Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan

Archived discussions
In "Prior dispute resolution", the three examples not linked to an archive page have all been archived at. Tantusar (talk) 08:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Resolved by Dreamy Jazz. Thanks! Tantusar (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Overly long link
Could an clerk try trim Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_86 under Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan? Right now its so long it runs out of the content area on my screen.  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  12:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is that causing you much of a problem? It wasn't flagged when the case request was submitted, though if you would like it the link could be piped. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 18:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Kurds and Kurdistan: topic ban clarification (February 2021)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan

Motion: clarify scope of topic bans
Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support
 * As proposer. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Easy fix. Primefac (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankfully it is much easier to fix mistakes in the online cases; back in the day when you made a mistake on the 15 metre tall granite ArbCom steles, that was a real pain to fix :P CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 17:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 *  Maxim (talk)  17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * So Why  18:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WormTT(talk) 18:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Comments
 * This is the result of a drafting error, which I regret. None of the named parties have exploited this potential loophole, which I appreciate. --BDD (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Don't feel too bad; not only did the three of us miss it, the entire committee and those commenting on the PD missed it! Easy thing to miss, to be honest. Primefac (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan (March 2022)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * Removal of topic ban
 * Removal of topic ban

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles: and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.

In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

, I will be more careful in which sources I use in the topic area. DS is also in effect now so any disruption by anyone, and that person can be brought to enforcement and the problem will be settled there quickly. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).



Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * , can you explain how your editing will change if we accept your appeal to address the issues found in the case about your prior conduct? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on their answer above, and my (albeit not thorough) look at their editing history since November I am tentatively prepared to accept this appeal, though perhaps with an explicit note that it may be reinstated. It could, under DS, be reinstated without such a note but would also make clear to admin that they are authorized to act should reinstatement in this topic area restart the kinds of behaviors that led to the TBAN in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see much of your recent editing has been in the topic area of the Palestine–Israel conflict, broadly construed. I take this as a good sign, that you're able to edit another area related to ethnic conflicts in Western Asia without any obvious trouble, like further blocks. Could you draw on this experience to explain how you would approach editing Kurds and Kurdistan again? How have you dealt with potential conflict with other editors? How have you identified high-quality sources? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for a reply to BDD, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear a response to BDD's questions also, but in addition, I'd like to know a bit more about what Supreme Deliciousness feels has changed? At the case, I was considering a full site ban, as I was aware that he had been restricted in 2009 for similar behaviour, back when Arbcom gave time limited restrictions, as well as multiple blocks in the wider topic area. A simple "it's been a year and I promise" isn't quite what I'm looking for. WormTT(talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that I remain unconvinced,, do you have any comment as to we had to deal with similar issues 10 years ago and 1 year ago? Any comment on why it won't happen again? WormTT(talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The positive editing in Israel/Palestine areas is most reassuring. CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am open to lifting the topic ban, and DS remains authorized in this topic area in the event of any problems. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 07:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion Kurds and Kurdistan
Enacted - GeneralNotability (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Given that the previous tban was many years ago and they've shown themselves able to edit a contentious topic area without sanction I support lifting this topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) BDD (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Productive editing in contentious topics is a good sign, and the answers to Barkeep's and BDD's questions are good. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) This is reasonable. --Izno (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) I would say that SD's answers here have been at best "ok", but broadly per Barkeep. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 11:03, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) Primefac (talk) 11:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * 1) I remain unconvinced that this is a good idea, but the combination of DS being available, the probationary period, and the recent good work moves me to Abstain rather than oppose WormTT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Arbitrator comments