Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Yae4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

"topic banned from climate change, broadly construed." imposed at this arbitration enforcement request, logged at log of sanctions.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Awilley (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Special:Diff/1125144723

Statement by Yae4

I want the sanction to be lifted. Why: The main reason I want it lifted is so I can stop being concerned in the slightest about "broadly construed" whenever I dabble in articles like Wind_power_in_Tennessee, where I recently corrected glaring errors and made a small expansion citing a dead trees book by an environmentalist. It has been long enough. Lessons are learned. The closing admin said "I'm not 100% on board with it" (the sanction) on my talk page, so the sanction was not 100% good to start. At the closing summary they wrote "an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." I followed their advice - cleansing watchlist of climate articles broadly construed, editing obscure articles, reading and following WP policies and guidance, trying to keep interactions near the top of Graham's Hierarchy, as much as possible. Unfortunately, a few of the niche or obscure articles I focused on - alternative Android operating systems - were as contentious as in any identified as "discretionary sanctions" topics, except with (1) fewer editors, and (2) far fewer editors who try to practice any of what Awilley suggested. We all know paid and conflicted editors is forever at Wikipedia. Thus, more time than I would like was spent in oversight review boards. I received one 7 day Page Ban as a consequence of my careless 3RR violation during a swarm of COI IP or SPA editors.

The primary problems were: my including poor sources for some edits, and for a couple new articles I wrote; irritating a particular admin and some other editors by being too bold and disagreeing too much in discussions; and mostly - not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change. Commit to fix: I have, and will, do the best I can to use "reliable" sources, in the way Wikipedia defines them. I've re-evaluated some sources I previously added, and removed them myself when realizing they were not good. WP:DUE still seems to be a more or less arbitrarily applied mystery to me, but what can I say. I will continue interacting with other editors towards the top of the pyramid, even when they don't return the favor.

Note: I have not significantly changed my User page other than adding some new articles. The Hall of Shame section has not been changed because I did not want to think about the articles and whether my views of them have changed, or to be accused of changing it to look "better" or hide it. I know many Wikipedia editors would not like the sentiment in the section title, and it is not in line with Wikipedia "consensus". Nevertheless, it remains notable (to me) when a MIT PhD scientist throws away their scientific career because of uncertainties in computer modeling of climate, and they do not have an article in Wikipedia because they didn't publish enough studies or got ignored by "reliable" sources.

Thanks for considering my request. I will be happy to answer any questions, but it may be a few days before I can. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond_My_Ken, Black_Kite, I will not profess belief in a POV because of a vast majority, a small majority, or any kind of group, if I am not convinced. My understanding is this is not required. The details of consensus here are too involved to get into, now, probably not ever; I learned the POV and methods of Wikipedia on this topic. I will stay out of its way, and avoid disruption. Awilley said "I do hope to see you appeal it as it's clear you have some knowledge about the subject." They were correct, although it was a side interest for me. I accept the branding as a Wiki-heretic, so to speak, but it would be nice to be out from under the formal sanction. -- Yae4 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

I closed the AE thread that led to the topic ban. In my close I wrote, "as this is the user's first sanction, an appeal that recognizes the problem and commits to fixing it, combined with constructive editing elsewhere, should be granted." It's been over two years since then, and Yae has more than doubled their edit count while avoiding the topic area. The appeal shows awareness of what the problem was and commits to fixing it. I support extending another chance. ~Awilley (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Yae4

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I oppose lifting the sanction. The request is replete with the editor's opinion that they did nothing particularly wrong, and that the basic reason they were sanctioned is that they were too "bold" and too opinionated for the rest of us, and one admin specifically. Black Kite's statement below is correct: it's not Wikipedia's consensus about climate change, it's the consensus of the vast majority of reputable scientists with expertise in the subject that matters. That's who we follow. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OP's reply to the initial comments is as full of disdain for the Wikipedia community -- and scientific consensus -- as was their appeal in the first place. I could give a dman if they're comfortable with being a "Wiki-heretic", my concern is for the encyclopedia. I do not believe that lifting the sanction is a good idea, as much damage can be done before anyone notices that the WP:ROPE has disappeared. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A neutral pointer to this discussion has been placed on the talk page of WikiProject Environment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

It's been two years now. Lift the t-ban & give the individual the chance to prove they won't be disruptive in the topic area. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)

Result of the appeal by Yae4

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• I'm a bit unconvinced by not accepting the reality of the "consensus" situation at Wikipedia on topics like climate change being a reason for their sanction (as well as their statement that they will do the best I can to use "reliable" sources). Quite apart from the scare quotes, when in comes to subjects like climate change it is not the consensus at Wikipedia that is the issue, it's the consensus amongst the vast majority of scientists and reliable sources that we follow. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment moved up to own section, sorry it's been a while since I've done one of these. ~Awilley (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Awilley, it doesn't matter that you're still uninvolved, that's usually the case, anyway. But it is standard practice, that in an an appeal, a sanctioning admin whose sanction is being appealed always comments in their own section. You should move your comment from Result of the appeal section. I've never seen that done before, in any appeal, including the many tens where I was the sanctioning admin (and had remained uninvolved throughout probably all of them). El_C 18:57, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, since it's likely gonna be lifted, I guess it doesn't really matter. But please keep in mind for future decorum. El_C 18:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with lifting here. I think the appeal statement is acceptable; also from what I can see the user has never been blocked or reported here for a violation, so 2 1/2 years is more than enough time to ask for a second chance. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 05:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Olympian

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Dallavid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Olympian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBAA2

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

1. 1 December 2022 cites a Turkish tourist website that denies the Armenian Genocide as a reliable source
2. 1 December 2022 cites Maxime Gauin, an Armenian genocide denier,[1] with a particularly inflammatory anti-Armenian article
3. 1 December 2022 cites Jörg Baberowski, a Clean Wehrmacht revisionist
4. 2 December 2022 after removing the tourist website, replaces it with a "academic source" that is actually another Armenian Genocide denier, Justin McCarthy
5. 3 December 2022 cited sources for strongly contentious claims that they did not actually state

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21 October 2022.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Olympian recently created a new article that uses several sources denying the Armenian Genocide. Olympian showed no regard for what is considered a reliable source, only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push. The article itself is a neologism and much of its text is original research. Olympian made several outlandish claims, such as "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks", which the citations Olympian used did not actually say. Several other third-party sources cited for "massacres" also failed verification (explained in detail here). --Dallavid (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Olympian I believed that you had merely made a mistake at first by using a genocide denial source. But you added multiple other genocide denial sources, including replacing genocide denial sources with other genocide denial sources. Even if this was all unintentional, it's concerning that you didn't do the bare minimum to check the reliability of the sources. The Gauin paper states "the Republic of Armenia exists due to a continuous process of ethnic cleansing". If you could not tell that this incredibly offensive and vitriolic essay was not reliable, you should not be editing articles related to Armenia.

And nowhere in my report did I say you support genocide denial by using these sources, I was clearly pointing out why these sources should've been immediately recognizable as unreliable. Pointing out WP:FRINGE POV pushing is not a personal attack, it's criticizing the content. Could you please explain what compelled you to type "ethnic cleansing was caused by the loyalty and favour of the Azerbaijanis to the Ottoman Turks" when the attached citation stated nothing even remotely similar to that?

"By writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time"

Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. --Dallavid (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

El C Is it really odd given the quantity of genocide denying sources that Olympian has ended up with? Including replacing one (the tourist site) with another (McCarthy)? I find it hard to believe that Olympian could've missed that McCarthy is a genocide denier when he linked the Justin McCarthy (American historian) article, since that is all he's known for. And yet another genocide denying source has turned up among Olympian's citations. The list of genocide denying figures Olympian has ended up with is now McCarthy, Gauin, Hasanli, plus Baberowski who is a borderline Holocaust denier. Olympian only removed some of these sources after other users pointed out their unreliability, and does that really excuse that he cited so many in the first place? I've also tried to find out where Olympian could've possibly found the 1920 Le Temps newspaper to cite, and the only search results of it I could find come from blogs denying the Armenian genocide (written by Gauin no less). --Dallavid (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning Olympian

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Olympian

Throughout his report, Dallavid has downright misrepresented the facts in order to support the notion that the entire article is original research, you can see this in my reply debunking his unsubstantiated allegations. In regards to the usage of the Turkish tourist website, Maxime Gauin, and Justin McCarthy – because exact numbers regarding the massacres are elusive, I used these sources' numbers without conducting a thorough background check, which is an indictment of my ability as an editor which I've since become aware of and will work more carefully in future to avoid – in saying that, I did delete the sources as soon as they were pointed out to be unreliable as I was previously unaware that they were problematic and had not intended to use them after knowing that they were unreliable [3][4][5]. Moreover, in his report, Dallavid is implying that I support Armenian genocide denial by using these sources: the fact is that I myself am an Armenian whose family fled the genocide, so I categorically reject the notion that I in any way support its denial and want to ensure to whoever is involved that it's certainly not the case. Notwithstanding that this statement by Dallavid "only for sources that confirmed the narrative he wanted to push" constituted a blatant personal attack, by writing this article I was trying to shed light on other atrocities that occurred in this time, as numerous reliable sources support the fact that Azerbaijanis were subject to massacres and expulsions at the hands of Armenians in the post-WW1 period. Finally, the statement Dallavid mentions that was unsourced simply had the wrong page number/author as I explained to him already, I also deleted it immediately after it was pointed out. – Olympian ^loquere 12:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C I never intentionally used those sources, and in fact, I removed the problematic sources immediately after they were pointed out to be denialist. To reiterate, I don't support Armenian genocide denialism (I'm from a family of survivors), so it's extremely disrespectful that Dallavid has misrepresented my position to claim that I am and that I intentionally used those sources. Just to be perfectly clear, this article has nothing to do with the Armenian genocide, and simply relates to massacres against Azerbaijanis in the first Armenian Republic as supported by a plethora of sources—the article barely mentions the genocide twice, referencing the following authors: Stuart J Kaufman and Thomas de Waal, who are cited to describe the weary state of the Armenian nation after years of being exterminated from Western Armenia, and the hundreds of thousands of refugees' need for housing (at the expense of the Azeri population). Regards, – Olympian ^loquere 21:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Saucysalsa30

Uninvolved editor but I noticed this, got curious, and looked into this. Edits #1-4 were fixed by @Olympian prior to this report. Many articles are stock full of poor sourcing or superficially reliable but truly poor sourcing that often is staunchly defended by editors, yet Olympian did away with this very soon after without making a case for meriting inclusion. It isn't clear what Baberowski's, who is a respected historian in Germany and beyond and a professor at one of Germany's most prestigious universities, research on WW2 has to do with research on 1910s Armenia, so this attempt to discredit Baberowski is misplaced. Olympian still removed the Baberowski source. As for the other, not everyone knows little-known backstories of every scholar or writer out there either, and we can hardly expect that from Olympian, who regardless had added a plethora of other sources in the article that Dallavid had no issue with.

Edit #5 - The source did point to that. I looked up that page in Waal's book. It says "Azerbaijanis were universally regarded as Turkish fifth columnists and bore the brunt of Armenian anger". Dallavid may have understandably not known the meaning of "fifth columnists", but it means a group sympathetic to or working for another nation especially during wartime. Regardless, Olympian removed that sentence from the lede. It was redundant with another part of the article too.

Only a day after the article was created, Dallavid nominated it for deletion on December 2.[6][7] The arguments made for keeping have been much stronger than deleting, and Dallavid followed by creating this report against Olympian on December 6. This situation appears more about shutting Olympian out of editing based on misrepresentations. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

After doing some research, it appears that the ru-wiki version or I guess anything close comparable to Olympian's article is titled Ethnic cleansing and pogroms during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920). Even the az-wiki version is called Ethnic cleansing and massacres during the Armenian-Azerbaijani war (1918-1920). Both interwikis treat the clashes, massacres and ethnic cleansing from both sides, which is quite telling. Why did Olympian choose to name/write the article so one-sided? Maybe it has something to do with using those denialist sources. It's also important to note that arguably the most reliable source in the whole article, esteemed historian Taner Akçam, calls these massacres exaggerated or outright fabrications (p 329-330). Moreover, Olympian nominated the article for GA as soon as they created it, with all the denialist sources in the article including the Turkish "tourist" website. Olympian basically chose to write an article which promotes an artificially distilled view that Armenians were THE ethnic cleansers, citing several extremely poor sources, and skipping virtually everything that happened to Armenians by the hands of Azerbaijanis, which is WP:CIR at best and POV pushing at worst. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 23:07, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Olympian

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Support sanctions due to contributions that at the very least seem to bolster Armenian genocide denialist claims. And expressing these as representative of scholarly consensus, which they most certainly are not. El_C 19:21, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Olympian, indeed, you did remove them. Sorry for missing that. Struck with apologies. It's odd you've ended up with sources of that nature, but it's an odd world. El_C 01:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Dallavid, again, it's an odd world, where different countries/locales might promote different sources, including ones where denialist-leaning narratives, which are obviously contrary to the prevailing historiography elsewhere, are preeminent. Who knows. It's within the realm of possibility. Maybe they had a teacher or teachers with that bent. Whatever it might be. I'm not gonna speculate; it's not really relevant. But if it was pointed out to them and they went on to remove those sources, then what other issues remain? Them having replaced, as you had put it, a "tourist site" with a scholarly piece makes sense in that context (i.e. when unbeknownst it's fringe scholarship). Jörg Baberowski is unhinged, though,[8] no denying that. El_C 00:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Saucysalsa30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

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

AE section

Log

Administrator imposing the sanction

Acroterion (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Diff

Statement by Saucysalsa30

I was given a topic ban primarily on the basis of false accusations and misrepresentations that I refuted and addressed in the AE section. The details are in my comments there.

It was becoming clear in AE that my addressing and refuting the accusations was not fully read or understood by the imposing admin. After the TBAN, I asked them about it on their Talk page, demonstrating again as an example how the primary accusation regarding Peter Galbraith was false and misrepresented (other accusations and the overall substance were also refuted on the AE section). I was confused they said I "failed to address the substance of the complaint"[9], which was extreme, considering my comments mostly refuted the overall complaint made in AE.

The AE section also pointed the other crux of the complaint justifying the sanction, in August on Talk:Anfal_campaign, where a whole consensus and RfC were opposed to [accuser]'s disruptive editing and on my side, where [accuser] lashed out at myself and other editors. The imposing admin perhaps misunderstood agreements and constructive discussions there that led to positive article changes as "bludgeoning". It seemed interpreted that long comments with sources and building agreement, such as Buidhe and GregKaye can attest, equals bludgeoning, when in fact we were aligned and in agreement. I now see how that can be misinterpreted. In reality [accuser] was actually bludgeoning against full consensus which seemed missed. My comments and consensus building led to substantial improvements by editors to an article in poor shape. In that matter things only went south when [accuser] stalked me, made a lengthy PA against me, and followed by attacking multiple editors and bludgeoning. Novem Linguae apologized to me and labeled [accuser]'s activity as a negative on the Talk page.[10] My responses to [accuser] on Talk:Anfal_campaign were refuting their off-topic PA and aspersions which other editors condemned as disruptive, and on AE I only included some history of [accuser]'s harassment against me to show it is a longtime norm and not an uninvolved editor. This included the most recent occasion on Peter Galbraith in October, where [accuser] stalked me to the article where he had no prior activity and was disruptive (with the respective false accusations refuted on AE). Acroterion at least conceded on the Peter Galbraith matter, which was the primary accusation and the other of the "behaviors" justifying the sanction, although with "litigate individual issues away" [11], which was not my aim.

The error uncontroversially made: I apologize for "taking the bait"[12] which led to all this, by someone who has harassed me for a couple years. I should've known better and it was an error on my part. I have had no similar issues with other editors and vice versa. I acknowledge a decision was made and that regardless of mixed justification on their Talk page that there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is "wait out the time", then all good. Happy Holidays! Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion The "tendentious editing" was entirely addressed, to the point of demonstrating that an entire consensus, on the Talk page and from an RfC created by the accuser, was on my side against the accuser who was POV-pushing , making PAs, and bludgeoning against consensus to force their personal views on an article. Also, restoring NPOV with agreement from editors as Buidhe, I, and others did is the opposite of "tendentious". Are casting aspersions really necessary, like Acroterion did on their Talk page[13]? Does Acroterion have any evidence that this "approach" hasn't changed? Is acquiescing to POV pushers providing no sourcing and labelling well-sourced, uncontroversial fact as "fringe" consisting of "tendentious editing"?

"which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon"

No, this is incorrect, and is evidence of inattention. Two different situations. I was "right" because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refuted accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as "litigating". Nothing to do with ArbCom.

Acroterion has the ArbCom situation mixed up too, because I didn't provide "private evidence". The accuser did, which was accusing me of making a real-life threat against them, which ArbCom threw out because it was a ridiculous lie. [14][15] I pointed it out in AE to show a recent extreme instance of blatant lying against me by that user, like the AE section was full of and proven as such. To be clear, it was the accuser, not me, who provided "private evidence". I didn't provide "private evidence" to ArbCom, but only let them know, on Barkeep49's advice, with diffs that the accuser was deceitful[16].

Acroterion's statement demonstrates that the sanction is at least in large part the result of negligence or inattention, considering the admission that the decision was based on misunderstanding who did what and tying together two separate matters, while ignoring what the argument was based on. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 20:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins: TheTimesAreAChanging is who originally reported me and is rehashing the same refuted accusations from their AE report. Nothing new is added in their statement here and is largely off-topic. Yes, I did admit to some wrongdoing, to answer the derisive questions, in my entire time on Wikipedia since TheTimes is canvassing it all, but considering Acroterion as demonstrated in my last comment mixed up what TheTimes did with what I did, there was evident confusion on admins' part on what happened and who did what. My first line in my opening statement[17] pointed to the exact AE section where all of that was already proven. The plethora of diffs are there, so TheTimes saying "no diffs" is wrong. Also contrary to TheTimes' claim, I did provide some diffs again, such as Acroterion's "litigating" comment[18] in my opening statement. Here are a few diffs from the AE report as requested[19][20][21][22] The off-topic accusations will be addressed in a collapsed section.

• • "This was highly misleading, and the misleading, attacking, bludgeoning and disrupting of the process here appears to be a reflection of the problem."

Swarm's comment from the AE report had nothing to do with TheTimes' hounding being proven as "false". TheTimes is attempting to link together separate things. What Swarm was referring to about being misleading was about stylized usernames. Because I didn't know non-admins could have stylized usernames regarding a user who repeatedly told TheTimes to stop , Swarm assumed bad faith and called this misleading. Explanation: [23] "If you're referring to HandThatFeeds, it's new to me that non-admins could have stylized usernames (I've only seen admins have those), so that was an error on my part, not a false claim". It was also already proven in the original AE report that an admin, EvergreenFir, did warn TheTimes[24][25], so Swarm's statement "falsely claim that OP has been warned for that" is wrong.

• • "use talk pages to indulge in lengthy speculation about living subjects "attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," without sources?"

This is regarding Peter Galbraith and is entirely false and already addressed in the original AE report[26] and on the Talk page[27]. TheTimes falsely accused me of saying "Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest", and that this was "introduced by User:Saucysalsa30" [28]. I never called him a liar, and his financial conflict of interest was originally added to the article in 2009 with a whole article section dedicated to it and improved upon since[29][30] and two Talk page discussions![31][32] How can I "introduce" something that was on the article for 13 years? My edits did not touch that section either. This example among others, especially should make clear how TheTimes repeats the same refuted falsehoods.

• • I ask TheTimesAreAChanging to make a factual, sincere statement when making accusations, which they have not achieved to date. That their statement comprised repeated, refuted misrepesentations and falsities, also refuted before in the original AE report, demonstrates the weak and deceptive nature of their original report which had misled or confused the admin, as already shown with diffs. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

I see nothing new here, nor do I see evidence that SaucySalsa30 has changed their tendentious approach to Wikipedia, which is the source of their sanction, and which they've never addressed. This appears to be a shorter continuation of their approach to the initial sanctions request, which consisted of arguing that they were right and that other editors should be sanctioned, based on private evidence that ArbCom did not act upon, and that their sanction must be the result of negligence or inattention to the correctness of their conduct. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A note to Saucysalsa30 concerning the topic ban: your edits [58] [59] to 1971 Iraq poison grain disaster are skating on the edge of your topic ban, since the topic touches Kurdistan. Please be more careful, "broadly construed" means just that, please do not explore boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheTimesAreAChanging

Simple question: Does Saucysalsa30 acknowledge any wrongdoing or room for improvement?

• "I was 'right' because I was leading consensus and significant improvements to articles, and had demonstrated that the accuser was in fact actively hounding, making personal attacks, engaging in tendentious editing against consensus, which was the disruptive editing. Then made blatantly false and refused accusations in the AE report that Acroterion didn't disagree was misrepresented/false, but waved this away as 'litigating'."

The above statement, presented without diffs, is concerning in that it is entirely counterfactual to the record established by the prior AE report, where Saucysalsa30's allegations of WP:HOUNDING were examined in detail and found to be false or supported: "This was highly misleading, and the misleading, attacking, bludgeoning and disrupting of the process here appears to be a reflection of the problem."

In the future, will Saucysalsa30 continue to use talk pages to indulge in lengthy speculation about living subjects "attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," without sources? Or to incorrectly imply that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre (declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents to the contrary be damned)?

To be fair, as Jayron32 recently noted in an entirely separate proceeding, "[p]eople are generally given latitude to argue on talk pages, even to argue clearly incorrect things, on talk pages, so long as they otherwise obey WP:TPG and don't extend into edit warring in article text, bludgeoning discussions, etc." However, many users—not just Acroterion and myself—have a well-founded belief that Saucysalsa30 regularly goes way over that line. (See, for example, these diffs commenting on Saucysalsa30's talk page behavior by the admins EvergreenFir, Black Kite, Drmies, and Swarm, as well as similar comments by editors Qahramani44, Praxidicae, and Paradise Chronicle.) Again, this begs the question: Did Saucysalsa30 do anything wrong—or is everyone else just out to get him?

While this appeal is markedly more civil in tone than Saucysalsa30's prior contributions, "I acknowledge a decision was made and that ... there is reason to defend one's already-made decision. If the response to this appeal is 'wait out the time', then all good" is also a concerning statement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dallavid

Seeing as how Saucysalsa30 just made a personal attack against me in the discussion above ("This situation appears more about shutting Olympian out of editing based on misrepresentations"), it would seem that EvergreenFir's warning to Saucysalsa30 from almost two years ago to stop vitriolic/combative personal attacks and battleground behavior is as relevant today as it was then. This appeal reads like a list of excuses and shows no self-awareness of the behavior that led to the topic ban. --Dallavid (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Saucysalsa30

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Saucysalsa30

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning 192.80.162.118

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

192.80.162.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

1. 10:22, 6 December 2022: First edit incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a false report".
2. 10:09, 7 December 2022: First revert incorrectly accusing a living subject of "publish[ing] a misleading article" and "spreading false news".
3. 01:06, 9 December 2022: First revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
4. 04:50, 11 December 2022: Second revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.
5. 11:08, 11 December 2022: Third revert after being notified of discretionary sanctions on 10:02, 8 December 2022.

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

192.80.162.118 refuses to stop editing warring/reinstating unverified original research by way of WP:SYNTH/WP:COATRACK material to The New York Times journalist Farnaz Fassihi's WP:BLP, even after it has been patiently, exhaustively explained to them on the talk page that this is a violation of Wikipedia's content policies. The thrust of the edits is to disparage Fassihi for co-authoring a New York Times article related to the ongoing Mahsa Amini protests that had an arguably overstated headline which was modified before Fassihi even contributed to the article, based on tweets and secondary sources that do not directly refer to the article (except for one source that mentions the original headline in passing), none of which mention Fassihi's name. I am requesting that 192.80.162.118 be banned from Fassihi's page to prevent further disruption to the encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning 192.80.162.118

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by 192.80.162.118

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 192.80.162.118

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.