popped up on other AfDs where I was involved, like this one she linked to from the new ANI section. The point of the last 2 paragraphs is I wasn't saying "hounding" for no reason. If this is not the right term for following where someone is active, including responding to an ANI section they made less than an hour prior with no notification from the AfD section where SN was involved, inform me of a better term.

All of this is to give context where it was lacking in the ANI post. I apologize for the unintended provocation and misunderstanding, but I explained why it happened. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see why SouthernNights brought it up or what relevance it has, but the "60 hour edit warring" block she mentioned isn't recent like it seemed implied. It was from November 2020 and not something he has context on. It was a case of 2 editors teaming up together (I think the term is meatpuppetry) following me across 3 articles to attack me in Talk pages and undo reverts for no reason. Admin EvergreenFir noticed this and got involved to sort out their mess, undoing their disruptive edits, admonished them, and temporarily locked the articles. I had also created report for edit warring[16], but I didn't know the game happening against me. What I learned is 3RR doesn't apply when it's two people teaming together and alternating their reverts against someone else. Their reverts were counted individually. I had been told differently at the time but apparently that info was wrong. So their hounding and meatpuppetry was cast aside, and a block was put on me. Lesson learned. I took accountability for that and still do. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Saucysalsa, thank you for your comprehensive response. I will keep my answer short. If a majority of the community believes that you are bludgeoning editors, then I would suggest you take that into account for the future and from now on try to be very careful when you answer to each editor on any discussion forum. Try not to do thus again (and if you do, there should be compelling reasons). Additionally, your evidence of hounding is not hounding. It's simple administrative oversight. Your evidence of canvassing has nothing to do with the other administrator, but your wordings came out wrongly when you were in discussions with them. I would suggest be careful from hereon. Sit out the block and edit proactively going ahead. Thanks, Lourdes 16:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes, thanks for your response but are you confusing me with someone else? There was no "majority of the community". There was one admin with a history of beef with me, making an off-topic comment on an AfD to demean me, and that was about it.

I asked very specifically how 1 reply each to 2 editors correcting provably false statements was "disruptive" so that I could learn from it, but it wasn't answered. On the other side, how is willfully lying about what a source is about not "disruptive"? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:57, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Saucysalsa, I don't know if you have read the previous ANI report alongside this ANI report. I am constrained to increase your block because of both your comments above ("one admin with a history of beef with me"... "off-topic comment on an AfD to demean me"...) as well as the edit summary you left in the previous archiving where you accused editors of personal attack (again). Sorry but this is going to be a long haul if you are unable to understand the reasons of your block. I am increasing your block to indefinite, pending your acceptance that you will not repeat these kind of allegations unless their are strong diffs supporting the same. Lourdes 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

This is neither here nor there at this point and long behind me but I was under the impression I was not able to reply on other sections on my Talk page during the block, so I did not. About what I mentioned in the above 2 comments for which I was given the indef, I previously provided a few pertinent diffs in the long comment at the topic of this section.[17] I didn't feel a need to link the same diffs again in the follow-up comments, which you may have missed. If this was, as stated, your reason for the indef, it is unfortunate. Still, in my estimation it was regardless justifiable by other reasons and I think it was a nice break for me with valuable learnings and discussions.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened in early November regarding your situation. I was probably as surprised as others. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

12 June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Lourdes 04:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Please also note that from hereon, some other administrator would address your unblock request. Thank you, Lourdes 04:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Saucysalsa30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• First, I have read and am acknowledging this latest diff from Lourdes. This will be referred to in this request. *:Second, I will preface by acknowledging I did wrong. Everything below is not to be interpreted as making excuses or validating anything I did, but to acknowledge my mistakes and misunderstandings and give context where I think it may be useful. *:I think where my long-running confusion was (I am not claiming victim, to make that clear) that when I get called a child, insults and demeaning labels, get falsely accused of very serious real-life crimes as the defense by someone I reported to ANI, when I've brought up things like those to admins, it's been shrugged off and action wasn't taken. I'm sure there are reasons for that which I won't assume but it blurred for me what is personal attack and what isn't per WP:PA. While I've steered clear of hard attacks ("so-and-so is an <insert word(s) here>" or accusing anyone of real-life offenses), I've made lazy, bad comments like what Lourdes was referencing and I provide a diff to and discuss in the next paragraph. *:Now with the referenced personal attacks, to give some context and my response, yes, the diff in question was lazy and rude on my part and came across badly with the wording and allegations. I admit that. It was aiming to re-summarize part of what I'd said in much longer comments with diffs linked in this thread and here, but in the diff in question was said in a lazy, terse, and snarky manner. To repeat, I admit my comments in that diff and potentially others and wording were lazy and wrong and quite visibly it was rushed, inadequate, snarky with allegations, compared to the other two which on re-read could have been better too. *:"where you accused editors of personal attack" *:Yes, at the time my understanding was that, under the purview of WP:PA, what I interpreted to be "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" in addition to implying of me being dishonest twice in the same thread (for context I gave background on this situation in this diff). As it appears to be that that is not the case and my understanding is wrong, I take the blame for that. *:I think the responses and actions from Lourdes have been a big wake-up call. The biggest lesson is not to make snarky, lazy PA comments like those for which this block was instituted, and to respect the editors and processes and as I can see, it was stupid not to. I will not repeat these kinds of allegations and discussion and commenting behavior. This is getting long so I'll leave it here. Please inform me if I'm missing something. It's not my intention to leave anything out. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have read through the text in this unblock request and below, and also the WP:AN thread. I am declining this unblock request for two reasons. 1) Most of the request involves the user giving "context" for their actions. This creates the impression that they are trying to excuse the behaviour. Future unblock requests should focus on their actions only (and avoid giving information on what others did) to avoid this negative impression. 2) The editor struggles with creating walls of text in their responses. In future unblock requests, the editor is advised to be concise in their responses, avoid giving context unless asked, and get to the point as quickly as possible. Future requests should consist of what you (and only you) did wrong, why it was wrong, and what specifically you will do in the future to avoid this mistake again. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

---

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

I would be interested in your thoughts concerning Wikipedia:Casting aspersions, Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith#Dealing_with_bad_faith, and Wikipedia:Gaming_the_system#Gaming_of_sanctions_for_disruptive_behavior, in light of your noticeboard and talkpage edits over the past few years. - jc37 23:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 I think WP:ASPERSIONS summarizes well about not making accusations, including negative assumptions in my view, against other editors. The arbitrations linked from the 5 decisions listed provide good examples and background where casting aspersions was problematic. The linked WP:DR page gives plenty of constructive alternatives and guidance. I think the best lesson from WP:BF is to assume good faith and to behave and think as if only good faith were present. I think there too, consult WP:DR when needed. The revert and edit summary from earlier this month was timely in my opinion[18]: "I disagree, we should recommend that editors one should assume good faith at all times (until and unless there is strong evidence to the contrary)." For WP:SANCTIONGAME, I think that if the action is "gaming" or similarly ambiguous such that one has to ask themselves if they're "skirting the edge" or not, it's most likely a bad idea regardless of the outcome. I think this ties in with WP:AGF and WP:BF, such that even if "gaming" from someone else is suspected or even evident, to not engage in "gaming" about disruptive behavior. More broadly, I think the concept of "gaming" fits in large part with the adage "If you have to ask, don't do it." If I misinterpreted or thought incorrectly on any of these, please feel free to correct me. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to think about those things and respond.

And what are your thoughts about your own edits to talk pages and notice boards, with all that in mind?

To be as transparent as possible, I ask this in light of the questions, and much advice, you have received here, and at WP:AN/I, and elsewhere, over the last few years. And I'm trying to understand where you are now with such things. - jc37 07:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 Thanks for your transparency. I think and acknowledge that the pertinent edits were not in line with nor complied with the guidelines. That is to say that they were unnecessary to make in the first place or included wording and tone that should not have been included. In addition to what I've said with respect to the linked guidelines, I think the edits showed and drew from impatience in part, and in retrospect, diminished the collaborative aspect of the project. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 03:37, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

@Izno Sorry for the notification but I noticed you to be active. Jc37 has been inactive for the last week and this discussion and progress have been blocked. Is there a process for continuing? Thanks. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 19:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My apologies that I have been away. As we all know as editors, anyone can be called away from Wikipedia at any time. That should not prevent others from looking over this situation.

And with that in mind, I think the next step is to see if any other admins might wish to look over this situation as well.

While I appreciate your responses. I don't feel comfortable making the assessment to approve (or decline) the unblock at this time.

You probably should not be pinging individual admins. And while this unblock template makes admins aware to review, I'll go an extra step and drop a note at WP:AN, for you. - jc37 10:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Jc37 No problem and thank you for your reply and making the note. Sorry about pinging Izno.

From the AN section, Star Mississippi may have misunderstood my unblock request, saying I was saying "why it's everyone else's fault". I said in my unblock request that I was not doing this, "Everything below is not to be interpreted as making excuses or validating anything I did, but to acknowledge my mistakes and misunderstandings and give context where I think it may be useful." I had no intention of blaming anyone else. I was giving context for one of the reasons and misunderstandings I had as to why I made the mistakes I made which I summed up with "but it blurred for me what is personal attack and what isn't" and I acknowledged I was in error. In my request, I linked to the diff about an accusation against me that I committed real-life crime for the purpose of avoiding accusations that I'm lying about something so serious, not to lay blame.

It may be helpful to add a little context that the matter of the diff from another editor that Star provided from August 2022 was looked at by Trust and Safety and ArbCom. It included a few aspersions and misframings to situations as far back as 2020, which I addressed at the time here. Among the charges was a very serious one, the previously mentioned (false) accusation that I committed real-life crime against the editor, and ArbCom member Barkeep49 removed the ANI section (which was concerning that editor's behavior) and asked the editor to raise their allegations against me to ArbCom. Neither T&S nor ArbCom took action based on the allegations. None of this is to say I or anyone else involved did no wrong but to point out there's a lot more to the situation and that T&S and ArbCom had handled it. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Saucysalsa30 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello admins. Following the guidance in Z1720's comment, I'm making a new unblock request. I acknowledge and understand that I was in error in making my previous comments that got me blocked and that casting aspersions is wrongful and that I should not and will not repeat this type of allegations. As discussed with Jc37 under this section, I understand the guidelines on WP:BF, WP:ASPERSIONS, WP:SANCTIONGAME, and consulting WP:DR when applicable. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

In accordance with our policy on conditional unblocks, I am unblocking you with the following restrictions:

• Topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan
• Topic ban from the Articles for Deletion process
• A restriction against casting aspersions, assuming bad faith, and other forms of incivility

Failing to abide by these restrictions, in the estimation of any administrator, will result in restoring the indefinite block without further warning or discussion. These restrictions may be appealed at any time, either directly to me on my talk page, or at the administrators' noticeboard. – bradv 19:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Saucysalsa30, I see that it's been a while since you posted this request, so if you're still interested: What would you do differently if you were unblocked? How would you avoid future problems? – bradv 00:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv Given my history, I think the most important matter is to disengage from content disputes. I'm being very frank in stating that not disengaging has been the underlying issue of past and current issues. For example, it is what led to the 31 hour block in June. Another thing is to always assume good faith, and even if editors are indisputably not acting in good faith, that I should respond and react as though they are. I'm also of the understanding that some editors on some topics don't have some of the same degree of understanding, education, or expertise, and that I will not lose patience anymore.

Similarly for avoiding future problems, I think disengaging is one of the key responses. I have also become a lot more familiarized with this comprehensive wiki I've found to be very useful, including DRN, third opinion, and RfC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Saucysalsa30 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

That is a good response, and from what I've seen so far of your editing history this approach would indeed avoid repetitions of most of the problems you've found yourself in. I might quibble with your statement that other editors don't have the same degree of understanding as you, and remind you that the reverse can also be true (and really should be your default posture). Assuming that you know more than other people, or acting as if you do, is a surefire way to find yourself in the midst of a misunderstanding.

I've read through several threads that you've participated in, and several threads on noticeboards about your behaviour, and there appear to be two topic areas in which you frequently find yourself in trouble: Kurds/Kurdistan, and the AfD process. Is that accurate? Are there activities outside of those two areas that you are interested in? – bradv 00:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv That is a good point you make. Thank you.

To your question, that would be accurate. I'm interested in a variety of other areas, including computing and technology, engineering, American history (esp. domestic) and places, ancient civilization and history, sports, video games, and astronomy-related topics. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're interested in helping out in other areas. Bearing in mind everything you have said here, I'm willing to offer you a conditional unblock, with the following restrictions:

• Topic ban from Kurds and Kurdistan
• Topic ban from the Articles for Deletion process
• A restriction against casting aspersions, assuming bad faith, and other forms of incivility

These restrictions will be logged at WP:ER/UC and can be appealed at any time, either directly to me on my talk page, or at the administrators' noticeboard. Failing to abide by these restrictions, in the estimation of any administrator, will result in restoring the indefinite block without further warning or discussion.

I realize these are rather stringent, but we need to balance your request against the needs of the project and the time of the many editors who have already been involved in this. Does this look workable to you? Will you consent to these unblock conditions? – bradv 03:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

@Bradv That offer sounds good and looks workable to me. I consent to the unblock conditions. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the blocking admin, but since I did start to attempt to discuss above (until RL called me away), I'll merely note that I'm not opposed to the unblock, with the restrictions noted above in place. - jc37 06:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Just as a further note, since the blocking admin recently admitted to having been a previously blocked former admin and blocked herself indefinitely recently before being formally banned again, her opinion need no longer be sought. Daniel Case (talk) 07:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

True, I should have been clearer. I was more thinking about User:Z1720's block review when I said that. - jc37 07:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you all! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

As the admin who originally brought up Saucysalsa30's behavior to the Administrators Noticeboard, I also support lifting the block under the indicated conditions. I know this is a little late since the block was already lifted, but figured it couldn't hurt to also state my opinion here. SouthernNights (talk) 12:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)