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

No changes to this workshop
In light of ongoing discussions about reforming the workshop phase of arbitration, I wanted to state that the drafters of this case don't plan to do anything differently with this case's workshop. If things start getting hairy, we reserve the right to intervene. --BDD (talk) 00:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would add, however, given what we're seeing in the evidence and in the request for temporary injunctions, that we could at least ask that participants keep their workshop proposals brief and to the point, but at the same time, to not suggest remedies without also suggesting a finding of fact that supports that as the proper remedy. Also consider that if another participant has already expressed something you are in basic agreement with, you could comment on their proposals instead of making a new one of your own. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. Workshops are pretty dreadful, honestly. Each party at the other side’s throat trying to get topic or site banned everyone who disagrees with their views. At least it serves as a venue to let people air their grievances, I suppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have seen that posited as a reason for keeping them as-is, but I don't really agree. Part of the problem here, for sure, is that they are not any actual rules for workshops. Seriously. Here, on Wikipedia, where we have a rule for everything, there's this big piece of our arbitration process that is just kind of there and what it is for varies from one case to another depending on who is participating and which arbs are drafting the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity,, is threaded discussion permitted in workshops? It seems to be disallowed in most ArbCom discussions but not really enforced in workshops? Or is this another aspect of the "not any actual rules" part? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's usually the preliminary discussion of whether to accept the case and the proposed decision talk page that have that rule. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Confusion proposals and remedies
Sorry, I guess I have mixed up the proposals and the remedies. I'd be glad if a clerk or an arbitrator would put them into the right place, if it is deemed as helpful to the case. I guess I've put my remedy in the section of GPinkerton proposals and answer ob Beeblebrox already came. Thank you in advance.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently I also removed the proposals by, but they have somehow managed to undo my edit but not to delete my analysis of Evidence. To clarify, it was really not on purpose, and I don't know how I did that. I was also wondering, where all the proposals of SD went.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see SD's proposals in their section at . I have moved your proposed remedy to your own section. You should propose remedies, findings of fact and principles in the section, but you may comment on anyone else's proposals in their section under "Comments by parties". Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Removal of my analysis
, Hi, I am surprised by your removal of my evidence analysis. I thought this was the purpose of this workshop. Otherwise, where is that supposed to be added? Nobody has removed the massive amounts of text and book excerpts on this page page added by GPinkerton. I feel I am being treated unfairly when the other party has canvassed and moved content from one person to another to play the system and exceed their word limit. Can you please clarify? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , analysis of evidence goes in the "Analysis of evidence" section of the workshop page, and not in your "Proposals by User:عمرو بن كلثوم" section. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 11:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, really appreciated. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Rather than go through Dreamy Jazz and have another delay, I might as well explain my position and why I have once again removed your section. Quite simply, it is not an analysis of the evidence; it is more evidence. Primefac (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but I have to disagree for the following reasons:
 * My contribution refutes and exposes GPinkerton's wild POV claims, who refuses to admit the extent of the Kurdish immigration into this area. My quotes and numbers analyze the history of the area.
 * We were told before that we would have the Workshop stage to provide more details, examples here and here.
 * This is unfair treatment given that GPinkerton had added sources several sources with long quotes above, and there was no push back.
 * The demographics and naming are at the core of the dispute at "Syrian Kurdistan"
 * I hope you can reverse your edit and add my analysis back. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 18:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither section is reasonable, but with all of the other arbs being AFK for the last 24 hours I've not received any input regarding my actions, so I will self-revert while still maintaining the personal opinion that the restored section is not actually an analysis of evidence but just a chance to put another 3000 words of evidence for us to read. Primefac (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, much appreciated. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Workshop participation
I just want to note that given the extreme length of submissions offered by many participants, over already extended limits, I did not have capacity (and to the extent I did have capacity, a willingness) to go through evidence before the section closed. As I don't feel comfortable participating in the workshop without a firm grasp of the presented evidence, I haven't really participated yet in the Workshop. I have been working my way through the evidence today so hopefully I will be ready soon to read the Workshop. But I wanted to note this given the stated desire of some participants, both this case and among the community generally, for more arb participation in the Workshop why that has been challenging for me in this particular case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The workshop is scheduled to close in around 26 hours
This workshop is scheduled to close on or after 00:00 13 February 2021, which is in around 26 hours. It is recommended to post your proposals and/or analysis of evidence on the workshop page sooner rather than later to ensure that you have them in before the phase closes. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Last minute reminder. The phase will close in around 30 mins. Please ensure that you make your final edits to the workshop with some time to spare, so that your edits are made before the phase closes. Once the phase closes, absent arbitrator approval, no further edits may be made to the workshop page. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 23:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , : Will anyone stop GPinkerton's continuous personal attacks and incivility? Latest example here. They seem to be furious due to the refute of their false claims. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In ordfer to refute something, one has to prove it incorrect. All you have done is repeated denials. GPinkerton (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * please add this back in. GPinkerton (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For that, an arbitrator will need to confirm that it can be added. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 00:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The workshop was closed when that edit was made, and correctly reverted. Primefac (talk) 03:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Belated comment on section 'Proposed remedies by AIK'
I was just too late to add the following comment to Proposed remedies by AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم). If any arbitrator finds it to be of any value, they may put it in at their discretion.

As has been pointed out elsewhere, my acquaintance with GPinkerton is what got me interested in this ArbCom case. I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum that GPinkerton shows unacceptable combative behavior, has great difficulties in editing collaboratively, and from time to time engages in personal attacks. I would add that they show a considerable lack of self-reflection, and can be mind-bogglingly rude, in a way that is often disruptive. However, as also pointed out by Amr ibn Kulthoum, this behavior extends over a wide range of articles. It has, in fact, little or nothing to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. This is important to establish, because I believe that any measures taken against GPinkerton should have equally little to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. I believe that GPinkerton is at least partly right in arguing that their topic ban is misconstrued, in so far as tendentious editing is not one of the problems posed by their behavior. On the contrary, they have spent a great deal of energy in undoing the tendentious editing of others, including that of some of the other parties in this case. GPinkerton is a highly knowledgeable editor with a very genuine interest to build an encyclopedia, and should probably not be topic-banned. On the other hand, I do believe that some form of restriction on uncivil behavior is surely called for. I just lack the experience to know what form that could take. Apaugasma (talk&#124;contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your input. Yeah, I've seen GPinkerton's disruptive and combative behavior in many articles, almost everywhere they go. It seems they pick the most contentious topics to get involved in. While they might be knowledgeable about certain topics, that per se is not enough to work in a collaborative project, especially when they are not respecting fellow editors and coming with very strong POV/emotional opinions about these topics. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no emotions or POV about this topic, what a bizarre suggestion from one avowedly and openly pursuing an agenda! Unlike عمرو بن كلثوم, I have never edited any other articles on this topic, and to this day no-one has been able to point to single edit where I have done anything against policy in any article that would support their claims. Set against the host of obviously disruptive edits made by عمرو بن كلثوم, my having lost patience with the desperate POV-pushing I recognized and reported in November is completely reasonable. عمرو بن كلثوم has done nothing but make personal attacks and baseless allegations and has received no sanction for it. I sincerely hope the committee will see sense and remove this problem for the project permanently. GPinkerton (talk) 04:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See how عمرو بن كلثوم and Attar-Aram_syria have committed long ago (in 2015) to attack NPOV and that they both consider this issue one of great personal import User_talk:Attar-Aram_syria/Archive_1: This is clear and avowed POV-pushing and my saying so is no kind of personal attack. It's not slander if it's true. GPinkerton (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * More can be seen here: Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_5 where the claims of عمرو بن كلثوم will be very familiar to our audience ...
 * and here: Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_2
 * and here: Talk:Autonomous_Administration_of_North_and_East_Syria/Archive_1
 * It appears to have been in the latter discussion in which عمرو بن كلثوم became aware of Altug's paper (it was cited in contradiction of  عمرو بن كلثوم's claims) and has certainly been misusing it ever since. GPinkerton (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Continued wild personal attacks by GPinkerton
,, ( you gave a final warning to GPinkerton on their Talk page a few days ago): here we go again, second wild personal attack in less than one hour. When is time to take action? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , it is not a personal attack when someone proves your claims to be wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Your comment says:
 * But I get it, now that I have provided a copy of the census table everyone can see who lied about the nomads, so you can't help it when your false claims are exposed and you are out of arguments, so you recourse to personal attacks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The words you have quoted refer to my characterization of your volte-face towards Sykes; you are now claiming Sykes's words are worthless, and that he lied about Kurdish nomads in the Jazira.
 * I demonstrated your fictions for what they are. Sykes says the Kurds were a majority in Deir ez-Zor. He says the Kurdish nomads graze their flocks in the Jazira. The census table in Altug clearly shows the nomads as separate from the "Muslim Arabs". That is why two separate numbers are used, and why the nomads are not includes in the table's cells, and why the rest of the thesis repeatedly refers to Kurdish nomads, as well as again stating that the POV you're pushing is a Ba'athist lie, whether you realize it or not. GPinkerton (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This in addition to every other source among the scores you have refused to accept as too modern, too academic, or too unsuitable for pushing your POV. GPinkerton (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This in addition to every other source among the scores you have refused to accept as too modern, too academic, or too unsuitable for pushing your POV. GPinkerton (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Latest edits
Several of the latest edits, at least as to my judgement probably refer to a content dispute of (a) certain article(s) (sections). But they are a clear evidence of that there are needed some admin tools, as the discussions would go on forth and forth, as long as they don't come. Thank you for the patience, Arbiters.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 06:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned
I think should be signed as   Assem Khidhr (talk) 12:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

recent edits at Turkish-Kurdish conflict and Kurmanji
I am just letting you know that the removing of Kurdistan in Kurmanji or Kurdish-Turkish conflict is going on just like the whole case has never happened and done by the exact same editor who brought forward here. The editor wasn't blocked, now they feel empowered and probably believe you approve their statement on Kurds and Kurdistan just as the Admins did at the ANI as I reported him. As long as this is permitted, it will happen. There are more similar edits as well. This is just an obvious one. An ArbCom ruling on this is needed. Admins need tools to ban such behavior, if they don't get any tools they won't ban them.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We're working on it? Decision will be posted in the next few days. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The question is, why was the ANI report archived without action or comment? This is not the first time this has happened ... GPinkerton (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Regarding the name changes here: then Thepharoah17 is largely correct (his edits could need some adjustment though) its the official names of Syria, Iraq and Turkey that should be used and not the names of an unrecognized conception held by a specific group of people.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt answer. Just letting you know. A admin coming forward against Thepharoah17 like Guerillero came forward against a pro Kurdish editor GPinkerton should actually be standard. Great that SD show as well what they think of ThePharoah17 edits. Let's see what the ArbCom resolves.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My comment above is specifically about the usage of official names instead of conception names.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats right but the articles are not about an official entity but a language of a nation and an intercultural/ethnic conflict. Besides, there is sure no "official" Arabic or Syriac name for Mardin etc. But we also use them as they had a significant influence on the city. There is sure also no "official" Armenian name for many formerly Armenian populated towns in Turkey. The edit here is to show that discussions can go on for months and months. No more removal of Kurdish names from articles where Kurds and Kurdish history play a significant role in the existence of the article. Same as for Syriac and Armenian as well.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is about language dialects and where they are spoken. Official names should be used. Not unrecognized conception names. If Wikipedia would do what you are suggesting, then Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, would be promoting a conception and presenting it to the reader as a "fact". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Official names should be used is in contravention of the policy at WP:COMMONNAME, and this error is explained more thoroughly at WP:OFFICIALNAMES. If Wikipedia would do what you are suggesting, then Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, would be promoting a conception and presenting it to the reader as a "fact". does not appear to be informed by references to the way Wikipedia works. GPinkerton (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is particularly true in the case of Syrian Kurdistan, where the national socialist government has invented new Arabic names for Kurdish towns in the hope of literally erasing them from the map, such as it did at, where and  have been the subject of numerous edit wars and move wars. The "official name" fallacy has been abused before on that page: . Indeed the old Ba'athist propaganda and fraudulent demography has been inserted in that article too: , and re-inserted: , surprising no-one. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kurdistan is an academically recognized fact. It exists for the academics, the linguists, the historians, the geographers, etc. That there exist editors who deny this and that they are allowed to deny this time and time again, is just weird.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am not a "pro-Kurdish" editor GPinkerton (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are probably more on WP:RS faction.
 * The ANI thread in question was automatically archived on Feb 6 without a formal close. As far as I can tell, Lowercase sigmabot is programmed to do that with ANI threads in which no new comments have been added for four days. In general, the reality is that admins at ANI and AN are extremely reluctant to get involved in threads where the underlying issues involve entrenched POV disputes. In this specific case some admins were probably aware of this arbitration case and decided to wait. If WP:ACDS are authorized as a part of the final decision in this case, it would probably be a good idea for the editors concerned to utilize WP:AE to the extent possible instead of opening threads at WP:AN and WP:ANI. While far from perfect, the WP:AE process has the advantage that the threads there are never automatically archived without a decision. Also, the actual decisions are made only by uninvolved admins. Nsk92 (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * There are probably plenty of discussions on Kurds and Kurdistan not formally closed in the last few months. Admins are just not interested. Then Sigma also doesn't answer to pings.I've pinged them before so they would unarchive a discussion on Tell Abyad.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It's understandable why no admin would volunteer to handle an ANI report when there's already a dozen arbs on the case (literally). I don't think anyone is meaning to rush the PD: we gave the arbs plenty to read and they gave us extensions so we could give them more to read; even a postponement of the PD date would not be unreasonable under these circumstances. That said, it would be nice if editors did not engage in the very same conduct that is being complained of in this case (like removing mentions of "Kurdistan") until the case is over. Avoiding the continuation of these disputes until the case closes is a common courtesy that everyone should extend. Levivich harass/hound 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)