Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BDD ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
2) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.
4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the reliable sources or dispute resolution noticeboards should be used.
5) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks.
6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their personal views rather than editing with a neutral point of view.
7) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.
8) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.
9) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.
10) Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
11) The arbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
1) This dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non- neutral point of view, and battleground behavior at articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, especially at Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute has resulted in a strained editing environment featuring assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and incivility. It is further characterized by tendentious and battleground editing, with frequent accusations towards perceived opponents of pushing points of view for or against Kurds and Kurdistan. Finally, there have been extensive disputes as to the validity of sources, although the Arbitration Committee notes that assessing the suitability of individual sources is not within its jurisdiction.
2) Valereee imposed a source restriction at Syrian Kurdistan [1], which was within reasonable administrative discretion under a general sanctions authorization.
3) GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]) and personalizing disputes (e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]) for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. GPinkerton has been blocked on multiple occasions [25]. The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic ban from the Middle East post-1453 AD [26]. GPinkerton has since violated the topic ban [27] [28] and received multiple warnings from an uninvolved administrator [29] [30].
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor, [31] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter. [32] [33] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [34] [35] [36], pushing an anti-Kurd POV, [37] [38] [39] [40] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State. [41]
5) عمرو بن كلثوم has edited tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area, by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [42] [43] and by pushing anti-Kurd POV. [44] [45] On three occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2020, عمرو بن كلثوم has been blocked for conduct in the topic area, which included edit-warring. [46] [47] [48] [49]
6) 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 [50] [51] [52] as part of a broader battleground-style approach to article edits [53] [54] and talk page discussion [55] [56] [57]. Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked on two occasions for conduct in Kurds and Kurdistan topic area [58] [59] [60].
7) Paradise Chronicle has accused other editors of pushing extreme views without evidence. [61] [62]
8) GPinkerton's conduct during the case repeatedly fell well short of expectations. On multiple occasions, GPinkerton antagonized other parties to the case [63] [64] [65], and was subsequently issued warnings by arbitrators [66] [67]. GPinkerton has further refused to follow the norms of the arbitration process by submitting and maintaining an evidence submission far greater than the limits on words and diffs [68] [69]. As a result of these actions, an arbitration clerk removed a portion of the evidence submission which exceeded the prescribed limits on words and diffs [70].
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.If we fail to follow through, people will get the message.) Second, if editors can't get their act together during arbitration, when they know that they're under a great amount of scrutiny, it doesn't take much to imagine how they will be behaving after the case concludes and the scrutiny lessens. Therefore, conduct during arbitration can serve as a demonstration of a user's potential continued conduct after arbitration. Now, I understand that tensions at arbitration are high, and I'm prepared to take that under consideration in relatively minor cases of disruption. But civility and decorum are still important at ArbCom, and participants are expected to comply with Wikipedia policy when contributing to arbitration cases. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
2) GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
3) GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4) Thepharoah17 ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5) عمرو بن كلثوم ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
6) عمرو بن كلثوم ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
7) Supreme Deliciousness ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8) Supreme Deliciousness ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
9) Paradise Chronicle is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
10) Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Preexisting disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Neutral point of view | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Sourcing of articles | 9 | 0 | 2 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Civility | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | National and territorial disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Personalising disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
8 | Wikipedia is not a battleground | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
9 | Tendentious editing | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
10 | General sanctions | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
11 | Conduct during arbitration cases | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed findings | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Locus of dispute | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Valereee's source restriction | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GPinkerton | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Thepharoah17 | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | عمرو بن كلثوم | 11 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | Supreme Deliciousness | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Paradise Chronicle | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
8 | GPinkerton: decorum at arbitration case pages | 11 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Standard discretionary sanctions | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GPinkerton banned | 11 | 1 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GPinkerton topic-banned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Thepharoah17 topic-banned | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | عمرو بن كلثوم banned | 0 | 11 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
6 | عمرو بن كلثوم topic-banned | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Supreme Deliciousness banned | 1 | 7 | 3 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
8 | Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
9 | Paradise Chronicle reminded | 5 | 4 | 0 | ![]() |
2 | Two votes are second choice to 10. Two votes are equal choice with 10 and one of them notes that only one should pass. As 10 passes and this does not the second choice and equal choice votes do not count towards the supports, so 3 has been taken off the support count |
10 | Paradise Chronicle warned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | One vote is second choice to 9. One vote is equal choice with 10, but notes that only one should pass |
Proposed Enforcement | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
0 | Enforcement of restrictions | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | Passes by default |
0 | Appeals and modifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | Passes by default |
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.
:# I'm here out of respect for
L235 to give time to him (and/or other arbs who are still on the fence about issues) the time needed.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BDD ( Talk) & Primefac ( Talk) & Maxim ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0 | 7 |
1–2 | 6 |
3–4 | 5 |
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.
![]() | Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.
2) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.
3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.
4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the reliable sources or dispute resolution noticeboards should be used.
5) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks.
6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their personal views rather than editing with a neutral point of view.
7) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.
8) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.
9) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.
10) Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
11) The arbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.
1) This dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non- neutral point of view, and battleground behavior at articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, especially at Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute has resulted in a strained editing environment featuring assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and incivility. It is further characterized by tendentious and battleground editing, with frequent accusations towards perceived opponents of pushing points of view for or against Kurds and Kurdistan. Finally, there have been extensive disputes as to the validity of sources, although the Arbitration Committee notes that assessing the suitability of individual sources is not within its jurisdiction.
2) Valereee imposed a source restriction at Syrian Kurdistan [1], which was within reasonable administrative discretion under a general sanctions authorization.
3) GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring (e.g. [2] [3] [4] [5]) and personalizing disputes (e.g. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]) for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. GPinkerton has been blocked on multiple occasions [25]. The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic ban from the Middle East post-1453 AD [26]. GPinkerton has since violated the topic ban [27] [28] and received multiple warnings from an uninvolved administrator [29] [30].
4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor, [31] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter. [32] [33] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [34] [35] [36], pushing an anti-Kurd POV, [37] [38] [39] [40] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State. [41]
5) عمرو بن كلثوم has edited tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area, by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan, [42] [43] and by pushing anti-Kurd POV. [44] [45] On three occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2020, عمرو بن كلثوم has been blocked for conduct in the topic area, which included edit-warring. [46] [47] [48] [49]
6) 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 [50] [51] [52] as part of a broader battleground-style approach to article edits [53] [54] and talk page discussion [55] [56] [57]. Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked on two occasions for conduct in Kurds and Kurdistan topic area [58] [59] [60].
7) Paradise Chronicle has accused other editors of pushing extreme views without evidence. [61] [62]
8) GPinkerton's conduct during the case repeatedly fell well short of expectations. On multiple occasions, GPinkerton antagonized other parties to the case [63] [64] [65], and was subsequently issued warnings by arbitrators [66] [67]. GPinkerton has further refused to follow the norms of the arbitration process by submitting and maintaining an evidence submission far greater than the limits on words and diffs [68] [69]. As a result of these actions, an arbitration clerk removed a portion of the evidence submission which exceeded the prescribed limits on words and diffs [70].
Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.If we fail to follow through, people will get the message.) Second, if editors can't get their act together during arbitration, when they know that they're under a great amount of scrutiny, it doesn't take much to imagine how they will be behaving after the case concludes and the scrutiny lessens. Therefore, conduct during arbitration can serve as a demonstration of a user's potential continued conduct after arbitration. Now, I understand that tensions at arbitration are high, and I'm prepared to take that under consideration in relatively minor cases of disruption. But civility and decorum are still important at ArbCom, and participants are expected to comply with Wikipedia policy when contributing to arbitration cases. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
2) GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
3) GPinkerton ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
4) Thepharoah17 ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
5) عمرو بن كلثوم ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
6) عمرو بن كلثوم ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
7) Supreme Deliciousness ( talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8) Supreme Deliciousness ( talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
9) Paradise Chronicle is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
10) Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.
0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
3) {text of proposed enforcement}
4) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.
Proposed Principles | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Purpose of Wikipedia | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Preexisting disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | Neutral point of view | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Sourcing of articles | 9 | 0 | 2 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | Civility | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | National and territorial disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Personalising disputes | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
8 | Wikipedia is not a battleground | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
9 | Tendentious editing | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
10 | General sanctions | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
11 | Conduct during arbitration cases | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed findings | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Locus of dispute | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | Valereee's source restriction | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GPinkerton | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Thepharoah17 | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | عمرو بن كلثوم | 11 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
6 | Supreme Deliciousness | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Paradise Chronicle | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
8 | GPinkerton: decorum at arbitration case pages | 11 | 0 | 1 | ![]() |
· | |
Proposed Remedies | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
1 | Standard discretionary sanctions | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
2 | GPinkerton banned | 11 | 1 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
3 | GPinkerton topic-banned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
4 | Thepharoah17 topic-banned | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
5 | عمرو بن كلثوم banned | 0 | 11 | 1 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
6 | عمرو بن كلثوم topic-banned | 11 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
7 | Supreme Deliciousness banned | 1 | 7 | 3 | ![]() |
Cannot pass | |
8 | Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | |
9 | Paradise Chronicle reminded | 5 | 4 | 0 | ![]() |
2 | Two votes are second choice to 10. Two votes are equal choice with 10 and one of them notes that only one should pass. As 10 passes and this does not the second choice and equal choice votes do not count towards the supports, so 3 has been taken off the support count |
10 | Paradise Chronicle warned | 12 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | One vote is second choice to 9. One vote is equal choice with 10, but notes that only one should pass |
Proposed Enforcement | |||||||
Number | Proposal Name | Support | Oppose | Abstain | Status | Support needed | Notes |
0 | Enforcement of restrictions | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | Passes by default |
0 | Appeals and modifications | 0 | 0 | 0 | ![]() |
· | Passes by default |
Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.
Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.
:# I'm here out of respect for
L235 to give time to him (and/or other arbs who are still on the fence about issues) the time needed.
Barkeep49 (
talk)
18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)