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

Hopeful statement by El_C
I see that, at this time, no Committee member has yet to vote on: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision, which, to me, is the most important proposed remedy currently on the table. From my vantage point, this remedy eclipses all the other ones, which otherwise concerns the related conduct of individual users. (Not to say that these aren't important, either, and I thank Committee members for their due diligence in this matter, as well.) Arbitrators, please vote your (which is to say my) conscience! El_C 16:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see that while I was writing the above, two arbitrators have already voted in favour of passing the DS remedy. Yay! El_C 16:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, yes — one more! El_C 18:07, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And we are Homeward Bound! Thank you, arbitrators, for your expediency. I estimate these additional tools will be of great aid for those of us in the trenches, editors and admins alike. El_C 18:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision
This is not correct on several points.

Content changes I have made are supported by the community, including in all instances in which "edit warring" has been claimed by tendentious editors. Accusations of disruptive editing in any topic area are unjustified and have in many instances been motivated by malice. The committee should recognize this. GPinkerton (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * All the evidence dates either from the beginning of my time as an editor or relate specifically to exposing the tendentious editing on the Kurds topic area, points which have been reinforced by other sections of the proposed decision. (i.e.,  all relate to Syrian Kurdistan, and all the comments for which I am being accused of incivility accurately describe the behaviour of the tendentious editors I reported as parties to this case). This is shooting the messenger, as was Guerillero's indefinite block, which was issued for reporting the matter of tendentious editing at ANI. This was recognized by.
 * It is incorrect to claim that I violated a topic ban. is a perfectly legitimate edit on a page specifically set up to prepare for this ArbCom case, as I stated at the time . Likewise with, as was recognized by the administrator in question . I was told this was acceptable (and desirable) by multiple uninvolved administrators.
 * It is incorrect to say Valereee as uninvolved (subsequently self-declared involvement here: )
 * All blocks (excepting at the start of my time as an editor) relate to Syrian Kurdistan, where I have nowhere been accused of tendentious editing by uninvolved editors with knowledge of the case. Blocks accusing me of doing so are meritless and should not be considered by the committee, since they were shooting the messenger, not accurate gauges of reality. This should be recognized by the committee.
 * The topic ban is of no relevance and should be overturned, since it is not preventing disruption and has never been needed. The committee should recognize this.

Re:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision
Is incorrect on several counts.

The committee should be able to vote on a proposed finding of fact that other parties have been uncivil and have breached not only decorum on the arbitration page in pursuit of their POV, but also through talk page contributions, edit summaries, malicious reports, and rebarbative accusations of all kinds. It is an omission not to include such a proposal, and repeats the error of shooting the messenger. GPinkerton (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Where I said: ) is an accurate description of the comment above which contained a bad faith false accusation of canvassing. It would be wrong for the committee to sanction me for this edit, which is not antagonism but a statement of fact.
 * (Where I said: ) is not antagonistic. It would be wrong for the committee to sanction me for having supposedly and sanction me for reminding other editors to, which they had failed to do by inserting irrelevant claims such as had been made.
 * (Where I said: ) is a bizarre edit to claim as antagonistic. Will someone now deny that this and that, being a new editor, this disruption can not possibly have anything more than ?


 * regarding this comment: just because a user's long-term tendentious editing has been ignored until now (and encouraged by the fact that editors like me who reported were indefinitely blocked) is not evidence that disruptive editing was not happening or that blocks should not have been issued to stop it. GPinkerton (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not taking issue with the characterization of the editing as "tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area". Ultimately that being true is what will guide me when I get to remedies. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * do you feel that there are no problems with your conduct? Do you feel that the blocks, warnings, and the topic ban you have received in past year to all be unjustified? Do you feel that the half-dozen to dozen or so administrators who have imposed those measures to have some sort of individual or collective vendetta towards you, or to be otherwise motivated by malice?  Maxim (talk)  18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have freely admitted losing patience with the POV-pushing on Syrian Kurdistan. I maintain that all the blocks I have received are indeed unjustified.
 * The block by Girth Summit on 19 November 2020 relates to the Syrian Kurdistan-related fake news article ("Backed by the US and France, YPG terror groups unleashed violence upon Syrian people who were protesting against French President Emmanual Macron's hostility toward Islam." (sic)) from Turkish state media added to push a pro-Erdogan POV at Murder of Samuel Paty, which I repeatedly reverted (i.e.: insertions:, , revert, , blanking, my revert). Other users deleted my NPOV treatment of more reliable source (my edit, unjustified revert)
 * The block by Valereee on 28 November 2020 relates to Syrian Kurdistan, where in response to Valereee's comment of "Neither GS nor I are going to get involved in the content dispute." I wrote Well someone needs to, because the ongoing behavioural issue is tendentious use and abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims as though appropriate for deciding content. Incivility is just a by-product of stonewalling; the content dispute is the behavioural issue. I do not think, in light of everything that has transpired in this arbitration case, that this comment is at all unjustified, and hence the resultant block should also be annulled, though I was shortly afterwards unblocked.
 * The block by Valereee on 2 December 2020 relates to Syrian Kurdistan, where in response to عمرو بن كلثوم's argumentum ex silentio fallacies and fictitious nationalistic claims about Arab majorities (inter alia: When you claim these areas are "part of Kurdistan", what does that make of the native population (majority) living on their lands before Kurds arrived? Trespassers? Does that sound fair to you?) and Supreme Deliciousness's comment supporting it certainly it belongs in the article, although definitely not with the ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie that the Kurds were not a majority in Syrian Kurdistan. It does not, and indeed the fact that even after all this discussion no source has bee produced which states what you have claimed speaks volumes about the credibility of this long-debunked and nationalistic claim. In context, and seeing that my identification of عمرو بن كلثوم's and Supreme Deliciousness's tendentious editing has been supported by reams of evidence and other editors, there does not seem justification for this.
 * The block by Guerillero on 4 December 2020 claimed I was Clearly here to right great wrongs and not to build an encyclopedia. This is patently untrue and unjustified.
 * I think all these should be struck from the record and certainly should not be used to poison the well and shoot the messenger. NB that I have not edited any Kurdistan related articles ever (unlike the editors arbiters are suggesting be topic-banned rather than site-banned). GPinkerton (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * A long time ago, Levivich told the following "joke".

A Wikipedian and a vandal are stranded on a deserted island. On the first day, the Wikipedian builds a raft, but at night, the vandal destroys it. The second day, the Wikipedian lets the vandal know that one or more of his contributions to the raft did not appear constructive, and rebuilds the raft. The vandal destroys it. The third day, the Wikipedian asks the vandal to please refrain from making unconstructive changes to the raft, and rebuilds it again. Again, the vandal destroys it. The fourth day, the Wikipedian tells the vandal to please stop destroying the raft, and that if he destroys the raft again, he may not be allowed to participate in the building of the raft. The Wikipedian rebuilds the raft and the vandal destroys it again. On the fifth day, an admin finally arrives with the navy, announces that nobody can build a raft until everyone on the island agrees about whether or not a raft should be built, and sails off.


 * I think about it somewhat regularly because it tells a hard truth about the shortcomings of Wikipedia's processes. One problem is, that everyone likes to think of themselves as the boat builder and no one thinks of themselves as the vandal. And another problem is that sometimes they're both boat builders, it's just that one is trying to build a raft and one is trying to build a sailboat. So instead what we do is try to come up with systems that discourage fighting in the first place. The premise of those systems is that the right thing will win out in the end. If an editor can't buy into that premise, then that's going to be a problem. When I'm on the losing end of the argument, I have to tell myself consensus can change and wait for that to happen.I have only dived deep today into your first bullet point (some of this other stuff I did examine over the course of the case). I am not going to try to tell you that your content was wrong. However, I am going to say that the way you went about it was wrong. It was edit warring and discouraging edit warring is one of those systems mentioned above, that Wikipedia has setup to prevent fighting. Rather than acknowledging that you want us to say that you were right about the content. On Wikipedia hoping that if you're persistent enough you will be recognized as right and those who disagreed with you are wrong is asking to be disappointed. There is no winning. There is no losing. There is only our content as it is today and the opportunity to feel pride in having helped create it.Valereee below points out a positive read on some of your perseverance. I think that's probably true too. But ultimately as an arbitrator I need to know that you can find ways to work with others. Because if you can't I have to vote for the site ban. And it seems like our content would become a little worse in the short run if I did that. But I believe that the good stuff will win out in the end I also believe that fostering a more collaborative environment will help that happen. Personally I'm not a huge fan of listing 37 different diffs in the two Findings of Fact that concern you. Seems like a bit much. However, it's there. So to repeat what Maxim started by asking you, do you feel that there are no problems with your conduct identified anywhere in this case? Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I hope I have never given out a hint that I think that there are no problems with your conduct identified anywhere in this case, and I have certainly outright stated the opposite several times during the course of it, including again in the comment above, so there should be no danger of anyone thinking that.
 * For the 37 different diffs in the two Findings of Fact I have already provided an explanation here and here, so while it is there, it is also explained.
 * I will have a fuller answer soon, but in the meantime, can you explain how it can be right for you to oppose a site-ban for that editor on the grounds of insufficient evidence in light of all the huge quantity of evidence I and others presented on the matter, yet you say: "I have to vote for the site ban" for me. I am not among those who for the best part of the last ten years have converted Wikipedia into the most widely read and accessible source of genocide denial (in Syrian Kurdistan's Arab Belt) in the English-speaking world. I'm not suggesting I am blameless, but suggesting site-banning me while opposing site-banning in the case of the long-term, committed tendentious editors is surely disproportionate and counter-productive.
 * I will give a more detailed answer soon. GPinkerton (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I just re-read all of your comments above this. The only comment I see that is anything close to an acknowledgement that maybe your conduct hasn't been perfect is This strikes me as more of a "I work too hard" answer to the stereotypical job interview question of "What's your greatest weakness" (an awful question imo). Then the next sentence is   You then write 400+ words explaining why that is true. I spent 30 minutes examining the diffs and explanation in the first bullet point about the 19 November block and my conclusion was: you edit warred. So, in my opinion, the block was justified. And your inability to acknowledge that, and instead re-litigating why your version of the content you edit warred about was correct, is why I'm not sure what the right vote is here. I tried to explain in my previous reply to you, with sympathy, why even if you're right on the merits of the content edit warring is a problem. And if you can't accept ideas like that, then I don't think merely topic banning you is enough to stop disruption. My default is in a case focused on a specific area (like this) rather than a specific editor is to oppose site bans since trouble in one area doesn't mean an editor needs to be removed from all areas. It's this perspective, that has lead me to oppose site bans for other editors. I hope that they can be productive editors elsewhere. To answer your question, that's the difference between you and the people I've already opposed. I also want to believe that you can edit productively but, to date, your intransigence and aggressive behavior in this very case give me pause. So rather than yet again telling me where you've been unfairly accused, I am hoping in your longer answer you'll tell me which of those 37 diffs, specifically, you acknowledge are a problem and what can you do to assure me (and potentially other arbs) that the problem won't repeat. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , apparently the committee never examined all the evidence I submitted and I only submitted evidence in one topic area. Had I known that ten years of dedicated genocide denial was only grounds for a topic ban on Wikipedia perhaps I would not have been so vicious against those perpetrating it. I never denied edit warring and I never claimed it was not a problem; I said it was a result of misunderstanding, as the other belligerent said: . Many of the diffs are responses to accusations of bad faith editing, and omit the personal attacks and accusations to which they are retorts.
 * I should have said " read". (this in response to genocide denial)
 * I should have said "No, the reliable sources attribute the claim to Niketas Choniates, where it originates. If you read the source then you  know that. Moreover, one of the (weak, POV) sources you adduced as evidence for the "fact" is merely quoting the judgement of Greek historian (and labelled as such) who is effectively quoting Niketas.  me Mehmed "purchased" the mosque again,  someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
 * I should have said " Scroll up. Read. اقرأ " (this in response to genocide denial)
 * I should have said " an article that has little to do with the topic at hand all these respected academic sources are  somehow worthless. Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea it didn't exist before 2011 is . (this in response to denialism)
 * I should have said: " I've expanded with quotes since ."
 * I should have said: " Evidence is ample and in plain view, and interlard the encyclopaedia with fringe ethno-nationalism  discovered and will be excised root and stem ." (this in response to genocide denial)
 * I should have said: "You need to give up demonstrably false." (this in response to genocide denial)
 * I should have said: "It would be very wrong to take the comment above for a statement of anything other than on عمرو بن كلثوم's part. See here. No canvassing has been involved, as عمرو بن كلثوم has.
 * This diff was clearly a waste of time.
 * Now, it will certainly be true that where ethnic cleansing has occurred, and where this is denied, and where Wikipedia is used to promote the denial of the ethnic cleansing and the ethnicity which it affected, I'm afraid I have been too forthright in discovering this and reporting it, although the personal attacks made by other parties in this case have been far worse and far more numerous, as well as extending over a much longer span of time. Indeed, it was my attempts to bring this to administrator attention that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, as the blocking admin stated. This was unjustified, as was the irrelevant and unhelpful topic ban imposed afterwards. This has caused intense frustration, as has the inability or unwillingness for either administrator or arbitrator to take this problem at all seriously. Because of this, and because of the repeated affirmations by parties that they were not going to defer to reliable sources but would continue to push the nationalistic line coupled with the failure of most others to recognize this, I lost all ability to assume good faith. I have said as much multiple times in the course of this case, and beforehand. I don't think I should be punished again for the edit war misunderstanding four months ago. I don't think I should ever have been blocked for posting my concerns at ANI, and I certainly don't think the fact that so far all attention has fallen on me to be the focus of punishment (as the supposed cause of disruption) in various blocks should be considered grounds to topic-ban me for the same edit war misunderstanding that I was blocked for in November. Had I never tried to bring this to the attention of the community, I would never have been blocked and never topic banned and Wikipedia would be continuing to host denialist content even more than it is doing now. My having lost patience with Wikipedia's slowness and unwillingness to remove established editors is not acceptable, but it is understandable; such serious topics as genocide denial are too important for Wikipedia to ignore. GPinkerton (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am very unhappy with how long this has gone on for, how long Wikipedia has been corrupted like this, how much of the project has been interlarded with nationalistic propaganda of the worst kind. This had made me very angry with those responsible, and I have not afforded them the dignity Wikipedia rules require. Paradoxically, this might have led to their being less stringently punished. In retrospect, my perspective and feeling about genocide denial were not then so clear or so important to the rest of the community, and the facts of the matter were not (then) known, and I should have had more patience and civility in explaining why and how Wikipedia was being abused and ideologies promoted through it. I had thought such editors were blocked on sight. I was dismayed by the inaction and dismissal my reports were met with, and I should have had greater fortitude in not responding to all the personal attacks and false accusations against me with insults. GPinkerton (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boat:, , , , , , ,
 * Vandalism? GPinkerton (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am very unhappy with how long this has gone on for, how long Wikipedia has been corrupted like this, how much of the project has been interlarded with nationalistic propaganda of the worst kind. This had made me very angry with those responsible, and I have not afforded them the dignity Wikipedia rules require. Paradoxically, this might have led to their being less stringently punished. In retrospect, my perspective and feeling about genocide denial were not then so clear or so important to the rest of the community, and the facts of the matter were not (then) known, and I should have had more patience and civility in explaining why and how Wikipedia was being abused and ideologies promoted through it. I had thought such editors were blocked on sight. I was dismayed by the inaction and dismissal my reports were met with, and I should have had greater fortitude in not responding to all the personal attacks and false accusations against me with insults. GPinkerton (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Boat:, , , , , , ,
 * Vandalism? GPinkerton (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision
This proposed solution is counter productive and unjustified. I have never edited any page related to Kurds excepting Syrian Kurdistan. I am author of 16% of the article as it stands, and no-one except those editing tendentiously to push a POV has even come close to claiming that any of these edits were disruptive.


 * regarding:, it will be noted that the discussion linked here: is about an edit war relating Syrian Kurdistan, in which I repeatedly reverted vandalism which added Turkish-made fake news accusing the US and France of attacking civilians in Turkish-occupied Syrian Kurdistan, which it presented as supporting both Erdogan's occupying forces and his current Islamist aggression against France and Emmanuel Macron, as detailed at Murder_of_Samuel_Paty. The POV claims made in the edits I reverted are so wholly unsuitable for an encyclopaedia that I removed them along with their atrocious source. In another instance I reverted blanking of sourced material. The editr tat deleted this material later apologized for doing so, so it is wrong to invoke this as some kind of evidence of anything other than there being a dedicated group of POV-pushers on this topic, not least the parties named in this case. This was then an excuse for editors like Supreme Deliciousness and Debresser (both long-term edit warriors with a convinced POV regarding the map of the middle east) to air their various grievances and make their dislike of me and the NPOV I represented in that discussion. GPinkerton (talk) 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation. I look forward to reading your response to Maxim's question above as I think about all of this. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , done. I don't see what relevance events in June over my NPOV expansion of Esther has to do with anything; the long-time edit warrior that reported me was also blocked, not unblocked as I was, had been blocked many times for the same behaviour, and has been blocked again, not having improved. (Incidentally, this was also abuse of sources to twist the citation into saying the opposite to what it really says, this time with religio-nationalistic editing in the ancient rather than modern middle east). GPinkerton (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Re:Omission
& there appears to be no mention of Attar-aram syria in the proposed decision. Surely the evidence for malpractice (tendentious editing, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is overwhelming? Will ArbCom be endorsing such edits in the future? This is very concerning! GPinkerton (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Evidence pertaining to Attar-Aram syria's behavior was not included in the evidence phase. Participants were advised to present concise evidence and adhere to length limits. A lack of mention of an editor in the proposed decision is not an endorsement of their behavior, any more than a condemnation of it. --BDD (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , arbitrators refused to consider evidence when it was presented, or again when asked to do so . I cannot be held responsible if too much evidence exists for it to fit within the arbitrary limits. Should I file a new case then? GPinkerton (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You were soliciting others to take your evidence and present it as their own, which is why my reply (which you link in your reply above) is as it was. However, when your initial evidence was trimmed following the close of evidence, the edit summary clearly states that anything removed could be re-added if the total amount of evidence still fit within the limits (i.e. remove Thing A, add Thing B). Primefac (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , soliciting? Paradise Chronicle suggested doing so, did so, no-one objected, and Levivich volunteered to do the same and my reply to that is "soliciting"? How was I to know that when various other users broke their word limits by multiples in the initial phase that was considered acceptable but when I who had the most to say and the most to prove it would be treated differently? Unlike some of the tendentious editors the committee is considering treating more lightly than me, I have never been through arbitration before and never wanted to do so. I never heard of a judge letting someone off scot free on the grounds that there was too much evidence! GPinkerton (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're misunderstanding each other. In the initial conversation you link above, whether "soliciting" or "asking" or just "musing" you were (at the time) basically wanting someone else to take part of your evidence and post it as their own. The specific diff you linked was telling you that the evidence phase was closed so no one would be able to take you up on that. However, you did have the opportunity to modify your evidence as mentioned in my diff from Dreamy Jazz. The fact that you chose not to modify your initial evidence to include Attar-aram syria is a result of your own choice.
 * I'm not really sure why you feel that I ... would be treated differently with regard to your evidence - as far as I am aware, you received just as much of an extension for words and diffs as everyone else.
 * Finally, as has been discussed many times in discussing ArbCom (most notably WP:AHRFC), ArbCom is similar to a "court system" but the analogy pretty much stops at the name - we have rules about the amount of evidence that can be presented, and if you're over it's removed and not considered (i.e. rules are rules). This means that you need to prioritize the most important text and diffs in order to make your point. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I was referring to the main page where a word limit was set, abided to by some editors, and blithely ignored by certain others. I kept to the limit that time, but since no sanction was placed on the problem editors, I assumed the same would be the case in future. As for wanting someone else to take part of your evidence and post it as their own, this is not anywhere discouraged except by your comment, which you applied to Levivich's offer to do as Paradise Chronicle had already done, but you have not objected to Paradise Chronicle's having done so. More evidence was presented against me than I was able to present against my detractors. If the word limits on parties are equal, and all accused parties use their word limits not to justify themselves but to make baseless attacks on me, then if the number of parties accused of malpractice is greater than the number of parties accusing then it follows that the arbitration committee has given greater space to the accused, and consequently, I had less space than the "Syrian Kurdistan isn't real; the Syrian government never did ethnic cleansing, reliable sources don't matter" side of the argument to adduce evidence. This defect in the process has limited my ability to collect and present diffs from the editors' concerned misbehaviour in all other parts of the project; I specifically limited my evidence to just that that directly concerned Kurds and Kurdistan. As a result, the arbitrators appear to be deciding there is insufficient evidence to site-ban these editors, though they had plenty of space to read the venom directed at me and opt instead to topic-ban or site-ban me, a gesture not merited by the facts of the case. I'll ask again, should I file a new case? Would the problem be considered then? GPinkerton (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI today's disruption
,

NB: question to arbitrators
If I am banned (either sort) how will that benefit the encyclopaedia? This issue has taken a decade to reach arbitration (though Supreme Deliciousness has been here before, to no avail) and administrators have preferred to remove me from the site rather than recognize (still less fix) the problems I and others have identified here, which are systematic and wide ranging. If ArbCom is going to recognize there is a problem, then arbitrators must ask themselves who it will benefit to remove me from the project I have worked so hard to improve by pointing it out? Few were able to recognize the tendentious editing, and still fewer were willing to act on the problem. I have not edited extensively on any subject regarding the Kurds; I only contributed to an WP:NPOVN discussion and detected that a POV-push was occurring at Syrian Kurdistan, tried to improve the relevant article, and engaged in discussions on the talk page whose history proves (before I ever commented there) to any neutral observer that this bad faith editing was occurring, had been occurring, and would continue to recur, as subsequent discussions there and elsewhere show. If it has taken four months to demonstrate what I realized in a few hours, then that will explain my impatience. If in the course of those four months I have been indefinitely blocked for posting at ANI and received numerous other blocks, then the realization that in the course of these last five or ten years, (long, long before I joined the project in serious way in March) a concerted (and I mean concerted) POV-push has been occurring across swathes of Wikipedia articles in the Fertile Crescent should go some way towards explaining my dismay and anger when it is me upon whom administrators choose to pin blame. I urge that that same mistake not be made again!

Who is going to fix this vast problem ArbCom appear to recognize exists? Sure, it doesn't have to be me, but I can help, and it should now be beyond reasonable doubt that I have not merited the retaliatory accusations made against me. Consider whether geopolitical neutrality is more important to the encyclopaedia than is civility towards avowed and confessed POV-pushers. I struggle to imagine it could fail to be. GPinkerton (talk) 21:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Illustration
Little more need be said to demonstrate WP:NOTHERE and WP:AGENDA than such exchanges as this one. I cannot understand why as ineffective a sanction as a topic-ban is being considered when tendentious (and other things) motivations are as clear as day: I cannot believe ArbCom will consider not site-banning both of these. GPinkerton (talk) 21:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Refutation of false accusations made by Attar-Aram syria
this edit by falsely claims I "evaded a topic ban". The diff adduced disproves this allegation. The irrelevant topic ban applied to me does not give blanket cover Syrian Kurdistan, and specifically excludes the middle east before 1453. Hence, my mention of the Buyids is entirely appropriate and has nothing to so with anything precluded by my entire and unbroken adherence to this futile topic ban which has nothing to do with anything whatever. Arbitrators should look instead to the unlimited potential for disruption by this editor evidenced in the section above, and consider why it it might have motivated the claims being made now and before now. GPinkerton (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Further question
Can these members of the committee please explain why the tendentious genocide denial and other malpractice proven in this case is of lesser significance to Wikipedia than "decorum"? Unlike those editors whose site-ban is opposed by the same arbiters as support banning me, I have never tried to deny that I have been uncivil, and no-one has accused me of editing tendentiously. Why are the personal attacks, demonstrably false allegations, and breaking of ArbCom rules being ignored for those editors, but used to punish me for bringing this to ArbCom's attention? I have said many times that I have done wrong in relation to this case, but ArbCom appears to prefer unrepentant nationalists to remain on the project and neutral editors to be removed. Can anyone explain why?

I don't believe I should be banned, but if I am, it is surely unthinkable that those editors with whom ArbCom has agreed there is huge POV problem are not. Unlike them, I have repeatedly shown that I am aware of what has gone wrong, and how to improve. I fear this has been ignored along with most of my evidence. I sought to get ArbCom's attention with this case, and I have clearly singularly failed to make an impression regarding the importance of the case beyond Wikipedia, or regarding my own desire to see this remedied at all costs to myself. I did this because I was aware that neutrality is more important than my own ability to edit. For that failing in this, and for all else, I am very sorry. GPinkerton (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of people who think their righteousness forgives all sins, while those they are opposed must be castigated for every one. On this very page you simultaneously admit you've made mistakes but say every sanction against you is unjustified. This lack of clue is IMO incompatible with continued editing—which is a privilege, not a right. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 21:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't said that at all!? I said the recent blocks were unjustified, and that does not preclude my having been wrong! The blocks being unjustified is not a claim of innocence on my part. GPinkerton (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For instance, the abusive use of female pronouns to refer to me by Supreme Deliciousness is a constant pattern of personal attack maintained for months, and it has attracted no sanction. I cannot believe ArbCom wishes to endorse this kind of behaviour by opposing a site-ban. GPinkerton (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm genuinely sorry to see the pronoun usage here; no Wikipedia editor should be referred to using pronouns they did not agree to use. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I would have included this in my evidence if I had had space; had I known arbitrators would refuse to site-ban because of limited evidence, I would have included more evidence of the the kind of personal attacks and aggressive behaviour I've been subject to, rather than limiting it to Kurdistan-related disruption on talkpages and mainspace. I was unware ArbCom considered tendentious editing a minor offence but indecorousness a ban-able one; had I known I would have included more evidence of what I considered to be less serious malpractice by these serval editors. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Everyone is beholden to the same rules with evidence; that you could not figure out how to make points succinctly is not our fault or responsibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , not everyone is beholden to same rules: no-one but me had been penalized for exceeding word limits, and no-one at all was sanctioned for exceeding word limits here: []. GPinkerton (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's how I think about it in the abstract: Tendentious editing isn't a "minor" offense; rather, it's one that's almost always limited to a particular topic, so a topic ban is often the appropriate outcome. Incivility and failure to work effectively with others on a collaborative project, on the other hand, make an editor ill-suited to be a Wikipedia editor wherever they go, and the problem is much bigger than just that they're unpleasant: those editors could also drive away untold numbers of potential editors. Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it has not been shown that I have demonstrated "failure to work effectively with others on a collaborative project". I have admitted that I cannot work or be civil with with the tendentious editors and genocide-deniers. I do not believe this failure is worse than systematically subverting Wikipedia in many topic areas for many years, as has been shown to be the case with editors towards whom I have been uncivil.


 * It has however been proven that Supreme Deliciousness, Attar-Aram syria, and عمرو بن كلثوم have been repeatedly uncivil to me and others, and yet they have earned no sanction for it, and ArbCom is opposing sanctioning either of them for it. How can their deeply offensive attacks be tolerated? GPinkerton (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The answer lies in the question: "ArbCom appears to prefer unrepentant nationalists to remain on the project and neutral editors to be removed. Can anyone explain why?" This is about behavior and not about who's "side" we prefer in the underlying conflict. That you still don't seem to want to understand that is exactly why we saw no other choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * My question askes why the appalling behaviour of Supreme Deliciousness, Attar-Aram syria, and عمرو بن كلثوم has been considered suitable to the project. It also asks why I am being penalized for exceeding word limits and yet no-one is being penalized for exceeding word limits. Is decorum not so important on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan or what? GPinkerton (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You keep phrasing it in the classic have you stopped beating your wife fashion, which is why you aren't happy with the answers. Nobody is going to tell you why we approve of the edits of other people we also sanctioned, because that's not a question that actually has an answer. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you opposed site-banning even when these editors have demonstrating worse and longer-term incivility across a wide range of articles. That is opposing a sanction. My question asks why you have done as you have done, nothing more. GPinkerton (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , you keep saying that you were being penalized for exceeding word limits and yet no-one is being penalized for exceeding word limits, yet that's simply not true. For reference:
 * SD: 1472 words (1000 word extension granted)
 * PC: 975 words
 * AIK: 2055 words (1000 word extension granted, trimmed from 2238 words, Arbs said the 55 extra were just quotes so not necessary to remove)
 * GP: 1953 words (1000 word extension granted, trimmed from 3277 words)
 * Everyone else was under 1000 and did not need an extension. So please, stop saying that no one else was penalized; everyone was treated the same. To echo Beeblebrox, it's not about which "side" you are on, so it does not matter if the other three listed above are for or against you, everyone gets the same word limit (plus potential extensions). Primefac (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not talking about the evidence page. I'm (still) talking about the Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan page. Look there and see the truth of what I'm saying. GPinkerton (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also keep asking whether the evidence will be considered if another case if filed. Will it? GPinkerton (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have done so anyway. It would be very wrong to ban me and do nothing abut the long-term tendentious editing. GPinkerton (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Two things, we're very likely to pull that case request, because the DS are very likely going to be enacted and chances are good if those editors are editing in a problematic way they'll be tbanned in due course. So no, your evidence will not be considered.
 * Second thing, the case requests factor into whether we take a case, but the Evidence phase is really where decisions are made. I do note though that multiple editors, including yourself, are over the limit, so I'm still not really sure where this penalization thing is coming from. Primefac (talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , chances are good if those editors are editing in a problematic way they'll be tbanned in due course sounds reassuring, but since their disruption has been doing on for as much as ten years, even while covering areas supposedly protected by Syrian Civil War sanctions and Israel-Palestine sanctions, that doesn't seem very likely. This is precisely why I have been so forceful all this time; the stupid territory in Syria means nothing to me, but means the world for some of the other parties to the case, as they themselves have noted. The years of disruption to topics under discretionary and general sanctions have not attracted a ban or block thus far, so there is little chance of me hoping that will change in the next 5-10 years if it hasn't already.
 * Only I was mentioned in the proposed decision as having inappropriate "decorum". The abusive behaviour and personal attacks on me, and the exceeding of word limits by other parties, have all been summarily ignored by the drafting arbiters, despite it continuing to the present day.
 * If the case requests factor into whether we take a case, but the Evidence phase is really where decisions are made, then why are both given word limits, but editors only penalized for breaking them really where decisions are made? This gives quite the wrong impression. GPinkerton (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , regarding your last comment, I asked on 20 February whether I should file a new case. It would not be right to characterize my actions as "not waiting". I waited. GPinkerton (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If the case requests factor into whether we take a case, but the Evidence phase is really where decisions are made, then why are both given word limits, but editors only penalized for breaking them really where decisions are made? This gives quite the wrong impression. GPinkerton (talk) 01:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , regarding your last comment, I asked on 20 February whether I should file a new case. It would not be right to characterize my actions as "not waiting". I waited. GPinkerton (talk) 02:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * if that's what I deserve, what fate for the other parties? I some hope, when I started the case, that something positive would emerge. My fears were, however, wholly realized. GPinkerton (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Further statement
I am very unhappy with the way this case has turned out, including everything out of order I have done to try to bring a quick and decisive end to this saga. I hope ArbCom will reconsider the asymmetry of the sanctions and the evidence (all the evidence) I presented one way or another. I am not at all happy with the way ArbCom has appeared to endorse the personal attacks and poor behaviour of parties to this case outside the topic area, although I recognize the arbiters have been bound by arbitrary rules not to consider some of the evidence. The unnecessary and irrelevant topic ban imposed by and asked for by parties to the case has once again been applied to tacitly endorse the POV-pushing edits of those same parties, and so we have come full circle. Wikipedia's shameful hosting of genocide denial continues unchanged; the only change in editors allowed on the project is the one regarding the editor (myself) that brought the case and tried for four months to convince the community that it is no good thing to support the Ba'athist regime's crimes and repeat their claims, but in the end, only I am removed from the project, even though the disruption of other editors was greater and more serious by ten or twenty times, and multiplied by five for five different long-term POV pushers whom arbiters have decisively supported retaining on the project, and whom ArbCom has in effect decided are, in two cases, wholly blameless. I do not agree this is right. I do not agree that I should be banned. I do not agree that milder sanction should fall on the POV pushers than on me, who has only edited in good faith, a thing which demonstrably cannot be said for the others whom ArbCom has decided to support. GPinkerton (talk) 03:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Recidivism
Incorrigible and deliberate POV-pushing continues apace. Perhaps they'll be action this time? GPinkerton (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) and from Supreme Delciousness making baseless allegation and improperly reformatting my comments. Please act. GPinkerton (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement
I thank the arbiters for their involvement in the case. I suggest more input from arbiters is required in the workshop phase, and editors should not be allowed to exceed word limits in the case request stage. I apologize for lodging the case, and I am sorry for where I have fallen short of the expected standards in presenting evidence during it. I hope the full content of my evidence will not be disregarded, and that the sorely-needed new sanctions issued will be used to the greatest possible effect regarding parties to this case. I look forward to productive editing in the topic area free from tendentious editors.

I hope that in the meantime that arbiters will think again about removing me from the community entirely, and consider whether any disruption will really be averted by doing so, now that most of the tendentious editors named in the case are barred from editing in the area and my sharp remarks towards them have been made irrelevant by developments, and the drawn-out circumstances that generated them will not recur. I hope I have made clear that I am very much here to build the encyclopaedia and very willing to be guided.

However that may be, I am pleased by the results of the case I asked for, since, at least for the next 12 months, the problem I identified is three-fifths solved. My thanks for that. GPinkerton (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness
This is mainly to the filing arb but also the others, , , , , , , , , ,.

Concerning the "proposed findings" about me here:.

"Supreme Deliciousness has engaged in tendentious editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area. This pattern of editing has centered on the misuse of sources "

The first diff I was blocked for saying "cherry picked" and after that block I did not repeat that statement again, why should I then be punished again for the same thing that I already received a block for and that I did not repeat after the block? Furthermore I brought up at the arb case that another editor on the "opposite side" said the same thing and Valereee did not act against him: And now I'm supposed to be punished twice? While Levivich and Valereee get completely off the hook?

The second and third diff: , was me discussing a CIA source at the talkpage. Are we not allowed to discuss sources at talkpages anymore? After Valereees source restriction I did not bring up this CIA source again, so I follow rules, so if I follow rules why should I then be topic banned? Valereee said academic scholar sources are preferred and I accepted this, why should I then be banned?

"as part of a broader battleground-style approach to article edits "

In the first diff I correct the name of the country a TV station is located in. The name of that country is Iraq. In the second diff I reverted a sockpuppet.

Why is this even being brought up as some supposed "finding of fact" ?

"and talk page discussion .""

In the first diff I'm thanking a user for bringing a source to the talkpage.

The second diff is concerning the CIA source above that I did not bring up again after my block.

The third diff is me saying Syrian Kurdistan is a conception. What do academic scholars say? So if academic scholars are saying SK is a conception, then why is this used as some kind of "evidence" to get be banned?

All of this is completely unactionable "findings of facts" there is no "findings" here at all.

I ask all the arbs and specially the filing arb Primefac to please respond to this. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , your explanations for these diffs, and the diffs themselves, are symptomatic of a combination of battleground behaviour and, particularly, tendentious editing. To expand on that: in the Kurds/Kurdistan topic area, you have a pattern of partisan editing and discussion across multiple articles and talkpages that is odds with our consensus-based model for decision making.   Maxim (talk)  18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have said that I want to have different views and present both sides:. Right now at the SK article it is a nationalistic conception pov that is presented to the reader as a "fact". So to balance this out and reach a neutral pov, other editors (me) are unfortunately forced to show the other perspective. This will then look like "tendentious editing" or "pov pushing" to the untrained eye, but its only to balance out the nationalistic pov that is already in the article to reach a neutral pov. That is my goal at Syrian Kurdistan, to have a neutral article, nothing else. Maxim, just look at the lead of the SK article right now, is that neutral according to you?


 * Furthermore I followed Valereees rules after she added them and did not repeat my comment about "cherry pick". If I follow rules why should I be banned? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I've written a few different replies over the weekend, but really it comes down to the fact we clearly have a different interpretation of those diffs than you do, and Maxim has summed up our thinking on the matter and I don't have anything else to add. Primefac (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Barkeep49s question about GPinkerton
Re: , Have a look: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why no sanction against Paradise Chronicle?
This was brought up in the evidence case by amr:

Paradise Chronicle using rojname.com and bianet.org as sources: ¨

Repeated removal of text sourced to The Washington Post and also ads citation needed tag instead: continued durign arb case:

Why haven't the arbitrators brought this in the proposed findings of facts, or are these edits by Paradise Chronicle acceptable?

Combined with the repeated unfounded ISIS accusations against several users a topic ban is needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since the Arbitration Committee does not rule on the validity of sources, we'd need something much stronger than "uses a subpar source" to justify that sort of sanction. And while I personally think their removal of the Post source was ill-advised, again, I believe stronger sanctions would not have been warranted. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on the validity of sources", then why is me discussing a CIA source brought up as "Proposed findings" and you voted for it? . Which is the most reliable source for Wikipedia? rojname.com or an official CIA document? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The finding relates to misuse of sources. To say, "This source doesn't mention X, so X doesn't exist" veers into WP:CIR territory. None of this is a comment on the validity of that source in general. --BDD (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The CIA source said: "these Kurds have tended to regard the creation of an independent "Kurdistan" as their only salvation. The area to be included in such a state is variously defined. In all cases, however it included portions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, as well as Syria," So the source straight out confirmed that at that point of time, SK didn't yet exist. Why would there be need for a "creation" if it already existed? Also after Valereees restriction I followed the rule and did not bring up the CIA source again. Why should I be topic banned when I follow the rules? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to Beeblebrox
Re :

I addressed this in the evidence case:

"Concerning my topic ban I received. 1. It was 12 years ago. 2 Both my "opponents" was a sockpuppeteer and his sockpuppet and they were later both indefed for abusing multiple accounts: . Had it not been for this sockpuppeteer and his sockpuppet that he controlled, I would never have been topic banned, because there would not have been any disruption. It was actually similar to this case, the sockpuppet User:Konli17 started the entire disruption at the Syrian Kurdistan article, and here we are now with an arbitration case. The Wikipedia system failed 12 years ago and let the socks win, do not repeat the same mistake now." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Other people's bad behavior does not retroactively excuse your own. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , You are right. There were things I should not have done. But it was an extremely disruptive sockpuppeteer and his sock vs me. This must be taken into consideration because, had it not been for these two socking around, there wouldn't have been any disruption, there wouldn't have been an arb case, I wouldn't have been topic banned, it wouldn't have been used right now to ban me from Wikipedia, and we wouldn't be talking about it right now. Also, it was 12 years ago and I was completely new to Wikipedia at that time, didn't know how things worked, didn't know the rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to Levivich
The quote I added was not a statement from Cimno discussing Tejel:

Full: "By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating. Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract". For the author, "like Arab nationalists in Syria, the Kurdish movement has produced a political discourse that combines pan-Kurdist references intertwined with local patriotism and limited territorial claims". Yet the author shows that this imagined community is nevertheless very well documented..."

This was Cimno discussing Tejel: "By relying on unpublished maps and school books, dating from the sixteenth century to the present day, Tejel demonstrates that the Kurdish territorial imagination, comprising myths, mobilizing stories and political ambitions, is relatively plastic and fluctuating."

Cimnos pov: "Recently established, "Rojava" (Syrian Kurdistan) is part of a mythology of pan-Kurdish unity which does not constitute a political objective for the Syrian Kurds in itself, but is rather a "cultural abstract""...He then continues. "For the author,..." ... why did he say "for the author" ? He makes a distinction between Tejel and himself from the previous line.

I read the quote I added as coming from Cimno. The other parts were obviously Cimno discussing Tejel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @Levivich, I'm only following the reliable academic scholar sources. If something is described as real or not in them, that's not my decision or my pov but the sources. And why you seem so eager to see me removed from the topic area? You want me to stop editing before I'm banned? Have patience, your wish will be fulfilled soon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Response to Attar-Aram syria
It seems that the evidence brought forward by Attar-Aram Syria has flown under the radar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#Comments_by_Attar-Aram_syria

GPinkerton violated her topic ban once again without any admin taking action. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Section of February 21, 2021
Gpinkerton is right now violating her current temporary topic ban from "Islam and post-1453 CE middle east". She needs do be blocked immediately to stop further disruption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=1008148155&oldid=1007929627

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Belt&type=revision&diff=1008148981&oldid=1007875763

She needs do be blocked immediately to stop further disruption.

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * She is continuing to edit war against her topic ban: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arab_Belt&type=revision&diff=1008154957&oldid=1008152269 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_Kurdistan&type=revision&diff=1008155157&oldid=1008152120

--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Can I ask, is there a reason you're using a feminine pronoun (she/her) for GPinkerton? Their preferred pronoun in their preferences is the default (they/them), and they have asked on this page for the use of female pronouns to be stopped. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't know. Just thought Gp was a women, I didn't know they asked to be called "they". Now I know and will do that.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it was me who refactored the previous section name here. It was incendiary and uncalled for. Please do not restore it. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Okey. May I ask why there has been no action against Gp violating they're topic ban? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Levivich's section
There was some discussion during the case about out-of-scope evidence, e.g. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. The PD has siteban proposals for several parties, and there's some discussion about whether there is evidence of cross-topic disruption by these parties that would merit a sanction broader than a TBAN. If there is evidence of cross-topic disruption for some parties and not others, it may be because some editors posted out-of-scope evidence while others didn't. I think either out-of-scope/cross-topic evidence (evidence from topic areas other than Kurds and Kurdistan) should be solicited for all parties or should not be considered for any party. We should avoid a situation where one party has out-of-scope/cross-topic evidence presented against them and other parties don't, and then that out-of-scope/cross-topic evidence is used as a reason for a siteban against the one party, while the lack of out-of-scope/cross-topic evidence is used as a reason for opposing a siteban against other parties. (I'm not suggesting this is what's happened, just that it should be prevented from happening in the final decision.) Levivich harass/hound 18:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for raising this point Levivich. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The content added at Special:Diff/1007827791, an edit SD made just now to Syrian Kurdistan, was discussed some six weeks ago at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 5, wherein I said (2nd-to-last comment), "Except that's not Cimino's view. Cimino is summarizing Tejel's view.", and SD said, "You are right. But...". SD's edit just now misattributes Tejel's view to Cimino—same issue from six weeks ago. Tejel's view is already in the article in the body. So this makes it seem like two scholars are saying something when only one scholar is actually saying it. (That "something" is that a unified, independent Kurdistan is more imaginary than real.) Had this edit been made a few weeks ago, it would have ended up on the evidence page. The next edit adds a cn tag to a line that's been in the lead, unsourced, since July; a cn tag is no big deal but this is an odd time to tag the article. Levivich harass/hound 04:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * @SD: Content dispute aside, there are five votes to TBAN you right now, yet you're still editing in the topic area, and still about whether Kurdistan is real. You're ignoring the rest of us and all the concerns we've raised through this process. Levivich harass/hound 05:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Re the "11th hour" threads: looking through contribs, it seems everyone who is about to be tbanned has continued editing in the topic area. Levivich harass/hound 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma
Many of the proposed principles appear to focus on civility and conduct, which is also reflected in the proposed findings and remedies. It seems to me that this may have something to do with the fact that diagnosing uncivil and other unwanted behavior at talk pages (or indeed, in an arbitration case) is much easier than analyzing complex editing patterns, and than determining what is and what is not a systematic breach of NPOV. However, care should be taken that those whose faults are most conspicuous do not also, solely for this reason, receive the most severe !punishment.

Furthermore, faults should be judged on the consequences they have for Wikipedia (from the guide to arbitration: "ArbCom is typically pro-Wikipedia [...] They explicitly choose any outcome that results in Wikipedia working better."). This should also involve weighing faults against merits. Ask the question: will Wikipedia, as a whole, be better off if this proposed remedy is enacted?

Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 20:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * For whatever it's worth this is the approach I take. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Valereee's section
FWIW, I do think that in many ways GPinkerton is being blamed for being the messenger. The problem is they were the MESSENGER MESSENGER MESSENGER MESSENGER MESSENGER, so loud and so frequent and so relentless that it made it difficult to see whatever else was happening. They were right about some things, and maybe they needed to be to bring it to the community's attention, but they were also completely obnoxious and have continued to be both at the case and even here in this talk.

I believe GP is correct that the community may not have perceived what was going on at Kurds/istan if GP hadn’t been so obnoxious. I would like us to take that into account. I’m not sure how. GP seems to be completely incapable of seeing that their strategy for getting attention, once the attention has been gotten, is no longer productive. I do think that we should recognize that this case likely wouldn’t have happened, at least now, without GP. —valereee (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

, I don’t feel like I’m taking sides. Like I said about GP, I don’t want you or SD community banned, either. I didn’t feel like I needed to make a statement about that because it never looked like you were in danger of that, only of being topic-banned, which I think is appropriate. If you had looked to be in danger of being community banned, I’d have made this statement: “I believe that AiK and SD are well-intentioned and possibly can become productive contributors outside the area of their POV issues.” —valereee (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

, I too would like to see the source restriction whittled into less of a blunt instrument. I assume the reason it hasn’t happened yet is that immediately after it was put in place, an AN was opened, and as soon as that closed, this case was opened. Until pretty much the last couple days, no one knew whether it was actually going to be worth spending any time on. —valereee (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Paradise Chronicles section

 * First of all, I would like to thank the ArbCom for coming up with this proposal and also for the patience you had with us during the case. As to me, this decision will bring some tranquility to the topic area Kurds and Kurdistan.
 * I apologize for what I am reminded for and I will not repeat it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And to my dear companion GPinkerton. Well, I have advised them about a week ago something similar like point seven, thinking of an eventual lift of the T-Ban. If they followed it or not, I guess the Arbs are a somewhat firmly decided, and they are usually quite tolerant. But I like GPinkerton and I'd be here for the ArbCom if they see me as helpful in order to save GPinkerton's impressive contribution to main space Wikipedia. GPinkerton really seem to be rather good in areas where other editors are not so active.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * To my own accusations (both warning and reminder): I apologize for what I have done and will not repeat it. Some sections were probably misunderstood, or the drafting could've been enhanced or clarified. It was a long dispute and anyone taking part should expect some bruises. Important to me, are the General Sanctions which already have been accepted.


 * To GPinkerton, I can understand the ArbCom in one way, GPs behavior is also for me as his main long term lawyer, difficult to defend. But I give it a try anyways. GP was a main force in bringing up this really needed ArbCom case, and I can also understand them if they feel that his block was unfair. But their behavior and impatience is really... A general block is as to me not warranted, the case was opened on Kurds and Kurdistan, not in General. In addition, I have also not supported a general block of anyone involved in the case. Maybe you could take that into account.


 * To the rest of the proposed T-Ban sanctions: I guess with the General Sanctions in place not one of the editors threatened with a topic ban would come through longer than a week in the topic area Kurs and Kurdistan. So the personal sanctions are mainly a short cut and prevent Admins of later having to hold similar discussions again which (as we can see) would probably come up again.


 * To —valereee I hope you can finally have a peaceful approach towards having imposed a source restriction on SK. You really made an excellent work there in a difficult environment and I am glad Arbitors see it similarly.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Seeing what happened in THE 24h, I have to agree that GPinkerton will very probably cause too much of a disruption to Admin attention to the Wikipedia project if they do not take a break. In my opinion, Admins have applied enough of WP:IAR for the moment. But similar like Primefac I also hope they come back, their expansions are often just phenomenal. If they decide to come back, then please with a better civility and adherence to the WP:Guidelines.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * On ThePharoah17... this editor just doesn't stop with replacing Kurdistan with Turkey, not even after the topic ban on Kurds and Kurdistan is virtually decided. The first source doesn't even mention Turkey or Syria. Iraqi and Iranian occupied Kurdistan mentioned. To remove Kurdistan in an article with Kurdistan in the title in the midst of a case on Kurds and Kurdistan and also after I have filed a report on them during the ArbCase. Why does Guerillero not act here with an indef. block out of the blue. Why?Paradise Chronicle (talk)

Comments by Attar-Aram syria
These comments were moved from the proposed decision page into a new section on the talk for Attar-Aram syria's comments. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 20:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Topic ban evasion: I will be commenting only on this. GPinkerton was already topic banned, but could not resist coming back to the article. He was given the chance by —valereee to participate in gathering evidence, but went ahead to argue and attack other editors, prompting valereee to tell him: I'm telling you that your exemption from your topic ban is rescinded until further notice. Yet, he did not listen, and instead, decided to work around his t-ban. So, when LouisAragon made an edit to Syrian Kurdistan, GPinkerton went to his talk page and asked him to revert himself!! diff. He then engaged in a discussion regarding this edit! See here. So, the editor shows an obsession with the topic and inability to adhere to the rules. He knew he cant edit the article and its talk page, so he went directly to another editor's talk page to avoid being spotted by an admin! I gave him a warning, but then decided to withdraw it for fear that he will attack me diff (which is also a reason why I took Syrian Kurdistan off my watch list as GPinkerton made it toxic for me to engage there (I rarely edited the page, I only participated in the talk page). If he will not be banned from the site, then at least he should adhere to the rules regarding his topic ban and stop trying to evade it (I mean, how many chances will he be given to evade his topic ban?).--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Robert McClenon
I would like to concur with principles 6 and 8, and to note that they are interrelated. Principle 6 is National and Territorial Disputes, and Principle 8 is Not a Battleground. Discretionary Sanctions are often imposed on editing in geographic areas that have battleground editing because they are or have been real battlegrounds. This point, the need to control battleground editing over real battlegrounds, needs to be made over and over again. Palestine and Israel and India and Pakistan are obvious. But the Balkan wars was the start of World War One, and Eastern Europe was the start of World War Two.

The need to avoid battleground editing over real battlegrounds needs to be stressed, over and over again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Response by Vice regent to GPinkerton
, I disagree with characterization of their edits at Murder of Samuel Paty. GPinkerton's edit warring there was not limited to removing a single source, but not being able to accept compromise wording (eg this revert by GPinkerton). Another issue, IMO, was GPinkerton's refusal to admit the existence of non-extremist Muslims who were both offended by the cartoons but also condemned the murder. similarly said "GPinkerton push[es] a very specific POV [that] Islam is incompatible with free expression".

I would like GPinkerton to commit to a few things: VR talk 05:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC) Last edited 05:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop casting WP:aspersions. For example, when consensus was against GPinkerton they accused everyone of a "campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia". They called "the anti-blasphemy ringleader". GPinkerton can you apologize for those comments?
 * Stop ranting. For example, calling the Islamic faith "a religion dreamt up in late antiquity" is uncalled for and needlessly antagonizes Muslim users.
 * Fully adhere to WP:DISCRIMINATION. At WP:RSN, GPinkerton questioned the reliability of widely published academics, in part, due to them being either "professing Muslim" or "true-believers".
 * I invited GPinkerton to retract their personal attacks. Instead they re-iterated that accusing others of "a campaign to enforce blasphemy law on Wikipedia" was justified.VR talk 05:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Statement by AiK (عمرو بن كلثوم)
First, regardless of the results and proposed decisions, I would like to thank the arbitrators for listening and doing reading the ton of text that was thrown at them. As for the proposed decision against me, I invite people to check the links in the very same proposal, namely: One last point here; it's really sad to see admin Valereee take sides, especially that she was the admin who warned GPinkerton the most. Still, this comes as no surprise since she did drop around three random partial Talk page blocks to Supreme D, user Fiveby and myself simply for arguing that one POV was being pushed in Syrian Kurdistan article. Actually this was Valereee's justification for the block: Admin  was there too but recused himself from the content dispute and focused on the behavior and left GPinkerton a couple of warnings too. Thanks again for your time, and thanks to Girth Summit for being a fair admin. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 07:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) First one: the proposed decision claims that I sought to erase  mentions of Kurdistan Kurdish names. In this edit, I replaced rojava by Syrian Democratic Forces, which is the Kurdish-majority military faction of roajava, so I didn't really remove the Kurdish name, I just specified the relevant party.
 * 2) Second link: this is about an event that happened before rojava was declared in 2014.
 * 3) Third link: I am being punished for providing quotes from reliable sources such as Jordi Tejel and David McDowall, whose book Levivich called  but still decided to ignore in his POV-pushing in Syrian Kurdistan.
 * 4) Fourth link: Really? A tban is proposed for me saying:  This only shows that we have a content dispute, and quotes from Jordi Tejel and David McDowall, among others, support this.
 * One last thing, see here how user Levivich counted and highlighted to admin Ivanvector NINE different personal attacks by GPinkerton against me in one single diff. Levivich concludes by saying: Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks
Proposed decisions on Arb cases are so often delayed, that it was pleasant to see this one was posted on time. My thanks to Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: Proposed decision on GPinkerton
I haven't been following the proceedings closely, but I think it would be a shame to see GPinkerton indefinitely blocked. For most editors where an indefinite block is necessary, the editor in question refuses to acknowledge why their behaviour is problematic and instead deflects blame on other editors. In my conversation with him. GPinkeron has recognised that their behavior has been problematic and expressed a desire to change, something usually lacking in editors who need to be indefinitely blocked. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since I had that conversation, GPinkeron appears to have attempted to dig themselves into a hole so deep it goes straight through to the other side of the planet. Sigh. It's very clear that GPinkerton deserves at absolute minimum, a several month ban for their conduct and decorum during this arbitration case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request
Under the "GPinkerton" section on the project page, please change "The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic from the Middle East post-1453 AD" to "The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic ban from the Middle East post-1453 AD" (emphasis mine). JJP...MASTER![talk to] JJP... master? 16:21, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

11th hour sabotage of articles by GPinkerton
Hi everyone, I thought I'd bring to you attention the crusade that GPinkerton has just launched in an effort to push as much wild POV content as they can before they are banned, in a blatant violation of their current tban. So far, they did this at Arab Belt and this twice at Syrian Kurdistan. I brought this to the attention of admins Valereee and El C, who suggested wee bring it up here. Valereee has already protected Syrian Kurdistan, but leaving the new content in. I think to be fair, their wild POV-pushing edits violating their current tban should be reverted before any page is protected. They are obviously trying to pull others into engaging in an edit-war with them. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The current topic ban was not given by ArbCom, and thus this request for sanctions should be taken to WP:AN. The proposed topic ban has not yet been enacted or enforced. Primefac (talk) 23:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment from Guerillero
I have blocked GPinkerton for 1 month from the article and talk namespaces due to the blatant topic ban violations over the past 24 hours. It would be a site block, but the case is ongoing and it didn't seem to be right to keep them off the project. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 01:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * After using their talk page to further break their topic ban, I have indefed GPinkerton without talk page access. If any admin thinks that they will follow their topic ban, feel free to unblock or re-allow talk page access. I have pointed them towards Arbcom-l. -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 03:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I know this is Guerillero's section, but I wanted to note that G. has rolled back GPinkerton's indef block to the extent of allowing their participation on this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Shadow4dark
Moved from "Paradise Chronicles section" as sectioned disucssion is in force on the pd talk page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 12:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * GPinkerton was already topic banned but ignores his ban. Shadow4dark (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour, battleground behaviour: Congratulations on this difficult task and what seems to be reasonable and measured responses
To the arbitrators in this case, as above, congratulations. This is the first Arbitration I have watched and participated (a tiny bit) in. It is intense. It is difficult. You seem to have come to results that are proportionate and reasonable. Will bad behaviour in this area stop. No. Has some heat been taken out of the editing. Yes. Thank you for your work on making WP a better thing. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)