User talk:Shirshore

April 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Badhan, Sanaag, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from disruptive editing. There is a longstanding consensus where Somaliland-related articles are to be marked as Somaliland. Dabaqabad (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Togdheer, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jacob300 (talk) 07:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification

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 Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). 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.

Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of interest I was under the impression that these sanctions expired on 1st March, 2021. Are they still in effect? Amirah talk 02:10, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reported for edit warring

Hello User:Shirshore. Please consider responding to the complaint about you at WP:AN3. If you continue to edit war regarding Somalia versus Somaliland you are risking an indefinite block from Wikipedia. The question of Somaliland versus Somalia has been the topic of many previous discussions and you're not at liberty to ignore the past consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:15, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Erigavo and other pages related to Horn of Africa

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Please note you may indefinitely blocked if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. ✗plicit 01:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I was not aware of this feature. I tried to move the page now but since I have already created a page under the desired name I don't think it possible anymore. Can you delete the page Baho-Nugaaled if you can please? maybe that would be a solution. It's a new page and it doesn't contain much history.

Regards,

Shirshore (talk) 01:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Buhoodle District

added a link pointing to Darood

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kiin Jama

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Kiin Jama requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Mccapra (talk) 09:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Hi Shirshore! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Dhulbahante that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David Biddulph. That's noted thanks. Shirshore (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Dhulbahante

added a link pointing to Ayn

Garad Saleban Garad Mohamed

added a link pointing to Ayn

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar, you may be blocked from editing. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Dhahar and Badhan. --Siirski (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jacob300 (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Hello @Shirshore:,

Seeing how we've been going back and forth here without any results I'd just like to suggest a compromise that will hopefully satisfy us both:

1. Infoboxes and short descriptions remain as they were before this content dispute occurred (i.e Somaliland) since control in the far eastern areas is less fluid with both sides having influence, troops and projects in place, and influence is not something that can be reflected in an infobox.
2. For towns under full Somaliland control (i.e Las Anod, Taleh) mentions of the dispute are to be relegated to its own dedicated section.
3. For towns where Somaliland and Puntland both have influence and where the situation is less solid (i.e Badhan, Las Khorey, Buuhoodle) the dispute can also be added to the introduction right below the infobox, after the main introduction describing the location of the towns, with more information about the dispute on its dedicated section (see point 4)
4. All the towns in the disputed territory are to have a section dedicated to the Puntland-Somaliland dispute that briefly touches on the topic, with a "Further information" template leading the reader to the Puntland-Somaliland dispute article. AGREED
5. The Sanaag and Sool articles are to have a section dedicated to the dispute however the introductions are to be restored to how it was before this content dispute, similar to point 4.
6. Any addition or removal of content needs to be discussed on the associated talk pages beforehand. AGREED

I hope this compromise is a compromise we can both agree to. If you have any objections or if you want to make any changes to it then let me know. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dabaqabad,

Thank you for suggesting a compromise. Provided we're both serious and earnest, undoubtably we're a capable of compromising. I for one, I'm confident we can transcend this impasse and reach consensus regarding the matter at dispute, while moving forward, I'm hopeful we will be able to work together in constructively contributing to a reliable encyclopedia.

Regarding the terms of the compromise you set out, I do not find them all acceptable. I agree to point 4 and 6.

First, as I have reiterated in our previous discussions, I do not believe Somaliland has effective control in the places you mentioned, but that's another debate, let's discuss it later.

Second, I need you to understand and agree to the situation of territorial dispute. The regions of Sool, and Eastern Sanaag and Buuhoodle District are disputed by Somaliland and Puntland - both entities claim ownership. Presently, Somaliland has effective control in most of the disputed territory, I do not dispute this. Puntland controls major centres in Sanaag and partially controls parts of Sool. The city of Buuhoodle and its vicinity is controlled by local inhabitants independently of both entities.

Now I believe in the pursuit of fairness and neutrality, both Somaliland and Puntland should have equal representation in all the articles of the towns, cities, and regions in the disputed territory. In this regard, I offer the following counter terms for a compromise.

For all articles concerning towns/cities and the two regions in the disputed territory:

1. The infobox should not mention Somaliland nor Puntland. It should only provide non-politcal information (i.e population, time zone, elevation etc.).
2. The introductory sections should equally mention both Somaliland and Puntland's claim to the city/town in a fair and impartial tactful terminology/phrasing.
3. There should be a section dedicated to the territorial dispute. AGREED
4. Any addition or removal of content needs to be discussed on the associated talk pages beforehand. AGREED

--- Toghdeer:

5. The Togdheer article must mention Puntland's claim to Buuhoodle district in a section dedicated to the dispute.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Many thanks, Shirshore (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Some towns are not under the effective control of both Somaliland and Puntland, with both sides having a presence there and frequently clashing. In the case of Sanaag, Puntland does indeed have an influence in the eastern parts however then again so does Somaliland, which makes for a very fluid situation. In the case of Sool, it is safe to say that Puntland barely has any influence there, if any at all. For example, the locality of Shaxda, which is a mere 6km away from the border with former Italian Somaliland ([1]) registering to vote for Somaliland's parliamentary elections, reported by sources from both Somaliland and Puntland (SL: [2] PL: [3]).

1. The infobox will have to be political as that is what infoboxes are for. We would have to stick to the previous version since there is no other better alternative, and influence can't really be highlighted on an infobox given the fluid situation in some towns with no clear controller. However, we could add an {{efn}} tag right next to Somaliland on the infoboxes of Badhan and Las Khorey that explain that Puntland has significant influence in the towns. This would fulfill both our wishes as it would highlight just how fluid the control of the town is. See the tag next to Somalia on Somalis as an example.
2. The issue here again is it depends. Some towns are under Somaliland's full control like Las Anod or Taleh so adding that to the introductory section would be a bit redundant while other towns like Badhan are more complicated, with both Somaliland and Puntland present. We could add that to the introductory sections of the more "fluid" towns like Badhan and Las Khorey to highlight that fact since the situation there is more tense. Then is the fact that the articles are not about the dispute per se, but rather the towns themselves. I think we can work something out on this point.

As for Togdheer; it could be argued that Buuhoodle is a separate region, recognized as such sometimes by both Somaliland (as Buuhoodle region in Somaliland's Regional Cups) and as Cayn region by Puntland (which is again confusing considering that in Puntland's constitution it is referenced as part of Togdheer). Dabaqabad (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dabaqabad, thank you for the response.

Both puntland and Somaliland have control in towns/cities in the disputed territory, I agree this control is often times fluid. However, we disagree on the specific places either entity has assumed effective control or operate nominally.

I suggest that we adopt an objective standard to determine this by relying on trusted sources. As I have previously mentioned in our discussions, stories by BBC, VOA, Al Jazeera etc. will suffice. Local media and unverified online blogs are often biased and cannot objectively be relied upon. Thus, utilising these sources would inevitably lead us down a rabbit hole.

For example, in the town of Taleh the sources you cite suggest Somaliland is operating here effectively, while similar sources such as Radio Daljir rather suggest Puntland has effective control of the town with the implementation of a road project just recently ([4]). According to European Asylum Support Office, both entities had nominal control of the town as of September 2015 ([5])([6]). Undoubtably this is more reliable, hence why I believe we should depend on similar publications to determine the entity which has actual control of a specific place or the nominal influence exerted by either of the two.

Nevertheless, let's first reach consensus on a neutral format for the articles, then we can debate which entity has control in a particular place or not.

Regarding the terms of the compromise, again I do not find them acceptable. As Wikipedia editors we cannot subjectively determine which claim to the disputed territory is more legitimate, thus we must ensure both entities are fairly represented in all the articles.

For all articles concerning the disputed territory:

1. Infobox must locate the place within the entity that has effective control + it must show the other entity which lays claim to the place. See Galkayo, we can insert Country as Somaliland, Regional State as Puntland with {{efn}} tag or brackets showing Puntland is part of Somalia.
2. The introductory section must state which has effective control, and which lays claim. This is important for readers.

This can be applied throughout all articles where there is effective control or nominal control is exerted by either entity.

Regarding Buuhoodle District, I can agree to creating a new article for Cayn/Buuhoodle as a separate region. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The territorial control map that you displayed proves my point when it comes to the issue of control; Taleh and Buuhoodle (Buuhoodle is also marked as under Somaliland control by the situation map in the Somali Civil War article [7]) are marked as fully controlled by Somaliland, with the same marker used for undisputed towns like Caynaba and Ceelafweyn, while the towns of Badhan and Dhahar are similarly marked as under Somaliland control while the wider district itself is marked as shared. Another issue is with your comparison to Galkayo; Galkayo is split in half between Puntland and Galmudug, who have full control over their own half. They both recognize this line and sometimes cooperate when it comes to security for example. However, there is no line dividing Badhan, Dhahar and Las Khorey.

This strengthens my position when it comes to the infoboxes of these two towns and Laasqoray; marking Somaliland as the sovereign country while an efn tag right next to it would explain that it is partially under the control of Puntland. This would highlight both sides of the dispute; and mention both Somaliland's claim and Puntland's claim. Puntland should already be familiar and its status is already covered in its own article so adding that it is a federal member state of Somalia would be redundant and not necessary. Since Somaliland is the seceded entity we would have to mark these towns as Somaliland (for example North Kosovo, a Serb majority region in Kosovo controlled by Serbia is still marked as Kosovo to denote the sovereign country, see the towns of Leposavić and Zvečan) This "Kosovo approach" is in line with standard Wikipedia policy.

As for Cayn; some areas of it are disputed while others like Qoorlugud and Odanleh are not. I believe the Ayn article was deleted earlier and redirected to the Buhoodle District article, where you could add information regarding the dispute to. Dabaqabad (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad, First, if you seriously want to reach consensus you must make effort to be honest and impartial about the situation on the ground otherwise we'll just go around in circles. I don't believe you're being serious enough here. It's difficult to discuss the matter if you're steadfast in your conviction even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.

Second, the map I displayed really does not prove your point, if it did I would happily admit it. Maybe have another look at it again? Similarly, the situational map in the Somali Civil War article does not support your argument either, please take another look at it. Furthermore, this situational map should not be on Wikipedia, it seems that it amounts to original research since it's been posted by an editor.

Third, Somaliland cannot be compared to Kosovo, the entity is still internationally recognise as a territory of Somalia. It might be a de facto state, but it's de jure part of Somalia. To state Somaliland is a sovereign country is also an over statement. Accordingly, Somaliland's claim to the disputed territory is no more legitimate than Puntland's claim, hence, my argument that both entities should receive equal treatment in these articles. Please do not get me wrong, I do not have a problem with Somaliland, this is just the facts as we speak.

Fourth, my offer to a compromise still stands.

Fifth, I agree with you on the Togdheer/Buuhoodle District matter. I will reinstate the Cayn article, if you're okay with it?

Many thanks, Shirshore (talk) 21:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely impartial. I am 100% committed to a compromise that suits us both, however it needs to be in respect to the situation on the ground, which I have explained to you. You need to be assuming good faith here as I am doing right now, or otherwise this will be hard. Same way I have conceded you'll have to concede as well in order for us to be able to reach a consensus.

I have shown evidence to back up everything I have said. As for the map, it does prove my point, especially if you look at the markers of the disputed towns, as does the situational map on the Somali Civil War map which has existed in various forms since 2006 and is reliable from what I can tell. All situational maps are posted by editors, you do know that as well?

I did not compare Somaliland's status with Kosovo which are different, I agree. I merely pointed out that an approach similar to North Kosovo (who's situation is similar) would be a good approach that will accurately and in a neutral manner showcase the situation at hand. Somaliland is recognized as a de facto sovereign state, that is indisputable. It is sovereign in the sense that it fully controls its territory, affairs and is independent in all aspects. In my proposal Somaliland and Puntland would be given equal treatment in that both would be mentioned as well as a history of military clashes both have been involved in however the situation on the ground needs to be reflected. This is as neutral as it gets.

As for the Cayn article, sure. Go ahead. Dabaqabad (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen: Since you were part of the discussion earlier maybe you could give your two cents as well? As an informal third opinion or arbitrator. Dabaqabad (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad, I'd be happy to concede whenever you present solid evidence to back your claim. I expect you to extend me the same treatment. So far we're having difficult in realising this. I'd happy be to include an impartial third party in the discussion. Moreover, I can assure you I have assumed good faith, and I intend to continue to do so. Shirshore (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Anyways, according to the European Asylum Support Group, Somaliland and Puntland both have influence in eastern Sanaag region, and to quote; "Both Somaliland and Puntland have influence in the very east of the Ceerigaabo district and the very west of the Laasqoray district"([8]). I'll also drop solid evidence that proves either Somaliland control or presence in the the following towns:

Taleh:

A BBC article that reports on Somaliland's takeover ([9])
A VOA article that reports on Somaliland's takeover ([10])
Somaliland's president Muse Bihi Abdi's visit to the town ([11])
Campaigning for Somaliland's presidential elections in the town ([12])
SLNTV reports on Celebration of Somaliland's independence day in Taleex ([13])
Voting registration for Somaliland's parliamentary elections in Taleex ([14])
SLNTV reports on Somaliland's government donating food for 600 families in Taleex ([15])
Saab TV reports on Somaliland's government donating water to Taleex resident ([16])

Badhan:

27th Commemoration Day of the Somaliland National Armed Forces by Somaliland police in Badhan ([17])
Somali Channel TV reports on the celebration of Somaliland's independence day in Badhan ([18])
SLNTV reporting on Somaliland governor inside Badhan congratulating Badhan residents on the occasion of Somaliland's independence day ([19])
SLNTV reporting on Somaliland-affiliated mayors of Badhan and Las Khorey holding a press conference in Badhan ([20])
SLNTV reporting on a Somaliland-sponsored shir or gathering in Badhan ([21])
Bulsho TV reporting on Somaliland Ministry of Education donating school books to schools in Badhan ([22])
Eryal TV reporting on the naming of a Badhan native as Somaliland Minister of Justice with Somaliland police and soldiers present ([23])
Somaliland-affiliated mayor in Badhan welcomed by crowds ([24])
SLNTV reporting voting registration (even though it was limited due to Puntland, as I have mentioned before) ([25])
Somaliland Ministry of Health present in Badhan town ([26])
Somaliland-affiliated Badhan Local Council announces renovation of a Badhan highschool courtyard ([27])
Universal Somali TV reporting on Somaliland authorities building a road connecting Badhan to Laasqoray ([28])
Voting registration in Badhan ahead of Somaliland's presidential elections in 2017 ([29])
Number of voters in Badhan in said elections ([30])

Dhahar:

News article reporting on Somaliland's takeover ([31])
Horn Cable Television reporting on Somaliland Custodial Corps inside the town ([32])
SBC Somali TV reporting on Somaliland Deputy Minister of Transportation present for the establishment of a Somaliland military base in Dhahar ([33])
Horn Cable TV reporting on the Somaliland Minister of Transportation inside Dhahar announcing infrastructure projects in the town ([34])
A First Lieutenant of the 93rd division of the Somaliland Armed Forces based in Dhahar ([35])
Horn Cable TV reporting on governor of Puntland's Haylan region condemning the establishment of a Somaliland Armed Forces military base in the southern part of the town ([36])
Somaliland Deputy Minister of Transportation in Dhahar town ([37])
Clashes between Somaliland and Puntland (to quote: "Puntland security forces in nearly 24 trucks, most mounted with heavy weapons, attacked the town of Dahar early Monday morning")([38])
SLNTV reporting voting registration ([39])

Las Khorey:

BBC reporting on former president Siilaanyo and Minister of Health Suleiman Haglotosiye visiting the town ([40])
SLNTV reports Somaliland authorities visiting several localities in eastern Sanaag including Laasqoray for voting registration ([41])
Somaliland authorities in Laasqoray ([42])
Universal Somali TV reporting on Somaliland authorities building a road connecting Badhan to Laasqoray ([43])
SLNTV reports on Somaliland-affiliated Laasqoray Local Council in Laasqoray town ([44])
SLNTV reports on former president Siilaanyo's visit to Laasqoray town (who remains the only president of both Puntland and Somaliland who has visited the town) ([45])
Djiboutian news site reports on Somaliland's Coast Guard blocking a vessel operated by the Dutch company which trains the Somali Coast Guard from entering Laasqoray ([46])
Somaliland Minister of Fisheries in Laasqoray town ([47])
Somaliland Minister of Fisheries in Laasqoray town ([48])
Somaliland military base in Laasqoray ([49])

This should hopefully prove to you that Somaliland has a large presence in Las Khorey, Badhan and Dhahar. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for inviting me to this discussion. It is good to see that the two of you are discussing the issues constructively and have reached agreement on some points. It appears that the main areas where consensus still needs to be reached are infoboxes and lede. IMO for settlement infoboxes the geographical location should be included in the infobox. It should also be mentioned in the lede. I think it is better not to use 'control' as a parameter, but fine to briefly summarize control issues and territorial disputes as a footnote if they are substantiated and reliably sourced in the text, and seem likely to continue for some time.

When editing articles about settlements it is useful to consider the age and size of the settlement in the context of current and recent events in order to gain perspective over their importance to the article. You can even go back before there was a settlement in the area if you wish and if you can find reliable sources. Why did people first settle there, what resources were in the area, landscape, flora and fauna, natural resources, climate etc. how has that changed over time, culture, local sports, education, traditions, transport networks, housing, commerce, agriculture, employment. The list goes on and on. I'm not trying to detract from the issues which you see as most important, but it could help to work together on some neutral ground and develop the articles to show a more complete picture.

Somali speakers are particularly valuable to the project for this reason, because it tends to be controversial issues such as conflict which finds it way into English language sources. It's unfortunate that many Somali speaking editors have had bans or lost interest due to their edits being repeatedly reverted over NPOV issues when attempting to edit articles about their own country, and the fact that the two of you survived the recent Admin noticeboard discussion with only a warning and are now holding this discussion to reach consensus is a credit to both of you. It's important to continue to work together and be patient and it should be possible to reach consensus on all issues. I think to proceed with caution on User:Dabaqabad's points 4, 5 and 6 which User:Shirshore has agreed upon at this point would also help, as it would take the discussion to the article talk pages and then begin the process of doing some article editing. When actively editing, if any edits are reverted or disputed, we should go straight back to talk pages and discuss until consensus is reached.

Amirah talk 01:17, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: I think we were both editing at the same time, so I posted this without having read your comment of 00:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC). You have done a lot of work here in retrieving these sources. I will wait now to give User:Shirshore a chance to see these posts and respond before discussing further. Amirah talk 01:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ Dabaqabad.

Badhan:

The news reports you've cited relate to Somaliland activities in the city over a long period of almost a decade. This being a volatile region, the security situation has often times changed. Nonetheless, I agree local officials who are loyal to Somaliland do operate in the city, however, militarily Somaliland's influence was significantly weakened when few hundred troops who were previously loyal to Somaliland defected to Puntland in 2019. As Mahmood reports ' while the Warsengali have established relations with both Somaliland and Puntland, the clan has generally resisted the deployment of armed forces in their areas. The events of 2019, interlinked with internal Somaliland dynamics, altered the previous status quo ' ([50]), p.13. As of January 2021 Puntland again solidified it's control of the city, when it deployed troops in attempt to prevent Somaliland from conducting upcoming elections in the city. The following media reports confirm Puntland's recent military grip in Badhan:

Somalia's Puntland Army Takes Over Badhan to Block Somaliland Parliamentary, Municipal Elections ([51]); January 1, 2021.
Puntland Darawish forces take over Badhan town ([52]); January 24, 2021.
Somaliland defectors join Puntland, according to Puntland military officials ([53]); October 30, 2020.
Somaliland, Military Commander, Nuh Ismail Tani speaks about the defecting forces in Badhan ([54]); August 25, 2019.
Puntland Police, conduct operations in Badhan city ([55]); June 14, 2019.
Commander Yassin Osman Saleh, announces that his forces have defected to Puntland ([56]); August 23, 2019.
Puntland seizes Somaliland Police Headquarters in Balibusle, Sanaag region ([57]. June 1, 2019.
Somaliland Commander in Badhan appears in Puntland Media to confirm his troop's new loyalty Puntland ([58]. February 5, 2019.
Puntland ranks Somaliland army defectors ([59]). May 32, 2019.
Somaliland appointed mayor of Badhan says Somaliland has neglected defectors who have all joined Puntland ([60]). August 23, 2019.

Further reports confirming Puntland's control of Badhan:

Puntland holds ministerial cabinet meeting chaired by President Abdiweli Gaas in Badhan ([61]); September 20, 2018.
Somaliland leaders including opposition parties condemn Puntland President’s visit to Badhan in a joined press conference ([62]; September 21, 2018.
President Said Abdullahi Dani launches a campaign to raise funds for the Erigavo-Badhan-El Dahir Road ([63]); January 6, 2021.
Somali Minister of Planning and International Co-operation, Gamal Mohamed Hassan visits Badhan ([64]); January 3, 2018.

There are also limitless other daily news reports which back this claim.

Puntland controls lands east of Badhan including Las Qoray. Here's a report about the Puntland police station in Las Qoray for instance ([65]). Also in my knowledge Puntland effectively controls Dhahar but while there are abundant news reports, there is no concrete sources which confirm my prior argument regarding the city. Thus, I can concede that both entities exert nominal control in the city. Moreover, you should be aware that this nominal control is not limited to the towns/cities we mentioned thus far. There are news reports which suggest in places such as Buraan, Hadaftimo, Yubbe, Damala Hagare, Armale, Hingalol in Sanaag and Sarmaanyo, Taleh, Xudun, Boocame in Sool control is often fluid with both Somaliland and Puntland maintaining representatives and conducting operations.

Regarding the infobox and the introductory section of these articles, I still hold that both entities should be represented equally.

Many thanks, Shirshore (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AmirahBreen:, thank you for taking part in the discussion. I appreciate your input. Shirshore (talk) 02:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirshore: Most sources describe Sool and Sanaag as part of Somaliland, and the infobox will have to reflect that given that both regions are part of the seceded polity. Examples include Wageningen University and Research ([66]), the Canada Immigration and Refugee board ([67]), the Combatting Terrorism Center ([68]), Interpeace ([69]), ACAPS ([70]), African Journals Online ([71]), and Coverage Monitoring ([72]). This position is further affirmed by Marcus Hoehne who has written many books about the territorial dispute ([73]), Michael Walls who also covers Somaliland-related topics ([74]) as well as Amnesty International ([75])

Other sources that back up this claim are linked here; ([76], [77], [78], [79],

Even the government of Somalia sees these two regions as part of Somaliland and has opted out from getting involved in the territorial dispute. Former president of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud stated his opinion whilst in office that Puntland is made up of two and a half regions (Bari, Nugal and northern Mudug), which goes against Puntland's claim of Sool and Sanaag.

Furthermore, in preparation for the Somali presidential election of 2017 the communiqué released by the office of Presidency of Somalia regarding Somalia's National Leadership Forum referred to the disputed territory as Gobollada Sool iyo Sanaag ee Soomaaliland (Somaliland's Sool and Sanaag regions). Somalia's National Leadership Forum was chaired by the President of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, and attended by the Speaker of Parliament Mohamed Osman Jawari, Prime Minister Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, Presidents of South West, Galmudug, Hirshabelle, states of Somalia and the Vice President of Puntland state.

As for Badhan most of my sources are post-2019, which proves that despite defections and military incursions Somaliland still maintains a significant presence in Badhan. I made an edit to Dhahar as an example to show you what I have in mind, just as an example. Hopefully that should be acceptable. Dabaqabad (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad:.

I don't doubt there plenty publications which place these regions within Somaliland. Similarly, there are abundant publications which locate them in Puntland. That's not the point of contention. As I have reiterated my argument is both entities stake their claim in these regions, hence the territorial dispute. We must ensure readers are provided with accurate and fair information. Accordingly, the infobox and introductory section of the articles must reflect this.

Moreover, the Somali Federal Government acknowledges that these regions are part of Puntland. The fact that MPs that represent the regions in the Federal Parliament are nominated by Puntland is evident enough of this.

Regarding Badhan, the new addition to your prior cited reports relates to Somaliland Police in Dhahar and not Badhan. I deduce that you can accept that at least militarily the city is currently in Puntland's control?

Regards, Shirshore (talk) 00:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of sources place these localities inside Somaliland, which should be reflected per Wikipedia policy to follow what the majority of sources say.

As for Badhan while I don't disagree that Puntland forces are present there the situation is too fluid to say that one side truly controls it. Puntland deploying troops into the town does not imply it has full military control over the town as that would imply Somaliland withdrew completely, which has not been announced anywhere and has not been mentioned.

For example, just yesterday schools in Badhan took Somaliland's national examinations ([80]) which further proves my point.

The issue is that the infoboxes can't really reflect the unique position that Badhan and Dhahar are in (e.g influence) unless you add an efn tag that explains that Puntland has influence or partial control over the town in question. Take a look at my previous exemplary edit on Dhahar for reference. Dabaqabad (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: If you can't compromise on the infobox and introductory section to reflect the claim of both Somaliland and Puntland, I don't know how else we can proceed with this. The efn tag you mention is not enough, this just elevates Somaliland's claim and relegates Puntland's claim. If you're ready to compromise we can figure something out to reflect the overlapping claims.

On Badhan, I provided enough sources which show that militarily the city is controlled by Puntland. You haven't provided any sources that demonstrate the contrary at least as of 2021. You don't seem to be able to concede here. The latest link you provide concerns examination taking place in other towns in 'Badhan region' and not Badhan city proper. Listen to the video, the officials clearly state the furthest east these exams will take place is Buraan. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Shirshore: I am ready to compromise however you don't seem to be cooperative. I have time and time again showed you proof that the situation is not one sided as you're making it seem. You claimed Puntland militarily controls the town and I have shown you plenty of evidence that shows the contrary. Even @AmirahBreen: has agreed that influence is not able to be portrayed on infoboxes.

Using an efn tag does not elevate anyones claim but rather points out Somaliland's partial control over the town. I don't know honestly how you're against that. On the introductory section we both agreed the situation would be explained there.

I just rewatched the video, the officials said the furthest east the exams are taking place are Buraan, Baraagaha Qol and towns in Dhahar's proximity, as well as the entirety of the Badhan area, including Badhan itself where they seem to be present. All these localities are further east than Badhan and are closer to the PL border (Badhan to Buraan [81], Badhan to Baraakta Qol [82], Badhan to Kaladhac which is a mere 3km from Somaliland's claimed border with Puntland [83]

Let me ping @El C:, @Jacob300:, @Buckshot06: and @Kzl55:, who are experienced with Somali articles to see what their thoughts on the matter is. Dabaqabad (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: If you're ready to compromise then please offer something worthy of consideration than efn tag. It's not possible to locate these places in Somaliland, and merely state Puntland has influence in a efn tag. I understand that influence cannot be shown in infoboxes that's why I suggested an amended version of the Galkayo article or maybe a form of the Kafia Kingi and Abyei area articles which are disputed by Sudan and south Sudan. A version similar to that of Abyei (town) article also seems to be a fair compromise.

Regarding Badhan, just provide a source which shows Somaliland's military presence in the city as of 2021.

Let me also ping @Heesxiisolehh:, @Freetrashbox:, and @SultanSanaag:, they seem to be informed about these regions too, it would be great if they could give us their in put. Shirshore (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained to you again and again and both me and @AmirahBreen: agreed to an efn tag. I have dropped many sources to prove that the situation isn't as one sided as you make it seem. The compromise needs to come from both sides, just like I have conceded you need to concede too. This whole compromise seems one sided.

Military presence does not equate to control, there's a reason the Gaza strip is referred to as an occupied territory despite Israel having no troops there. An area can be referred to as under an entity's full control if they control it military, economically and administratively. Please come to the table so we can figure out something we can both agree to.

And for your information; @SultanSanaag: has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: Obviously we're not getting very far here let's wait for other editors to gain their thoughts on this. Shirshore (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When two governments are both claiming ownership of a piece of land, two methods are often used in Wikipedia infobox.

One method is to write both the country that has effective control and the country that claims territorial rights. I think this method is more convenient. Hans Island, Paracel Islands, and Senkaku Islands are examples.

The other method is to write only the countries that are under effective control. Isla de Aves, Mayotte, and Olivenza are examples. This method seems to be more common in English Wikipedia.

I think there are few examples of writing only about countries that claim territorial rights.--Freetrashbox (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur with User:AmirahBreen, and believe that the geographical locations should be kept in the infobox. Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Many thanks Jacob300 (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Freetrashbox: While that's understandable, the issue at hand is who controls these towns, and I have proven that the situation is too fluid to conclude one side has control. Both sides have influence and influence can't really be described in an infobox like @AmirahBreen: pointed out. Dabaqabad (talk) 12:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: I think there is a way to avoid writing the names of both countries in order to prevent controversy. However, for many readers, it is helpful to write the names of both countries.--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad We have discussed the issue of control enough, and I think it's pretty obvious it's almost impossible to reach consensus regarding that. Let's end it there. Nonetheless, we both agree that both entities have significant influence in these disputed regions, the question now is how do we reflect that in the articles? My argument is neither claim should be elevated above the other, as it's not our job to determine which claim is more legitimate. In this regard, we should utilise the first method Freetrashbox mentions as we cannot ascertain effective control due to the fluidity of the situation in the disputed regions. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jacob300 please stop editing as you done with the Badhan article till consensus is reached. Thanks. Shirshore (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All Somaliland is disputed It is important to understand the point. I agree with Jacob300's proposal.

``Any additional information regarding "control" should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources.``

The Somali government does not recognize Somaliland as part of the federal states of Somalia. See [84]. --Siirski (talk) 23:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacob300: @Siirski: @Dabaqabad: Please stop making edits before consensus is reached here. As we have agreed we must engage on the talk pages before edits. Shirshore (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hi @Shirshore:,

Thank you for your message. I have reverted the edit on the Badhan, Sanaag page made by Natalie904 for the very reason of this consensus discussion still undergoing as stated in my edit summary [85].

Many thanks Jacob300 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it's appropriate to write Bahan's infobox following Hans Island's example. In this case, Administered by Disputed, Claimed by Somaliland/ Puntland.

Otherwise, if both Somaliland and Puntland have had a significant impact on the town in the last five years, it is advisable to treat the town as a disputed area.

The significant include the following;

Entry of the country's forces.
Entry of the minister of the country.
Conduct of elections.
An event was held to celebrate the country.
Provision of medical supplies and daily necessities in case of emergency.
Construction of roads and hospitals etc.
Change of military unit's affiliation to the other country.

--Freetrashbox (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd just like to say that I agree with @AmirahBreen:'s third opinion on this issue and deem it a suitable compromise where both claims are mentioned and the territorial dispute highlighted. The geographical location (Somaliland in this case since the wider regions are part of the seceded entity) should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding control or influence should be described in a "territorial disputes" dedicated to the dispute itself with cited reliable sources. This would adequately explain the situation and seems to be the majority opinion on this topic among the editors who have been discussing here for days. This issue should be dealt with and a consensus reached as soon as possible and this seems to be the suitable solution for this. Since no one side fully controls the disputed towns the geographical location should remain as it was before the edit war that ensued, with no good reason to change it. Dabaqabad (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should not confuse the issue of Somaliland's independence with the issue of East Sanaag's belonging. Somaliland is formally part of Somalia, but in practice it is an independent country. East Sanaag is formally part of the territory declared by Somaliland, but in practice, it has little loyalty to either Somaliland or Puntland. It is not neutral to treat Somaliland as an independent country on the one hand and treat East Sanaag as part of Somaliland on the other.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to international observers as well as the Somali government Sool and Sanaag regions are officially under Somaliland region exclusively and therefore should be kept in the infobox. Any information regarding on the ground control should be explained and elaborated on in a dedicated "territorial disputes" section with cited sources. Especially as on the ground control may shift over time. Thanks. Madarkis (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well it seems that 5 people (me, @AmirahBreen:, @Jacob300:, @Siirski: and @Madarkis:) out of 7 people are on board with this. Dabaqabad (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to reach an agreement, we should use Badhan's talk page. Wikipedia is not a majority rule, but we should respect the fact that many people here agree with you, even in new talk page sessions. I am sorry that I could not convince you.--Freetrashbox (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dabaqabad, this is a dispute between us, and obviously you're not interested in reaching consensus no matter how much I accommodate your demands. And please stop using @AmirahBreen:, she merely suggested the inclusion of the geographical location in the infobox and lede, which I can also agree to. You're bias to Somaliland is clear as you're not making any attempts to be neutral. I have repeated over and over, Somaliland's claim to these disputed regions is no more legitimate than Puntland's claim, hence you cannot geographically locate them in Somaliland because of your bias. Shirshore (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not once have you folded. This was originally between the two of us but as it seems now the majority of editors on this topic are now involved and the majority have agreed, therefore effectively reaching a consensus.

I have tried my best to reach a consensus but it's too one-sided: I'm always the one folding while you ask for more. Your Somalian nationalist POV certainly doesn't help.

I'd also advise you to refrain from reverting pages in the future while a consensus is being discussed. That can be classified as disruptive editing. Dabaqabad (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dabaqabad: My home wiki is the Japanese Wikipedia, so I am not familiar with the rules of the English Wikipedia, it is not polite to refer to your discussion partner as a nationalist, at least not on the Japanese Wikipedia. It is not polite to rewrite the infobox of the page under discussion as Somalia, but the same goes for reverting the infobox of the page under discussion back to Somaliland. For pages where the discussion is heated, it is necessary to leave it to a third party who is not involved in the discussion to decide which description is neutral or stable. At the very least, it would not be appropriate for someone who edits on a daily basis about Somaliland or Somalia.--Freetrashbox (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Freetrashbox: He has not assumed good-faith multiple times throughout this discussion, in addition to him accusing me of bias. The majority have agreed with the third party in question (@AmirahBreen:) so I assume that's the new consensus in place. All his edits were reverted by one of the people who were discussing here to the previous version before the edit war as we are discussing future additions, therefore the pages should be returned to their previous state. Dabaqabad (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that you cannot understand my explanation.--Freetrashbox (talk) 01:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion which may help to manage the pages under discussion. There is currently a Category:Puntland–Somaliland dispute. I suggest creating a sub-category, something like Category:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland and adding all the pages which refer to the disputed territory whether towns, cities or regions. That way you could use the category page to see at a glance all the pages which are involved, you could use the category talk-page to continue discussion as to how to treat these pages, and it would be easier once consensus is reached to refer any future editors of the pages to previous discussions. A note could also be made on each of the article talk pages to see the discussion on the category talk page. It is also a more neutral way of treating everyone in the discussion, rather than holding a lengthy discussion on a single editors talk page. I also think that the discussion here is getting difficult to follow, and if it were continued on a category talk page it could be broken down into smaller discussions such as infobox, lede and section on territorial dispute, which would help to reach consensus point by point and to keep the individual discussions more focussed.

I agree with User:Freetrashbox that involvement of editors who don't usually edit the subject area of Somalia and Somaliland may be beneficial, and getting more editors involved through dispute resolution processes and other methods can help. At present I do not think the discussion is heated, but it is in danger of becoming heated again because of it's length and complexity causing frustration. It can be helpful to encourage more editors to become involved, but if any editor who has not been involved in the current discussion decides to edit any of the pages at present, they could not be expected to know that this discussion is going on unless their attention is drawn to it, another good reason for taking this discussions to article and category talk pages. Articles or sections about which there are still issues regarding concern over NPOV and sourcing should be tagged to alert other editors. As for allegations that editors are allowing point of view (such as nationalist, secessionist or whatever) to effect their edits or their stance in discussion, these should be addressed on the editors talk page with links to evidence. I am not saying that anyone is doing this, but if another editor believes that they are, then it is perfectly acceptable to draw attention to it. It goes without saying that this should be done in a polite manner. Amirah talk 13:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections to this, I have created Category:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland and added Sool, Sanaag and Buhoodle District to it to begin with. I have also created the talk page, Category talk:Disputed territory between Somaliland and Puntland and opened discussions on Infoboxes, Lede and Territorial dispute section there. I have also added notes on the three article talk pages to alert editors of discussions on the category talk page which concern conformity across the category on certain issues. Amirah talk 16:15, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source required

Hello. I saw your edits. As you probably know, Wikipedia requires a source for its descriptions. Even if your description is based on a source already indicated in the article, it is advisable to write the name of the source in the edit summary to avoid misunderstandings.--Freetrashbox (talk) 05:53, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I will be adding a source. This is undisputed info nonetheless. Shirshore (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somaliland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hello, I'm Ue3lman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ethiopia seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ue3lman (talk) 00:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Cayn

added a link pointing to Sool

SSC Movement

added a link pointing to Unionist

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Kzl55 (talk) 19:26, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kzl55 (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shirshore. Thank you.--Kzl55 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

you are topic banned from Horn of Africa, broadly construed, with a possibility of appeal in six months

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/Horn_of_Africa#Amendment_(November_2021)#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. Ymblanter (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shirshore. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. 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 below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 Shirshore. Thank you. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notification: Clarification regarding details of your ban

Hi Shirshore,

If I see correctly, you are currently affected by a ban. In the description of the ban, a restriction is described that appears to prohibit you from appealing the ban earlier than six months.

I have noticed this restriction (six months before appealing) at WP:AELOG/2022. As I'm uncertain about whether such a restriction may be made at all, I have asked for advice at WP:ARCA#Clarification_request:_Appeal_restrictions_as_part_of_discretionary_sanctions.

If you agree with what is being said there, I think you can safely ignore this notification. If the arbitrators decide that the restriction is lifted, you'll be notified separately. You are welcome to provide an own statement too, though.

If you can't edit the page, please have a look at the instruction box at the top of the page for an e-mail option.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Change regarding a previous sanction

Following a clarification request regarding appeal restrictions as part of discretionary sanctions, a sanction placed against you has been amended to remove a previous restriction regarding your ability to appeal. The archived request can be viewed here.
For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]