The Workshop phase for this case has closed. Any further edits to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without further reason. If you need to make further edits to the page please make a request on the talk page.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Request for preliminary statements

1)I suggest a short statement on the evidence provided by the Arbitrators following the end of the evidence phase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle ( talk • contribs)

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are nine separate submissions, with somewhere in the vicinity of fifty subsections. Probably, as is usually the case, a lot of it will not be deemed relevant to the final decision, but that takes time to parse out. I'm just not sure what the point is here, and I don't recall this being a thing in previous cases. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich:, I'm not a drafter on this case, but in my experience, real in-depth examination of the evidence tends to start once that phase is closed or close to being closed. You can't really make a statement until all the evidence is in and has has been examined. With the sheer volume here that is going to take some time, so by the time the drafters could reasonably post such a statement it could easily be a case of "closing the barn door after the horses have bolted." You may be aware that the committee is in the early stages of discussion to reform how workshops work to prevent the sort of issue you mention, but no changes were made as of the openong of this process so it will operate under the normal rules, which, as far as I can tell, do not actually exist. So there is a problem to be solved here, it just isn't limited to this one case. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think this seems like a bad idea. But I'm curious what benefit Paradise Chronicle was hoping for. That could be worth considering in future cases (we're not going to change procedures in this case as previously mentioned). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I spent substantial time today going through the evidence, Paradise Chronicle, and can indeed confirm that I felt some evidence felt out of scope and so parties should feel no need to respond to it. There is plenty of evidence that is "in scope" that I think the drafters will use in crafting a decision. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

@ Beeblebrox: you might get fifty more subsections of workshop. Some feedback from arbs could help focus everyone's efforts and ultimately reduce the amount of additional writing and reading by everyone. I'm not aware of it being done in previous cases either, but this just might be a good time to start. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 01:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I thought it might be good to identify the areas of the dispute which have caught the main interest of the ArbCom members before we incur into making rebuttals. I can make rebuttals or confirmations for every each argument presented against me. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 07:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have made a first analysis of the evidence to show you what awaits us if you don't come up with a clarifying statement on the evidence. We must assume you include such evidence in your fact finding process if you don't exclude it, and therefore rebuttals will be made and in detail. This time I made the rebuttal per section, but we can get more into detail (like including every each diff showing there is no Kurd or Kurdistan included in the edit). Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I am used to argue with Amr Ibn Kulthum like this since May 2020, but I guess and hope the ArbCom has better things to do than to double check a large number of diffs completely unrelated to Kurds and Kurdistan in an ArbCom case on Kurds and Kurdistan. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

The "preliminary statement(s) on evidence by the arbitrators" suggestion stikes me as an exceedingly bad idea. The main purpose of the Workshop is to analyze the evidence in detail. Ideally, the arbitrators should not have much of an opinion on the evidence yet. If there are 50 sections in the Workshop, so be it. Plus, procedurally, this suggestion is just a recipe for disaster. The process currently is complicated but at least it is well defined. If a new ad-hoc step such as the preliminary statement(s) on evidence by the arbitrators is suddenly introduced now, that'll just create endless opportunities for wikilawyering, cries of unfairness (e.g. "you've just prejudiced everyone against me proposing this and that for the final decision!"), requests to redo something, and various other attemps at gaming. Having 100 sections in the Workshop will seem like a minor headache by comparison. Nsk92 ( talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

Reliability of sources

1) In general, reliable academic sources should be used, with more recent and more reliable sources to be preferred.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This idea does feel like one that should end up in our final decision though I'm wondering if an updated version of this principle would work for this case, being in general favor of not reinventing wheels. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

OK with that as long as we don't exclude any RS due to age. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Local media sources and websites should be excluded from Kurdish-related articles. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

عمرو بن كلثوم here is both suggeting a wholesale dismissal of WP:AGEMATTERS and suggesting implicitly that no source originating is Kurdistan is a legitimate source on Kurdistan or on Kurds. This is uncountenanceable. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Some of the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Neutral_point_of_view_2, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Neutral_point_of_view_and_sourcing or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Reliable_sources principles may serve as a good base to work from. Should probably be updated to include points on WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:RSCONTEXT. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Suitability of references

1) The following sources are suitable sources for the quoted material and the information represented there:

• For background, a basic summary of the history of Syrian Kurdistan can be found, for example, in a review of the 2015 work The Kurds: A Modern History by Michael M. Gunter. The review summarizes Gunter's whole chapter on the Kurds of Syria as follows, including a mention of this very ideological talking point, namely, that Kurds do not belong in what is now Syria:

  Under the French mandate after World War I, Syria became an important center for Kurdish political and cultural activism until its independence in 1946. In addition to the Kurds in major urban centers and Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria, Kurdish refugees also arrived from Turkey. A Kurdish nationalist organization, Khoybun, operated in Syria and Lebanon and spearheaded the Ararat Re-bellion (1928-31) against Turkey. Exiled Kurdish nationalists from Turkey played a major role in Syria and Lebanon. The Jaladet, Sureya and Kamuran brothers from the princely Bedirkhan family, for example, led a Kurdish cultural movement. The end of the French mandate and the eventual rise of the Baath regime in Syria created a serious backlash for the Kurds. Gunter indicates that the Baath regime came to view Kurds as a foreign threat to the Arab nation, and it repressed them after the early 1960s. Kurds in Syria, as a result, came to be less known in the West, as compared to their compatriots in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Some Kurds were stripped of their citizenship in 1962 on the grounds that they supposedly all came from Turkey. Moreover, the state tried to Arabize the Kurdish territories in northern Syria. Gunter adds that the fractured Kurdish political-party system is another reason for the invisibility of the Syrian Kurds until the early 2000s.
  — Akturk, Ahmet Serdar (assistant professor of history, Georgia Southern University) (2016). "Review: The Kurds: A Modern History, by Michael M. Gunter. Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015. 256 pages. $26.95, paperback". Middle East Policy. 23 (3): 152–156. doi: 10.1111/mepo.12225. ISSN  1475-4967.{{ cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list ( link)

---

2. The following sources are weak, insufficiently in-depth, or otherwise unusable sources for the quoted material and the information represented there:

• Storm, Lise (2005). "Ethnonational Minorities in the Middle East Berbers, Kurds, and Palestinians". A Companion to the History of the Middle East. Utrecht: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 475. ISBN  1-4051-0681-6. The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. These Kurds were later joined in Syria by a new large group that drifted out of Turkey throughout the interwar period during which the Turkish campaign to assimilate its Kurdish population was at it highest.
  • (a three paragraph, half-page treatment in a non-specialist book with vast scope no particular relevance to Syrian Kurdistan)
• Mustapha, Hamza (2018). "The Issue of the Kurds in Syria: Facts, History and Myth". AlMuntaqa. 1 (3): 111–113. doi: 10.31430/almuntaqa.1.3.0111. ISSN  2616-8073.
  • (a two-page book review by an "Assistant researcher at the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies and PhD candidate at the University of Exeter." The Beirut-published book's editor is Hezbollah-linked Azmi Bishara, who founded the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. The book review is published in AlMuntaqa itself published by ... the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies. Cosy.)

---

3. The following sources are irrelevant, outdated, or otherwise unusable sources for the quoted material and the information misrepresented from there:

• De Vaumas, Étienne (1956). "Le peuplement de la Djézireh". Annales de Géographie. 65 (347): 70–72. Le peuplement de la Djézireh. — Une reconnaissance aérienne et au sol, menée en mai 1925 par A. Poidebard qui a bénéficié en outre de la documentation rassemblée par le Service de Renseignement de Hassetché, permet de se faire une idée précise de l'occupation humaine en Djézireh à la veille de la pacification. Au Nord, à part des Circassiens musulmans (tribu des Tchatchans) établis en 1876 près de Ras el Aïn (villages de Saf eh et de Tell Rouman) , la zone des villages ou des campements fixes formant villages s'étendait d'Arreda (à l'Est de Ras el Aïn) jusqu'aux environs du Tigre sur 130 km de longueur et 15 à 20 km de largeur. Elle était plaquée le long du chemin de fer, c'est-à-dire de la frontière, et habitée par des Kurdes dont les tribus occupaient des territoires perpendiculaires sur cette frontière et à cheval sur elles. Ils cultivaient la partie septentrionale de la Djézireh et poussaient leurs troupeaux en hiver jusqu'au Djebel Sindjar et au Djebel Abd el Aziz. Le Djebel Sindjar était tenu par les Yézidis, population de dialecte kurde et à l'étrange religion. Leurs villages étaient dans la montagne au Sud de laquelle ils nomadisaient l'hiver, payant le Khaoua (impôt de fraternité) aux Chammar. Les vallées du Khabour et du Jagh Jagh, de même que les environs du lac de Khatouniyé et de la source ďel Hol, étaient aux mains des Arabes semi-sédentaires qui utilisaient pour leurs troupeaux les grands espaces nus qui séparaient les vallées. Les grands nomades enfin (les Chammar des Zors) avaient pour terrain de parcours toute la zone située entre Tigre et Sindjar à l'Est, Euphrate et Khabour à l'Ouest, se déplaçant d'une ligne Anah-Bagdad au Sud jusqu'aux approches de la voie ferrée au Nord. Le schéma de l'occupation était donc relativement simple : Kurdes le long de la frontière, Arabes sur le bord des rivières, semi-nomades et nomades partout.

• Simpson, John Hope (1939). The Refugee Problem: Report of a Survey (First ed.). London: Oxford University Press. p. 458. ASIN  B0006AOLOA.

• Rondot, Pierre (1936). "Les tribus montagnardes de l'Asie antérieur. Quelques Aspects Sociaux des Populations Kurdes et Assyriennes". Bulletin d'études orientales. 6: 1–50. ISSN  0253-1623. Le massif montagneux de l'Arménie et du Kurdistan tombe assez brusquement au sud, au delà de Mardine, Nissibin, et Djéziret ibn Omar, vers les steppes de la Djézireh , domaine du nomade arabe. C'est la frontière de deux mondes : tandis que les Arabes, grands nomades dont l'existence est liée à celle du chameau, ne sauraient pénétrer dans la montagne rocailleuse, les Kurdes considèrent avec envie la bordure du steppe, relativement bien arrosé et plus facile à cultiver que la montagne, où ils pourraient pousser leurs moutons et installer quelques cultures. Dès que la sécurité le permet, c'est- à-dire dès que le gouvernement - ou le sédentaire arme- est asses fort pour imposer au Bédouin le respect des cultures, le Kurde descend dans la plaine. Mais la sécurité ne règne pas longtemps, les récoltes ne sont pas toujours bonnes, le climat débilite le montagnard; la plaine "manges" les Kurdes, et il y a flux et reflux.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I'm going to advise you to just stop right here and not pursue this line of argument. ArbCom is not going to decide which sources are permissible in an article. We resolve behavioral issues only, not content issues. Our task is not to wade into the minutia of sourcing and so on but rather to "break the back" of the behavioral problems thorough appropriate remedies. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I very much agree with Beeblebrox. Valereee's source restriction has been included in the evidence, and we may comment on that, but otherwise will not be assessing sources ourselves. -- BDD ( talk) 15:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

@ Beeblebrox: ArbCom is surely going to have to make a determination as to whether or not these sources are being used tendentiously by the editors accused of doing so in order to push their POV on the Syrian Kurdistan issue. In order to do so, the relevant extracts must be read and arbiters should arbitrate on a.) whether these behavioural issues exist, as I and others allege, and b.) whether the behaviour should be allowed to continue and if not, how. The issue is of two parts; the exemplary tendentiousness at Syrian Kurdistan, and the wider systematic issues with Kurd-related issues throughout Wikipedia. I hope I have demonstrated and others that the cause of both is in large part due to the same handful of editors identified as parties to the case, but beyond them it is generated in no small part by the contentiousness of the issue itself, (subsumed as it is in the larger contentiousness of middle east geopolitics, the Syrian Civil War, etc.), just as Palestine, and the Balkans, and the Caucasus, and the historiography of the Second World War are perennially fertile ground for disruptive editing. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

It would be odd for ArbCom to make statements about specific sources in such detail - that sounds absolutely like a content issue. Can you explain why ArbCom should make statements like this instead of leaving it to the community? Is there a long history of failure to agree consensus on sources? If that is because of bad faith on one side then sanctions to address the bad faith editing would seem more appropriate. Also, not at all clear to an outside observer what is wrong with the sources in point 3. (disclaimer: not involved; have not commented previously on Wikipedia; not familiar with the topic area but read ArbCom & ANI for fun) 2A02:C7F:820C:EC00:49A2:C6CD:2E63:71AA ( talk) 13:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Trying not to get sidetracked by reading ArbCom for fun: the problem with the three sources in point 3 is that they're 65-85 years old, and this subject has abundant recent scholarship. Wikipedia prefers to use the best sources available, and the gold standard is recent scholarship. That's not to say older sources couldn't in theory be used to explain what was being said 85 years ago, but if recent scholars are commenting on what was being said 85 years ago, that would be a better source for that information. And if recent scholars aren't even commenting on what was being said 85 years ago, is there an argument as to whether that information is still even relevant to this encyclopedia article? Not everything anyone ever said about a subject needs to be included in the article about that subject. —valereee ( talk) 16:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Crude personal attacks by عمرو بن كلثوم and Shadow4Dark

2) The baseless and crude personal attacks and casting of aspersions repeatedly engaged in at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Evidence#GPinkerton_declares_anti-Arab,_anti-Muslim,_anti-Turkish_POV_agenda_and_conspiracy_theories and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Evidence#GPinkerton_anti-Turkish,_anti-Muslim_rhetoric are beyond the pale and devoid of merit, motivated only by desperation and bad faith. The editors that have made them do not belong on any Wikimedia project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

"The editors that have made them do not belong on any Wikimedia project." That's probably a bit harsh, and certainly not language you are going to see in the final decision, if for no other reason than it is out of our jurisdiction to say what other projects should and should not allow. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have no interest in ArbCom stating that editors, whether specifically or generally, are motivated only desperation and bad faith. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

POV-pushing by عمرو بن كلثوم, Supreme Deliciousness, Thepharaoh17, Attar-Aram syria, and Shadow4Dark

3.) عمرو بن كلثوم, Supreme Deliciousness, Thepharaoh17, Attar-Aram syria, and Shadow4Dark are POV-pushing across a wide range of articles and Kurdish-related topics. (See relevant sections in the Evidence page and further evidence removed from that page by Dreamy Jazz and elsewhere, including on this very page.) GPinkerton ( talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing on Syrian Kurdistan and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan by عمرو بن كلثوم, Supreme Deliciousness, and Attar-Aram syria

4.) عمرو بن كلثوم, Supreme Deliciousness, and Attar-Aram syria have argued tendentiously and disruptively on (and about) Syrian Kurdistan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). GPinkerton ( talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing on Syrian Kurdistan and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan by عمرو بن كلثوم and Supreme Deliciousness

5.) عمرو بن كلثوم and Supreme Deliciousness have misrepresented and misinterpreted sources 1.) on and about Syrian Kurdistan and 2.) during and before this ArbCom case. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Irrelevant topic ban

6.) The indefinite block and subsequent irrelevant topic ban imposed on me on the grounds of alleged tendentious and disruptive editing at ANI are unjustified and should be annulled. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:Agree to this. GPinkerton has made large expansions to the Topic area Kurds and Kurdistan where they could in the short time they were active in it. And they were active in areas were many editors are now not reaaly keen to edit in. For example Nusaybin Nr. 1 with 15%, Diyarbakir Nr. 1 with 15% and Syrian Kurdistan Nr. 2 with 16 %. They should be able to expand further. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Article sourcing expectations

1) Article sourcing expectations covering all articles on the topic of Kurds, Kurdistan, and Kurdish history, including Syrian Kurdistan: only high quality, recent sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Newer sources are preferred over older ones when available and of equal quality and relevance. Editors failing to meet this standard will be topic-banned as an arbitration enforcement action.

• 2019 precedent: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations GPinkerton ( talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

@ Levivich: if you think the wording can be improved I would be interested in reading suggested wording, though I too wonder if we need to impose the restriction over the entire area or not. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich: the downside to "let a hundred sanctions bloom" can be found in this case where the lack of a standard draws criticisms from editors who have to deal with the sanction. There are pluses and minuses to both approaches. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 05:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

An expectation is not a restriction. An expectation is a good idea. If one brings a high quality academic scholarship source, they should prevail against an article of a non-notable author or a well known POV author. But of course, there are exceptions: BLPs, current events or recently established organizations for example can hardly be sourced with academic scholarship. Maybe the arbitrators can formulate it better. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The wording, from the Poland case, is problematic and could be improved (as has been discussed in a recent AE case). I'm not sure about applying a source expectation (or restriction) across the entire topic area (for reasons expressed by PR and Val below), but authorizing DS for the entire topic area would allow admins to place appropriately-tailored source expectations (or restrictions) on appropriate articles as needed. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: I don't have specific improved wording to suggest but I think one advantage of allowing admins to word them as needed is that we can crowdsource the wordsmithing. The core words are "high quality, recent sources", with "high quality" understood to certainly include real peer-reviewed academic journals (excluding predatory, vanity, paid, preprints, etc.) and university publishers. This is a common thread to both the Poland and SK source expectations/restrictions. A previous arbcom found the Poland one that was applied by an admin as an AE action at one article was "positively received" [5] and applied it throughout the topic area. I hope the #Source restriction sub-section of my analysis section convinces the arbs that Val's restriction had a similar positive effect. ( related evidence section for these diffs) The problem with the Poland wording is the "articles published by reputable institutions" which is both too restrictive ("articles", it should also include videos, books, and works in any media) and too vague ("reputable institutions", where that is totally undefined and very much up to interpretation). I think we as a community should just keep experimenting with source restrictions/expectations and keep improving it, which authorizing DS in the topic area (i.e., expanding the Syrian War GS to a Kurd and Kurdistan DS) would allow admins to do. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49: Maybe the way to go about this is for arbcom to reaffirm in a principle that "prefer recent scholarship" is not a source restriction but a sitewide expectation that already has global consensus and is documented in places like WP:V and WP:RS. Both the Poland and SK language strikes me as more or less saying "better sources are better, use the best sources available". Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree: it should be no difficulty for ArbCom to state the obvious on this issue. It would be hardly necessary to do so if instead action were taken against the long-time POV-pushing editors. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Valereee: the Pshdar dog article mentioned below has its own problems. There's no link to Iranian Kurdistan, for example, or to Iran itself except in the references. That may or may not be deliberate. The usual scramble for ancient connections to the ancient Assyrians (apparently recognized as Strong Nation by people who want theirown people (or dogs in this case) to be connected with Strong Ancient Kingdoms of whatever kind) is also evident. The potential for toponymic disruption is endless wherever place names are mentioned. And what does "The Kurdish mastiff live on average 9 to 13 years. If they are used in combat, their expected lifespan is reduced to 6–8 years." mean? "If they are used in combat ..."! GPinkerton ( talk) 20:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

If a restriction is needed on Syrian Kurdistan, it should only be applied on that one page (as it already has been by valereee). Is there evidence that this would actually help in the broader topic? If not, and I don't think there is, I think this is a bad measure. In any case, this particular restriction should be applied sparingly and narrowly when on a topic-wide basis, as it eliminates the use of a lot of sources. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 16:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

To me this feels both too much and too little. I wouldn't want to say (for instance) that no current media could be used in any article on Kurds/Kurdistan -- if there are current events being covered in reliable media, we should report what they're reporting. This also doesn't discuss disputed content which I think when we're dealing with POV pushing is a crucial aspect. If everyone's in agreement that the content belongs in the article and the source is generally reliable, yay! OTOH if content is disputed I'm a little concerned about things like "academically focused books by reputable publishers" and "articles published by reputable institutions." That's great for general policy, and in noncontentious areas it works great, but in cases like SK, I don't think it's going to prevent someone from bringing in 90-yo scholarship and arguing that "newer sources aren't available" because the newer scholarship isn't covering this content, in all likelihood because current scholars consider it of zero importance, even just to mention it as a historical detail. —valereee ( talk) 22:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

For instance, does "articles published by reputable institutions" include a 1945 report by the CIA? And I'm not sure what "academically focused books by reputable publishers" even means. The root problem here is the argument over what editors with a very strong POV want to bring into the argument, often repeatedly and to the point of bludgeoning, in a way that causes more neutral editors to not want to edit there. I think we need to be able to require, when necessary and appropriate because of incorrigible POV-pushing by multiple editors, only recent scholarship for disputed content. I don't think any editing restriction other than our own current policy should be required for all Kurds/Kurdistan articles, broadly construed. Pshdar dog doesn't need to require anything other than generally-considered reliable. —valereee ( talk) 14:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Bans for problem editors

2) عمرو بن كلثوم site-banned as not here to build an encyclopaedia (see especially sections "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I guess this ban has been applied to GPinkerton before and it's time to widen it to a site-ban.

Comment by others:

3) Supreme Deliciousness site-banned as not here to build an encyclopaedia (see especially sections "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Most recent example: [6] GPinkerton ( talk) 19:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Strong oppose. GPinkerton is the one who need to be site-banned here. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

4) Thepharaoh17 site-banned as not here to build an encyclopaedia (see especially sections "General pattern of disruptive behavior", "Major or irreconcilable conflict of attitude or intention", "Long-term agenda inconsistent with building an encyclopedia")

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. GPinkerton is the one who need to be site-banned here.

Comment by others:

5) Attar-Aram syria topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan for POV-pushing and tendentious editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. GPinkerton is the one who need to be site-banned here. Attar has always been very constructive throughout the encyclopedia. This is an exposed attempt to shut down any resistance to the POV-pushing GPinkerton is doing, clearly visible to everyone on this board. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

6) Shadow4Dark topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan for POV-pushing and tendentious editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Strong oppose. GPinkerton is the one who need to be site-banned here.

Support for this edit where they defend ThePharoah17 who stated within the current ArbCom case on Kurds and Kurdistan that Kurdistan doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Topic ban annulled

7) The irrelevant topic ban imposed on me on the grounds of alleged tendentious and disruptive editing at ANI annulled. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Actually, your site-ban should be reinstated given that your battleground behavior and incivility record has gone from bad to worse, as witnessed by everyone on this board. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Baseless accusations

1) Claiming other editors of showing tolerance towards ISIS without evidence is disruptive

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Unacceptable language

1) GPinkerton has used unacceptable language at Syrian Kurdistan

Evidence: [7]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Supreme Deliciousness: I want to publicly thank you for putting evidence with your FoF. This is very helpful as I consider whether there is merit to the suggestion or not. Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Barkeep49, I can tell you that there are more comments like these from GPinkerton that I wanted to ad to the evidence and I asked for an extension to ad them: [8] but did not receive it before the evidence was closed.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 02:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

This language accurately describes the abusive behaviour I have demonstrated in the Evidence and which the editors have themselves again helpfully demonstrated during this case. The positions argued by Supreme Deliciousness and others are demonstrably false (and demonstrated as such). The nationalist POVs pushed on that talk page (and on this one) are indeed illogical and propagandistic claptrap which consist of both frantic pearl-clutching by Arab nationalists and delusional conspiracy theories filled with contorted claims and factual errors. They are both pet theories and old lies which push Arab nationalism and conflate neutral facts with Kurdish nationalism. I am correct to say these POVs litter that very conversation, and this is obvious to anyone not pushing this same POV. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Unacceptable behaviour

2) GPinkerton has behaved in an uncooperative and unacceptable way at Syrian Kurdistan

Evidence: [9]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I fully agree, whether it's in this topic or other topics. GPinkerton simply cannot disagree with people without insulting them and be rude and aggressive. This is clearly shown in their ban record and all the AN/ANI fora indicated in the evidence phase. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 23:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Toxic environment

3) GPinkertons behavior at Syrian Kurdistan has created a toxic environment

Evidence: [10]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Could you elaborate on toxic environment? Can't find any WP guideline on this. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 19:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree GPinkerton's combative behavior does not allow people to find solution and reach consensus. They edit-war almost in every article they edit. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Baseless accusations

4) Paradise Chronicle has repeatedly and without evidence claimed other editors of showing tolerance towards ISIS

Evidence: [11]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:The second diff within the evidence refers to an edit in which I explain for why I was accused of having called someone a terrorist sympathizer. I apologize for having caused discomfort with the expression "tolerance towards ISIL". More to read on this at Analysis of the Evidence. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Paradise Chronicle has repeatedly accused other users of being tolerant to ISIS, implying they "are terrorists" or something similar. This has to stop or be punished. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 11:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

عمرو بن كلثوم's edits demonstrate a pattern of bad faith editing in relation to the Syrian civil war and other Syrian- and Arab-nationalist talking points. Paradise Chronicle's identification of this POV-pushing for the Syrian/Islamist/anti-Kurd factions in the war (against which the pro-democracy and pro-Kurdistan factions have been fighting) is not incorrect. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Detrimental source restriction

5) The source restriction Valereee introduced at Syrian Kurdistan is detrimental

Evidence: [12] [13] [14]

Comment by Arbitrators:

To Valereee's point, I would think how we've covered COVID acts as a model. For the disease itself we have used appropriate levels of MEDRS. For coverage of the pandemic, a wider range of sources have appropriately been used. For a fast developing area such as this I'm not sure that academic research is going to be enough, on its own, to adequately provide encyclopedic coverage of topics. Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I disagree with this and make the opposite case in my analysis section below. Re BK's comment about whether academic research is going to be enough, I think there is ample academic research ( Kurdology has become an active field), as evidenced just by the number of books written about Kurds/Kurdistan in the past year or two or three, see for example Syrian Kurdistan#Works cited. As another example, there is another major book from leading Kurdologist David McDowall coming out in a couple of months [15] (his 2004 book is considered by all sides as a standard in the field but it's pre-Syrian civil war and thus now outdated; his new book is the update and it's highly anticipated... well, at least by nerds like me). That said, certainly room needs to be allowed to use reputable news media for breaking news and current events. But the source restriction in place at the SK article doesn't prohibit that. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The sourcing restrictions would not be necessary if the tendentious editing that necessitated them were stopped by other means. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I’m totally open to arbcom deciding the source restriction wasn’t the best way to handle this and that it should be removed and the problems handled some other way, but I completely disagree that it in any way privileges any editor or argument over any other. Any editor is free to dispute any content and therefore require that, for that content, sourcing be to recent scholarship rather than to lower-quality sources. I mean, I guess this favors editors who are using higher-quality sources? Which to me seems like it's what we want. If no recent scholarship is even discussing a point, why are we discussing it? If they are discussing it, we report what they say. Not everything that's ever been said about a subject belongs in an article. —valereee ( talk) 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

[16] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Barkeep49 yeah, that’s occurred to me too, w/re recent developments. For a developing story, anything new – this year, last year, even the past five years – we clearly need to be able to use reliable sources in the media rather than requiring scholarship. I think it would need to be ‘for developments in the past five years, reliable media are fine” or whatever. Even ten maybe? W/re SK it hadn’t really occurred to me because the issues we were being faced with seemed to be all stuff from like 50+ years ago. —valereee ( talk) 03:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

To clarify: the questions were not recent developments. They were decades old. And now I feel like I'm definitely sliding into content here, so I'm going to declare myself involved at this point w/re SK. —valereee ( talk) 03:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Barkeep49, as I have shown in the evidence above, the source restriction has been used to remove undisputed historical information and maps from the article. What administrator Joe Roe said happened: [17]. There should be no source restriction, as long as its a good RS it should be able to be used. Reliable old sources and old maps are important to show a historical perspective. The historical info/maps removed at SK were presented as a historical pov: [18] [19]-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 04:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Supreme Deliciousness, and you still believe a 1945 CIA report represents a reliable source for anything other than what the report itself says? You believe it's a reasonable source to use to support what conditions were like for the Kurds in Syria at the time? —valereee ( talk) 14:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I believe a 1945 CIA report can be used to show the reader what the view of a 1945 CIA report said. The same way a 19th-century Chambers's Encyclopaedia can be used to show the reader the view of the 19th-century Chambers's Encyclopaedia. And I also believe that Levivich and others should not have veto power to lock information out of the article. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 15:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

SD, I hate to insert new evidence here, but I have to correct that statement: at here and here you appear to be arguing -- repeatedly, in two different sections you opened within days of each other -- that a 1946 CIA report proves that information in recent scholarship was a "historical impossibility" because, as you put it the second time you argued the editors at SK needed to agree to use it, that It was a secret report written and distributed by the CIA concerning a situation in Syria. The report was for the US president and other high ranking US officials. Its information is reliable. —valereee ( talk) 17:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

FWIW, that second section was when I p-blocked SD from SK for disruptive editing. I unblocked (along with AiK and another p-blocked editor) when I put the editing restriction in, hoping it would help and that they'd be able to edit productively there. SD complained at my talk, and I told them I thought they were completely justified in opening a discussion at AN, as I wasn't actually sure myself whether I had the authority to place that restriction. The AN discussion ended without being closed, which is more or less how we ended up here. —valereee ( talk) 17:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Valereee, there is nothing wrong with discussing old and new sources and comparing them with each other. I have after found newer academic scholar sources that confirm the argument I was making with the CIA source, these academic sources prove that the CIA report was correct. I support having different views in the article, both new and old presenting them as the pov of the source.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 18:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Supreme Deliciousness, this claim is refuted at WP:AGEMATTERS GPinkerton ( talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• You've repeated links to Joe's comments half a dozen times in this workshop. I'm sure the arbs heard it the first time; repeating it doesn't make the argument any stronger. Of course, you leave out the rebuttals to his non-materialised hypothetical, the fact that the example you cite of 'undisputed historical information' is dodgy and disputed, and that he was the lone dissenting arb in the original decision. It goes without saying that someone who is trying to include material prohibited by the sourcing restriction would find it "detrimental" -- that the restriction is not redundant and is actually being used doesn't mean the restriction is detrimental. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It should be noted that the Chambers source was only added because Supreme Deliciousness and other editors denied that West Kurdistan had existed before - as Supreme Deliciousness and others claimed but entirely failed to substantiate with a single source between them - the term was invented during the Syrian civil war. Supreme Deliciousness removed this refutation of his POV, but now appears to be arguing for its inclusion on the ill-informed misunderstanding (and logical fallacy) that because parts of 19th-century West Kurdistan are now in 21st-century Turkey, all 19th-century West Kurdistan was outside what is now 21st century Syria. This is either incorrigibly incompetent or deliberately tendentious, and in both cases is unarguably disruptive. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

For proof with diffs, see the final bullet point here on my ANI report:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1052#Supreme_Deliciousness_and_WP:TENDENTIOUS_editing_on_Syrian_Kurdistan where I wrote in November 2020:
• Next, Supreme Deliciousness [20] again removes well-sourced material and less POV text in favour of their own textus receptus. After this I find some sources and expand the article.
  Supreme Deliciousness, seeing this, decides to revert the entire thing, citing [21] "false terminology" in their edit summary: "See talkpage, this kind of false terminology can not be used in an encyclopedia," a really extraordinary response to sourced material to which I supplied citations and quotations, all of them, to a page, using the precise terminology "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". Still, Supreme Deliciousness appears to hold dear the unfounded belief that such terminology must not be used without scare quotes and without carefully minimizing the extent of usage (as if sources like the academia of the English-speaking world, the BBC, The Guardian, and Reuters didn't use it often and without qualification). Following the restoration of my material by others, Supreme Deliciousness [22] added an excessive number of labels to show their personal dissatisfaction that such terminology exists and is used in reliable sources, proclaiming that they were a "large amount of falsehoods and historical falsifications added into article".

Four months ago, this was ignored. I was blocked for criticizing the resulting inaction at ANI. This block and the subsequent irrelevant topic ban should be overturned by ArbCom. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Valereee: The advantage of the French scholarship is that it is third-party (although not very neutral since the French had encouraged Kurdish immigration and used Kurdish immigrants in their police to smash the revolting Arabs in southern and western Syria (see Jordi Tejel in my evidence analysis). The second thing is that some of those authors were there on the ground with the mandate authority surveying the area and describing the landscape and the population. This first-hand historical account is not present in the newer scholarship, and if is it would neglect superficially cover the details of the important 20th century developments. The wiring of Sir Mark Sykes who travelled the area and met with the different tribes provide similar insights. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 05:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

عمرو بن كلثوم, since you have identified these primary sources as "first-hand historical account", you will surely be obliged to agree that to use them as citations for statements of fact that directly contradict modern academic scholarship would certainly violate WP:PRIMARY and WP:UNDUE, especially as these obsolete papers (which in any case do not support the Arab nationalist POV being pushed by the Syrian government as their excuse for ethnic cleansing in Syrian Kurdistan) were produced by colonial geographers.

This also is true of Mark Sykes, and doubtless عمرو بن كلثوم would turn against such a source were he to learn that Sykes specifically states that his maps (one of which shows the Kikieh Kurds living in what is now Syrian territory in 1907 and another of which shows the area round Al-Hawl populated by Kurds, quite contrary to عمرو بن كلثوم's fictions) are (nevertheless) "not ethnological" ^[1]: 451 as عمرو بن كلثوم has previously incorrectly claimed, or if such quotations as "Fifteen years ago [scilicet. 1892] Deir Zor was a small transit town, probably little more than a village; it has now, roughly, 25,000 inhabitants, mostly Kurds ..." ^[2]: 394 or where عمرو بن كلثوم's WP:OR regarding the nomads of the Jazira is proven false where, reading Sykes, we learn that according to him^: ibid.

On this point I had the following statement from the chief Agha of the Kikieh Kurds-he was at the time encamped on the banks of the Jag Jag: "Formerly we Kikieh lived here in villages in winter and tents in summer, but the Shammar destroyed our crops and drove us up to the Karaja Dagh, where we live in houses in winter. However, we come here to pasture our flocks in spring, and also to show we have a right over the land. When the railway comes we shall be very rich. I shall bring all my people down here; the Government will be forced to protect them; and we may build, perhaps, five hundred villages." And this is only one tribe among many.

demonstrating (as if further proof were needed) that this bogus claim of all the nomads being Arabs (i.e. to exclude their being Kurds) is fundamentally wrong, as is the idea that settlement of transhumant Kurds in what is now Syrian Kurdistan dates exclusively from the French Mandate, since these reports of Sykes come from the decade before WWI, and that furthermore عمرو بن كلثوم's own favoured antique sources do not match the claims عمرو بن كلثوم makes for them.

However, we need no resort to such sources, and claims of an "advantage" to citing ancient sources like these and those of عمرو بن كلثوم (and contorting them to fit a POV) are illusory. Ample newer scholarship rejects the ideas pushed by عمرو بن كلثوم as originating in the Ba'athist ethnic cleansing project designed to destroy Syrian Kurdistan in the post-colonial era.

GPinkerton ( talk) 14:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I don't need to prove anything or keep going back and forth on this. Sources do the proof. Here are the two pages showing the demographics of Jazira in 1939 from Altug (2011) and exactly showing "nomads under the column for Arabs". So, GPinkerton stop your baseless accusations of me doing OR and look in the mirror. I think your baseless accusations and omitting you this number of people (25,000 nomads) in your math shows that you are editing/fighting here and elsewhere (just like in every article you visit) in bad faith. Your behavior hasn't changed a smidge, and you are still doing this in front of all the Arbs and admins participating here. It's about time for an Arb to step in and look into this pile of incivility and personal attacks by GPinkerton. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 18:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Exhibit C: عمرو بن كلثوم fails to understand (or refuses to understand) not just the population tables in the source he cites, but the whole thesis itself, which demonstrates not only that his claims are incorrect, but also discusses the reasons, this kind of claim is made, by among other (non-Kurdish) Syrian factions, the Arab national socialist Ba'ath Party, which renamed Syria the Syrian Arab Republic and which has long denied the Kurdishness of Syrian Kurdistan for ethno-nationalist ideological reasons, as well as for the fact that Syrian Kurdistan contains most of Syria's olive groves and almost all its oil.

Places where Altug PhD's thesis by cited by عمرو بن كلثوم refutes عمرو بن كلثوم's bogus claims about the pure Arabness (i.e. non-Kurdishness) of the estimated "25,000 nomads" mentioned by Altug:

One last time, here is a link to the tables from Altug (2011) that GPinkerton has mispresented and cheery picked. Everyone can clearly see the nomad number (25,000) under the column for Arabs. Furthermore, all previous evidence I have shown confirms this. Kurdish nomads lived in the Turkish mountains of Kurdistan, not in the steppe of the Syrian Jazira.

Exhibit D: the fictions of عمرو بن كلثوم are not repudiated by this determined POV-pusher even when demonstrated to be wholly false and refuted by his own (alleged) sources. His argument that a figure that does not appear in a table somehow belongs in one of the cells of the adjacent table defies all logic and proves عمرو بن كلثوم blindness to reason. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

More on this topic can be seen in this lecture by the author, here. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Unfair behavior

6) Valereee has been unfair towards Supreme Deliciousness

Evidence: [23]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Valereee has blocked the three editors discussing against the one-sided narrative that Levivich and GPinkerton's had introduced, and scared away any other meaningful input from other users. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 21:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

SD, I know you feel you’ve been unfairly treated, and I’m sorry for that. I’ve tried really hard to manage this whole thing, and while I’m sure I’ve done it imperfectly, I feel like I’ve tried pretty hard and pretty patiently to work with you, like at your talk page after the partial. I have not acted with any animosity, and I apologize that it feels that way. —valereee ( talk) 20:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Supreme Deliciousness entirely deserved the block and comments by Valereee. Valereee has nothing to apologize for. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedies

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.

Topic ban

1) GPinkerton is banned indefinitely from all articles, discussions, and other content related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed across all namespaces

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:Oppose and suggest a lifting of the topic ban. His additions to articles I was involved in are quiet impressive. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Lifting of source restriction

2) The detrimental source restriction Valereee introduced at Syrian Kurdistan is lifted

Comment by Arbitrators:

I agree, partly in response to comments Valereee made elsewhere on this page, that ArbCom needs to decide whether or not this was an appropriate use of DS/GS in general and whether it was appropriate in this instance. In other words can admin do it and if the answer is yes, was Valereee correct to do it in this instance. For me the answer to the first question (can an admin impose this under DS/GS) the answer for me is a clear yes. While I have thoughts about the second question, was Valereee right to do it in this instance, given the evidence and discussion presented so far, I want to continue to think about my answer before expressing an opinion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Valereee: yes I was. I'm pretty erratic in my comma usage. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

BK49, are you possibly missing a comma after 'made elsewhere on this page'? —valereee ( talk) 18:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sorry for the proofreading, it was just a crucial one for modifying "I agree" lol...20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) —valereee ( talk) 20:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Warned

3) Paradise Chronicle is warned not to continue making baseless accusations towards other editors

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Warned

4) Valereee is warned not to treat editors unfairly

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is unnecessary because Valereee has not treated Supreme Deliciousness unfairly. It is special pleading. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

One must give an explanation on topic (before reverting, or for the inclusion of poorly sourced content)

1) {One must give an explanation on topic (before reverting, or for the inclusion of poorly sourced content)} Some lesser editors (I call them allies) who mostly don't take part in lengthy discussions just revert. Others, experienced editors as well, too, use to ignore questions and arguments at the talk page. With poorly sourced I mean no academic scholarship. What can be refuted with scholarship should be above some obscure sources like sources which don't mention the topic or sources which are unreliable like conspiracy theorists disguised as a journalist of the Hill or disputed or of Think tanks which are deemed as unreliable. This is actually basic Wikipedia but concerning Kurds and Kurdistan this was often not enforced. I discussed for months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Paradise Chronicle, does the first Consensus building principle capture your idea? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:It sort of does. At first sight I liked it. But at the second, it works mainly for good faith. There were several disputes I was involved in, where I was in the minority and the others were two or more. Then I'd prefer academic consensus. Like if I have a certain amount of reliable sources or better, the phrase comes through and can't just be reverted without an explanation on topic at the talk page. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 03:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Barkeep49, for me it's that when there are multiple POV-pushers at an article, and it's gotten so bad there that most neutral editors aren't interested in fighting any more, the POV-pushers can just declare consensus. That actually happened at SK. A group of editors who all were pushing the same non-neutral POV agreed on something and AiK declared consensus that Syrian Kurdistan didn't exist except in the minds of nationalists. I believe that's when I p-blocked AiK from the article, again unblocking after placing the sourcing restriction. —valereee ( talk) 18:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

WP:RS and Academic scholarship

1) I know this sounds again like basic Wikipedia. But this is what is needed. If an editor wants to upgrade an article, either by updating the sources or by considering WP:RS and/or academic scholarship, it should be allowed and welcomed. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 02:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:While articles are written with all sorts of articles and outlets and as to me this should be allowed, an upgrade with WP:RS and academic scholarship should be allowed and preferred if such sources become available and an editor wants them to have included. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

No more removal of Kurdish place names

1) {No more removal of Kurdish place names} Experienced editors who oppose the mentioning of Kurdish names, remove them all the time for unsourced or even if sourced. Experienced pro-Kurdish editors don't remove names in Turkish, Farsi or Arabic language for unsourced or even at all. I can't remember any edit of diff for such an aim from an experienced pro-Kurdish editor. If a significant Kurdish population is mentioned in the article, (like if they have had a historical presence or are the current majority, plurality or the second most mentioned population in a location) the name should be encouraged to be sourced but not removed. Repeated removal of the Kurdish name for not mentioning the amount of the population if a Kurdish population is mentioned should lead to a block for racist behavior, removal of only the Kurdish names and leave other languages unsourced as well. This might be something to be drafted in better words by the ArbCom and might be adapted to other ethnic/nationalist conflicts. Maybe a similar remedy already exists for other ethnic conflicts, I don't know.

Comment by Arbitrators:

It's more likely that we would make a more general sanction, such as applying 1RR to articles under the scope of the final decision, rather than targeting this one specific thing. Experience has shown that overly-tailored sanctions can be gamed. This is not to say this is entirely without merit, or that everyone sees it exactly the way I do. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Supreme Deliciousness: (or someone else): in the abstract I can agree that there would be good reasons to remove the Kurdish place names. I have, however, not seen any evidence of discussion about this topic, just edits inserting/removing the names. Can you point me to evidence about where this topic has been discussed? Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

• I am not sure if a 1RR solves the issue as we currently don't have anyone interested enough in Kurdish place names to engage in repeating reverts. To revert one or two removals of Kurdish names by new editors, that's daily business, I do that often. But to deal with experienced editors who remove the Kurdish names really a lot, this is a real issue and we have shown a lot of evidence on this in the evidence phase. I'd really welcome a better solution to the issue from the ArbCom than 1RR. I'll think of one, too. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 20:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• There might be a good reason to remove a Kurdish place name the same way there might be a good reason to remove an Arabic, Assyrian or Armenian place name. Object to proposal.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• @ Barkeep49:: To address your point about the names, here is an example from the Ayn Issa page. The town is almost 100% Arab according to most if not all sources. Even the Kurdish AANES websites acknowledge that, and there has been no historical presence in the town since it is relatively far from the Kurdish-inhabited areas. Long story short, Konli17 (confirmed sockpuppet indeffed several weeks ago), has been on a crusade to find/add Kurdish names for non-Kurdish areas in Syria as part of an appropriation campaign given that the SDF control one third of the country. See Talk:Ayn_Issa, which is short and crisp for discussion on the addition of a newly-invented Kurdish name from a Kurdish propaganda website, although the bulk of Kurdish outlets (official and media) only using the Arabic name. User Paradise Chronicle participated there. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 04:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  The remarks by عمرو بن كلثوم here demonstrates yet again his is an incorrigible POV problem: namely that their insistence that Syrian Kurdistan is a collection of non-Kurdish areas in Syria is The Truth, despite this claim having been refuted and exposed as Ba'athist propaganda by all and every reliable source (dismissed as "pro-Kurdish POV sources by عمرو بن كلثوم). The only place in the world where this Ba'athist propaganda is taken for fact is in the Ba'athist-run Syrian Arab dictatorship itself. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Barkeep49: I think part of what the evidence suggests is that discussion doesn't happen when it should, and when it does happen it is sometimes ignored. For example, there was the "Rojava conflict → Northeastern Syria conflict" unsuccessful RM, but that didn't stop editors from removing references to "Rojava" in various articles about the conflict and/or place (links and diffs in my analysis section). That said, you are right that there are valid reasons sometimes to remove names. "Syrian Kurdistan" is not the same as "north Syria" (there are places in north Syria that are not part of Syrian Kurdistan), nor is "Turkish Kurdistan" the same as "southern Turkey", and so forth. Sometimes the sources refer to "Syrian Kurdistan" and sometimes it's "northern Syria" and so care must be taken. But in other cases, it's clearer. For example, Qamishli is the de facto capital of Rojava (and used to be the legal capital until 2018 when they moved it to another city), so there is unlikely to be a reason to remove all references to "Rojava" from the Qamishli article. Same with Kobani and many other places. Personally, I believe there is almost never a reason to remove language translations from place names (like Kurdish or Arabic names for cities) because they help the reader, but this has, as I understand it, always been a widespread issue, for example with Hebrew/Arabic names for places in Israel/Palestine, Russian/Ukranian spelling of Kyiv, and so forth. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The comment by Amr Ibn refers to a content dispute in one! article. I refer to Kurdish names in general, Kurdistan, the four parts of Kurdistan and Kurdish place names in areas and articles where Kurds play a significant role. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Barkeep49, one of the problems at SK (and I assume other articles on the subject) is that we don't get discussion, we get bludgeoning because of the POV issues. You've seen it here and at the evidence stage; these editors aren't hiding it or rationalizing it or explaining it, they are providing evidence for the truth of it. These editors are true believers. Our usual choice seems to be just topic banning all of them and the next bunch and the next for disruptive editing. If this were AP2, that's what we'd do -- we have plenty of people interested in working on AP2, we can limit it to those who can work neutrally. But in this case in my opinion it would be a shame, because it would have collateral damage -- these folks have knowledge of the general region, and we'd lose that knowledge for anything in the region that even touches on the Kurds. Which is a heckuva lot. If instead we restrict them, when necessary and appropriate, to using only the best available sources (however we define it for a particular article) for disputed content, maybe we can still get the benefit of their knowledge. And if even that doesn't work, fine, t-ban. —valereee ( talk) 15:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• If it is me you are referring to then I have said that we should have different views and present both sides: [24]-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 16:04, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply
• Dear Valereee, please do not underestimate to what extent experts stay away from Wikipedia because they don't want to engage in exhausting battles with editors who have no clue, and don't really want to have a clue, because they edit on topics they have strong opinions about rather than on topics for which they have a genuine, open minded interest. It is my belief that we should actually be structurally and systematically topic-banning such editors, because that, I think, is the true way to make expert retention work. In any case, not all the editors involved here appear to me to be equally blind believers in their own cause, and it would probably be beneficial to try and make some more fine-grained distinctions. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 16:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Apaugasma, completely open to that being the better strategy. —valereee ( talk) 18:50, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I agree in part. c.f. User:Jnc/Astronomer vs Amateur (which I came across today). One must take a reasonable approach to discussions, and keep their POV out of it, otherwise Wikipedia will always favour non-expert input, and that would be detrimental to building the sum of human knowledge. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Topic ban for Thepharoah17

2) For ThePharoah17 I suggest a topic ban on Kurds and Kurdistan for this edit and which was made in the current ArbCom Case on Kurds and Kurdistan and for the record stated Kurdistan is a secular idea. It doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist. and in the same edit That's why there isn't really such thing as a Kurdish name. About the length of the topic ban, I leave the ArbCom to decide, but I wouldn't know why I would let them back. Their recent behavior? They wrote in the edit above, I am done and have no further interest in the Kurds issue on the 6 January 2021 and following entered in an edit war on the Kurdish name of Gaziantep which was sourced with 4! citations. I had to add one of a dictionary and even then they still removed the name. More info here if anyone is interested. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 21:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. ThePharoah17 has been mostly undoing disruptive edits by Konli17. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 04:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think this is necessary to prevent the disruption evidenced in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Evidence presented by GPinkerton but added to my section., particularly since Thepharoah17 has been largely unresponsive to concerns raised at multiple fora (including this case) yet continues making similar edits even while this case is going (like removing Kurdish name for a city [25]). Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Part oppose. ThePharoah17 should be blocked indefinitely. A topic ban is insufficient; the POV-push will simply continue somewhere else. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Oppose topic ban. Thepharoah17 has good point, why does it not has a arabic name to. And he worked hard to fight against this LTA sock! Shadow4dark ( talk) 07:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies by AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم)

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. Given the previous edit-warring, combative behavior of GPinkerton during this case, personal attacks, canvassing, gaming the system, party intimidation and evidence of disruptive evidence and non-collaborative mentality, it is time to reinforce the indefinitely block this user who has created so many battle grounds across a wide range of article.
2. User Paradise Chronicle should be topic banned for one year, until they prove that they can stop their edit-warring behavior. I am optimistic that they will learn their lesson from this case and come back to positively contribute to this area.
3. Restore the Syrian Kurdistan page to the version of 11 November 2020 (meaningful date).
4. Drop the innovated rules about old scholarship that were meant to prevent the presentation of a balanced article.
5. Close this case as soon as practical and stop wasting everyone's time.
6. As a few admins requested, create a 1RR for Kurdish-related topics, and impose discretionary sanctions.

Thank you to the ArbCom members and the Admins who participated here for your time, and sorry for the lengthy submission. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 09:39, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

The case will close in due time. #5 is meaningless as a remedy. -- BDD ( talk) 17:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

And #3 is not something we are going to even consider doing. We do not make content decisions. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ عمرو بن كلثوم: can you point to evidence about why 1RR would help in this area? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

@ Barkeep49: As you could see on this board and in the evidence, this is an area where users are ideologically motivated, and they tend to respond emotionally, especially when the topic is in the news. The 1RR would allow them to calm down before editing again and to think twice before reverting and getting engaged in an edit war. I think this would reduce the edit-warring by trespassers and the headache for admins. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 04:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

NB: the expressly WP:OWN attitude shown by عمرو بن كلثوم ("trespassers") in an area in which he freely admits to being "ideologically motivated" and tending "to respond emotionally, especially when the topic is in the news". For عمرو بن كلثوم, a sometime Aleppo resident favourable to the anti-Kurdish propaganda produced by the ruling Ba'ath Party, is clear a 1RR would suit the long-term aims of عمرو بن كلثوم to minimize Kurdish legitimacy in Syrian Kurdistan while the now-decade-long civil war is ongoing "in the news", since so many articles have for years been subject to the POV-pushing of عمرو بن كلثوم himself together with Supreme Deliciousness, Thepharoah17, Shadow4Dark, and Attar-aram syria. GPinkerton ( talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Here's the combined diff of the changes to the SK article since November that #3 suggests to undo. (Just look at the references section: says it all.) I do not think any of these proposed remedies would be helpful. 1RR is an extreme measure, and widespread (as opposed to localized) edit warring is not suggested by the evidence. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Proposal #6 v. #4 surprises me, as to me 1RR seems much more restrictive than requiring recent scholarship for disputed content. I reject utterly the accusation that the source restriction was intended "to prevent the presentation of a balanced article". The intent was to prevent ongoing disruptive editing at talk. —valereee ( talk) 15:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Discretionary sanctions authorized

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to Kurds and Kurdistan, and the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed. This authorization supersedes the earlier authorization of discretionary sanctions in this topic area by the community. All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I am not suggesting I am necessarily in favor of this sanction. I am instead seeking feedback from interested editors (and other arbs). There are two elements of this that I would be interested in receiving feedback on. First, is Kurds and Kurdistan the right scope? Second, if we are placing DS on what I'm currently calling Kurds and Kurdistan, do we also need to assume responsibility for the Syrian Civil War GS placed by the community? (There is precedent for ArbCom assuming responsibility for GS example: Abortion). I should note that I am not a drafter so if something is proposed it will ultimately be crafted by them. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

I think DS for Kurds and Kurdistan is a good idea, because it lets users use AE and gives admin more enforcement tools (beyond the scope of what SCW/ISIL GS covers). I'm not sure how that would or should interact with GS. I do wonder what percentage our DS/GS collectively needs to cover before we just authorize DS/GS for the entire Middle East. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think the overlap between the Syrian civil war and the Kurdish Question is a red herring; anything decided for these issues should be kept separate. The issues raised here go far further back in time and have far greater scope than the Syrian civil war issue dies, and at the same time the Syrian civil war has themes that are not of direct relevance to Kurdistan topics. ArbCom needs to make a regime that deals with the legacy of the partition of the Ottoman Empire, colonization, de-colonization, and nationalism as regards the territory of Syrian Kurdistan from long before 2011, and with the other Kurdistans in Iran, Turkey, Iraq, etc. Much of this long predates the Syrian civil war and can only be tangentially connected with it or with ISIS. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:35, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Agree to standard discretionary sanctions for Kurds and Kurdistan. But as also argued by others, even though I the Syrian Civil War and the issue with Kurds and Kurdistan overlap in several articles, they are two different topics and as to me, the two topics should be addressed separately. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 22:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Kurdistan is distinct from the Syrian Civil War. There is overlap (eg at Syrian Kurdistan), but there’s also overlap between acupuncture and pseudoscience, yet they’re separate authorisations. And there’s overlap between AP2 and NEWBLPBAN, etc etc. It just means admins have a choice of DS to use. The SCW sanctions also include ISIL separately, by community amendment. Ultimately discretionary sanctions are going to be the key remedy of this case, but I don’t think they should extend to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, which seems outside the scope of this case. Kurds and Kurdistan (give or take an explicit mention of Kurdish disputes/history) seems like an appropriate DS scope. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 01:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Proposed enforcement

SD TBAN

1) User:Supreme Deliciousness is indefinitely topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The reasons are for the conduct by SD described in the #Analysis by Levivich section, which I think demonstrates the points made by by Valeree and Apaugasma at #Analysis by Valereee. I haven't listed a specific finding of fact to support this proposal because I'm not sure of the wording; the wording I used in the TLDR of my analysis section was removal/denial of "Kurdistan" and "____ Kurdistans" (e.g. "Syrian Kurdistan"), dismissal of academic sources as pro-Kurdish propaganda, and misuse of old sources in an attempt to disprove modern academic sources and I don't think that's good enough phrasing for a proposed FOF, but it's the reasoning for proposing a TBAN. Even in this workshop, SD suggests "Syrian Kurdistan" is not a "real place" [26], contradicting all the sources cited in the first two sentences of Syrian Kurdistan and listed two months ago at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 4#"Syrian Kurdistan" and discussed ad nauseum. I think SD has been disruptive in this topic area, and only a TBAN can stop that disruption. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Part oppose. Supreme Deliciousness should be blocked indefinitely. A topic ban is insufficient; the POV-push will simply continue somewhere else. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Support a block for Kurds and Kurdistan. Their editing behavior and dismissal of academic sources is just not constructive for Wikipedia and disruptive to Admin duties. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

• When this case started, I would have said I didn't think this was necessary if we decided admins could, whether by discretion or by opening a section at AN for community input, put some appropriate sourcing restriction into place on an article in K/Kstan. I'd have said let's see if SD can productively edit with that restriction. But after the evidence and workshop here, I went looked at SD's recent user talk to see if their recent editing outside of SK was productive, and the first thing I found was a complaint last summer about very similar problematic POV-pushing on an Israel-related article. (If requested I'll provide the diff, but I mention it just to explain my reasoning, not as evidence.) So now I have to agree with Levivich, and honestly I'm wondering if SD's POV issue is with the entire Middle East. —valereee ( talk) 16:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Valereee, a complaint should only be taken into consideration if it has merit, not if it is unfounded. You are talking about one Israeli editor complaining at my talkpage about my edit involving an article involving Jerusalem. If you take a look at that Wikipedia article it doesn't say that the disputed city is "in Israel". Jerusalem is presented in the first lines of the article as a disputed city. My edit that this Israeli editor was complaining about was following that neutral consensus at the Jerusalem article. Valereee, it is incredibly damaging to the integrity of the Arb case that you bring up this meritless and unfounded complaint, and trying to get me topic banned with it. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• I strongly support this, per Levivich's analysis of the evidence and Supreme Deliciousness' contributions to this very workshop. Whether Supreme Deliciousness' misinterpretation of the sources is unintentional (as Valereee argued earlier in her analysis) or not, it is clear that it is POV-induced, and that it leads to serious and long-term disruption. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 17:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: Apaugasma is friends with GPinkerton: [27] Levivich's "analysis" are inaccurate as I have demonstrated. Could you point out the "misinterpretation of the sources" you claim I have done?-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Uhhh... You're seeking to discredit their comments, which also involve some criticism of GP, on the basis that these two editors communicated on content before and GP gave them a barnstar...? ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 20:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I think this most recent section, from today, further shows an attempt not to neutrally look for the WP:BESTSOURCES and summarise what they say, whether what they says matches ones POV or not, but instead reflects a process which starts with a POV and then tries to find or distort sources to support text that illustrates that POV. There appears to be little desire to meet Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in the Wikipedia article. ( WP:CONTEXTMATTERS; emphasis not mine) Rather some kind of attempt to discredit academic sourcing because... well, I'll let the section speak for itself. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

AIK TBAN

2) User:عمرو بن كلثوم is indefinitely topic-banned from Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Same comment as above, based on the conduct described at #Analysis by Levivich, which continues right up to this workshop in #Proposed remedies by AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم) (e.g. #3, which would undo months worth of expansion using top-quality academic sources, and #4, which claims old sources are needed to balance an article) and #Analysis of evidence of AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم) (which still cites the 1948 CIA report as an RS), which I also think demonstrates the points made by by Valeree and Apaugasma at #Analysis by Valereee. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Part oppose. عمرو بن كلثوم should be blocked indefinitely. A topic ban is insufficient; the POV-push will simply continue somewhere else. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Support a block for Kurds and Kurdistan. Their editing behavior and dismissal of academic sources is just not constructive for Wikipedia. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

His defense of ThePharoah17 who claimed Kurdistan doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist at the ArbCom case...Please, ArbCom...We discussed for months about this and we would have to discuss months more if they are not blocked from Kurds and Kurdistan. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

• I strongly support this. According to Amr ibn Kulthoum's own admission at the talk page of this workshop, his "contribution refutes and exposes GPinkerton's wild POV claims, who refuses to admit the extent of the Kurdish immigration into this area". Referring to his analysis of the evidence, he states: "My quotes and numbers analyze the history of the area". This analysis should not be removed from the workshop, so he argues, because "the demographics and naming are at the core of the dispute at "Syrian Kurdistan"". It seems to me that Amr ibn Kulthoum's analysis of the evidence conclusively shows that he is here to promote his own originally researched views, and that he entirely assumes the point of view of a party in the real-world conflict over the identity of (Syrian) Kurdistan, a conflict to which disputes over demographics and immigration are indeed of central importance. Again, whether this is in bad faith or not is irrelevant: it is clearly detrimental to Wikipedia, and appropriate measures should be taken. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 18:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

These "evidences" presented under GPinkerton edit-wars often across a wide range of articles are every each unrelated to Kurds and Kurdistan

Bulgaria during World War II is not relating to Kurds but to an event of World War II

Basilica also not

Catholicity as well christian released,

Vashti is biblical

Hagia Sophia is a religious building,

Mehmed the Conqueror is an Ottoman Sultan and the word Kurd is not included in the article

Constantine the Great and Christianity is about a Roman emperors relation to Christianity also doesn't include Kurd or Kurdistan

Murder of Samuel Paty Is about a Murder in France.

Then Kurds are not even the reason for the dispute at these articles, but edit warring. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 12:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis by Valereee

I think this diff in SD's rebuttal to GP here is kind of this whole issue in a nutshell: GP has called SD's edits "misrepresenting sources." SD truly believes their POV is correct and their interpretation of sources is correct: that because they can show scholars have referred to Syrian Kurdistan as "a concept" or "an imagined community" -- and SD is quite correct that those types of terms are used often in recent scholarship -- that it provides absolutely compelling evidence, even the necessity, to call Syrian Kurdistan imaginary -- that is: not real. They and others have made this argument many many times at the talk.

This is not bad-faith editing on SD's or the other editors' parts. The issue here to me seems to be that they are so absolutely sure their POV is the literal truth that they are only able to interpret sources in ways that support that POV. It's not bad faith. It's simply absolute knowledge that Syrian Kurdistan doesn't exist except in some people's imaginations and that therefore the sources must support that simple truth. Obviously they wouldn't be offering this diff (and others in the same rebuttal, all backed up by quotes from multiple scholarly sources that they believe prove scholars are calling SK imaginary) as evidence if they didn't think the arbitration committee would see the obvious truth of the matter and vindicate their interpretation. This is the kind of thing that is likely happening with other bits of content at various articles surrounding Kurds and Kurdistan. —valereee ( talk) 14:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

+1 to Valereee's analysis above and Apaugasma's analysis below, they both put it better than I could. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 21:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Response to Apaugasma below: The western world is a real place, it is wildly accepted and used by the international community. "Syrian Kurdistan" is not. Quite the opposite in fact. "Syrian Kurdistan" is similar to Northwest Territorial Imperative which directly in the lead describes it as an idea. This is how "Syrian Kurdistan" should be described. And SK was described like this in the lead before in a good way: [28], unfortunately, that neutral lead was changed to today's non-neutral version which describes SK as a real location in Syria and presents this as an undisputed fact to the reader. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 22:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  It has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that Syrian Kurdistan is the WP:COMMONNAME for Syrian Kurdistan. Supreme Deliciousness is unlikely ever to accept this, but Wikipedia need not cater to Supreme Deliciousness's preferences exclusively. Or at all. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This is exactly right. While definitely attracting some controversy, our article on the Western world doesn't see anyone arguing that its lead should stress that it is just a "concept", or merely a product of "territorial imagination". But that article does belong both to Category:Civilizations and to Category:Cultural concepts. The Western world may be either something very real, or completely imagined, depending on whom you ask. Scholarly sources tend to affirm the conceptual and imagined nature of this type of phenomenon, while also allowing that it is in some sense real (depending on one's politics). We at Wikipedia should simply follow the scholarly sources in this. The question whether territorial concepts like the Western world or Syrian Kurdistan (even if and when they are considered to be irredentist) 'really exist' should never be a point of discussion, because the answer to that question completely depends on one's personal point of view. If it does become a point of discussion, this should be taken as a clear sign that someone may not be leaving his or her POV at the door. If, moreover, the 'real existence' of one specific product of territorial imagination is systematically targeted (such as is clearly the case here for Syrian Kurdistan), this is almost sure to lead to a serious breach of NPOV.

However, to really have the whole issue in a nutshell, I believe one should add this diff, which catches GP warning SD that their "transparent ploy to interlard the encyclopaedia with fringe ethno-nationalism has been discovered" and that "it will be excised root and stem". On the one hand, this battleground behavior (which is quite endemic with GP) is clearly unacceptable, but on the other hand, I believe that it may at least in part explain why SD's "transparent ploy" was in fact not effectively countered, and why this arbitration case was ultimately needed. If the relevant editors would have dealt with the POV issues in a truly civil way, and in line with Wikipedia policy more generally, they would probably long since have been solved (with or without the mediation of ANI). Especially GP's case is double-edged: this editor has, so it seems, done a lot of rewriting in a variety of articles in order to remove disinformation and to remedy highly sensitive POV issues. This is both very hard and much-needed work, and their contributions are highly valued. So highly valued, in fact, that admins have been rather reluctant to put a firm halt to GP's "root and stem" attitude. The general stance appears to have been that no matter how uncivil and inappropriate GP's behavior, in most cases (though not in all!) it was really aimed at 'excising' something problematic, and so ultimately productive and beneficial to Wikipedia. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 19:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

On the removal of sourced material for which PC was blocked before

Yes I was blocked for ca 1.30 hours for not reverting to this version The version I reverted to include the same lines, but they are from a self revert not from a restoration of the previous version. That I self reverted was also the reason for why the 3RR report was closed as a self revert.

Amr Ibn following insisted that I revert (others would use the term canvass) further which I did on the encouragement of El C. I was deblocked following the confusion was resolved. Both versions don't include the two quotes I removed this time. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Amr Ibn has reverted by far the most at the Tel Abyad page, has achieved two blocks while never having been blocked. I also included a Wikilink for Kurdification, which was reverted, too Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 17:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC). reply

The root of the cause for Amr Ibns reverts was the disruptive sockpuppet Konli17 that was edit warring: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. This sockpuppet casued great damage to a a lot of editors across several Kurd related articles. The sock started the entire disruption at Syrian Kurdistan, Arbitrators do not let this sock win. Also, PC, I did not revert your wikilink to kurdification, its still there. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 19:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The attempt to pin all blame for Supreme Deliciousness's and عمرو بن كلثوم 's disruptive editing on a blocked editor who also identified the POV-pushing is a very weak defence indeed. The idea that all their disruption and POV-pushing is justified by undoing the edits of someone else is quite fantastic and illogical. How did undoing those edits motivate the POV-push on the talk page of Syrian Kurdistan? How could Konli17's edits possibly have influenced academic sources and Levivich, Valereee, Paradise Chronicle, and myself? It's all very poor reasoning and bespeaks the WP:RGW problems these problem editors have with not only this topic but the principles of Wikipedia in general. GPinkerton ( talk) 14:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Analysis on the lack of civility through the Tell Abyad evidence

Presented by Paradise Chronicle (further on PC) as well as Amr Ibn Kulthum (further Amr Ibn).

PC wanted to show Tell Abyad as an example of the Civility in Kurdish related articles, Amr Ibn for the removal of sourced info and the removal of content I was blocked for

Tell Abyad is a good example to show the long lasting dispute on the presentation of the Kurds as well as the behavior of the participants in Kurdish articles. Amr Ibns main argument for the inclusion of the quotes was sourced. This was in May 2020 the case and also in the recent ArbCom case

diffMay 2020

diffMay 2020

diffMay 2020

diff revert from an edit by Applodion in June

Sourced at talk page in October 2020

diff

and at the current ArbCom Case

diff

Amr Ibn hasn't answered on questions to terms like unilaterally and formally since June 2020 when I brought this up. I don't what you think is another expression of his in the Tell Abyad discussion as explained in the evidence section.

difffor unilaterally

diff for formally

You can use the search function by pressing control/command + f and dial Unilaterally and Formally, all are from me when addressing the issue of the renaming of the city and unilaterally detaching it from the Raqqa Governorate.

To suggest that "the Kurds" have formally renamed the city into a Kurdish name (Kurdish was forbidden before, the Kurds around the YPG and the PYD just allowed it to be spoken and written) used Latin script understandable to Turkish Kurds instead of Arabic script (Latin and Arabic script are present in traffic signs all over Syria images from Wikicommons) and unilaterally detached it from an "existing" Syrian Raqqa Governorate (which before and after was called Raqqa Wilaya by ISIL and large parts of it were controlled by ISIL until the end of 2016, Raqqa fell in October 2017) in a dominant fashion of a quote is not NPOV. I agree to text in our own Wikipedia language which includes accused by (in 2015) or according to and include a Kurdifying wikilink, but not to prominent long quotes with several inaccuracies.

The Washington Institute quote by Fabrice Balanche is anyway WP:UNDUE as it is not a reliable source per se according to WP:RS Archive 48 nor is Fabrice Balanche a notable figure or citizen of Tell Abyad.

Reasons I brought forward for the removal of the quotes, besides several reports at the noticeboards:

diff Removal of Kurdwatch in July 2020 quote per WP:cite and WP:Quotations No author can be mentioned. The Kurdwatch quote is presently removed.

diff removed quotes per WP:ONUS September 2020

diff WP:UNDUE and MOS:QUOTEPOV in September 2020

diff Removal of WINEP and WaPo quotes in October 2020 for not addressing the points I made at the talk page

diff October 2020 Remove quotes as no response at talk page

diff January 2021 to see what happens if the eyes of the ArbCom are present, (not in the edit summary)

All except for the WINEP, WP:RSN argument I have brought in discussions before as well. Konli17 has argued similarly but Amr Ibn and others have ignored questions several times. Amr Ibn also ignored questions specifically directed at him. Just check with command + f and dial Amr?.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Paradise Chronicle refused to abide by the arbitration result and continued to edit war during and after the process. She shows that they never intended to listen to 3rd party opinion or collaborate in good faith with other users. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 22:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Analysis of Violations of BLP by PC

BLP as to my understanding refers to biographies of living people and Harun Yahya is really described as someone who refutes Darwinism and being accused of anti-semitism on wikipedia. A version of the 26th of January is this one. Eva Savelsberg has no article yet and really attends SETA (Turkish Government Think Tank of which Erdogan spox Ibrahim Kalin was the founding director) forums. This is my defense and it is yours to judge. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rebuttal of the Evidence provided by Amr Ibn at Whitewashing and self-declared POV

Amr Ibn Kulthum and ThePharoah17 tried to include several sources not mentioning the Kurdistan Communities Union (KCK) for a phrase including the KCK. Then they also wanted to include Harun Yahya, a well known Turkish conspiracy theorist and an advocate of Islamic creationism disguised as Bill Rehkop of The Hill (newspaper). This all in the lead of the pro-Kurdish PYD

diff sources used there (beside Harun Yahya) were for example

diff Council of Foreign Relations (think tank) not mentioning the KCK

diff Reuters not mentioning the KCK

diff Hoover (think tank) article by Fabrice Balanche not mentioning the KCK

After serious attempts to include those sources for the KCK, I clarified them, revealing authors like Harun Yahya and Fabrice Balanche. They

reverted again. There was a

discussion at the WP:RS

(without Admins involved) after which I was finally able to remove Harun Yahya and the sources not mentioning the KCK.

The POV accusation refers to a question on women's rights in relation to ISIL which I asked on the 25 November 2020, the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women and I fully stand behind this question. Also behind my statement on the Gender-egalitarian and women empowering etc. Government in the AANES and the SDF who fought against ISIL. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence provided by Paradise Chronicle (PC) and Supreme Deliciousness (SD) on the approach on ISIL and Kurds

When Amr Ibn Kulthum (Amr Ibn) refers to ISIL they use the control, and not occupied. From Supreme Deliciousness (SD) I haven't found any edit about ISIL territory, neither under control or occupied. But both Amr Ibn and SD refer to the areas of Syrian Kurdistan which are Governed by the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) of which most areas are captured/liberated from ISIL as Kurdish occupied, occupied by Kurds or occupied by a (pro-)Kurdish organization.

diff from evidence Being occupied by MILITARY FORCE...

difffrom evidence The areas in your maps are occupied by military force

diff The YPG-linked PKK and ISIS are both classified as terrorist organizations by the United States and the European Union. Is one really different from the other? by ThePharoah in the discussion about the move attempt from Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied regions in Syria in November 2020

diff "Western Kurdistan (Rojava)" on the area occupied by kurds by SD

diff There are no "kurdish areas" in Syria, they are Kurdish-occupied by SD in October 2019

diff So if YPG occupied Raqqa by Attar Aram syria

diff military occupation by YPG militias at Hasakah by Amr Ibn January 2017

[ diff] I guess this should be renamed to "The Kurdish occupation of northeastern Syria" by Amr Ibn at Rojava conflict in August 2020

Together with the Move attempt of Syrian Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied Region of Syria during the ISIL led Siege of Kobane and that I haven't found any ISIL territory deemed as occupied (by military force) by the editors in question I translated this into a surprising tolerance towards ISIS for which I after was accused

of having called someone a terrorist sympathizer by Swarm and

also Thepharoah17 for which an apology would nice, too.

I apologize for having caused discomfort with the expression "tolerance towards ISIL". But I let the ArbCom judge over the yearlong and repeated classifying of ISIL liberated areas as Kurdish occupied and their move attempts from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan to Kurdish occupied... Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 23:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence of AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم)

Now that many ArbCom members have had a firsthand experience, here on this board, of the type of behavior we have been dealing with, I am certain they have identified for themselves the disruptive "users" in this case even before consulting the evidence provided. On top of this behavior issue, as Barkeep has correctly noticed above, we do have a content and source dispute. GPinkerton et al. have decided to adopt the wildest Kurdish nationalistic view, including the name "Syrian Kurdistan" for parts of northern Syria. They have decided to present that name as an undisputed name for areas that have always had very mixed populations, ethnically and culturally. I am certain most of you know that the name "Kurdistan" means (Land of the Kurds). While in some locations (parts of northwestern Iran, eastern Turkey and northeastern Iraq) the population is almost entirely Kurdish in large swaths of land, the situation is very different in northern Syria, and I will present evidence below. GPinkerton et al. removed content and maps related to the 20th century history of the area from the Syrian Kurdistan article, under different pretexts and arbitrary rules, in an effort to hide the fact that most of the Kurdish population in Syria have in fact immigrated from Turkey. We are not here in a position to discuss what rights do these immigrants get, we are simply here to present facts and leave the judgement to the reader. As indicated in the sources listed below, the fact is that large numbers of immigrants from Turkey have arrived in many successive waves throughout the first half of the 20th century, and regardless whether some Kurds existed in this area before or not, these immigrants arriving in the tens of thousands (20,000 to 25,000 in the 1920's alone according to Sir John Hope Simpson and John McDowall, both detailed below) significantly inflated the number of Kurds compared to other constituents (also see sudden huge population jumps in FRENCH census numbers in the table. We have British maps ( 1, 2) from the early 20th century showing exactly the location of Arab and Kurdish tribes prior to the establishment of the border (the train track was used as the border line, the towns Arab Punar, Ras al-Ayn and Nusaybin are right on the Syria-Turkey border and could be used as reference points)). The French scholarship from the era (some mentioned below) gives VERY DETAILED accounts of this immigration, still GPinkerton wants to toss that out, because that does not agree with their POV and ideological convictions. Let's assume we throw that away, we still have newer scholarship, such as Strom (2005). Well, this time GPinkerton does not like it because it does not give too much details. Assuming we go with that, Jordi Tejel (2009) mentions the following ^[1]:

The mandatory authority’s attitude toward Kurdish refugees evolved from one of rejection in 1925 to one of encouragement to settle in Jazira, and to a lesser extent in Kurd Dagh. If before 1927 there were at most 45 Kurdish villages in this region, by 1939, they numbered between 700 and 800 agglomerations of Kurdish majority.

According to official French mandate of Syria census numbers presented in 1939 there were 54,769 Muslim Arabs (including 25,000 nomads), 53,315 Kurds (in addition to 2181 Kurdo-Christians and 1602 Yezidis), and the rest being Christian (40,283). As you can see, this is almost a perfect three way split, with no dominant group, and even after all the Kurdish (and Christian) immigration in the previous two decades, the number of Kurds is only half the population in 1939. How would that justify adopting the Kurdish nationalistic name for the area and imply the other "native" half of the population are now foreigners on their land? Despite all these pieces of evidence, GPinkerton still [ to accept this fact that most Kurds in Syria have immigrated from Turkey. The table below from De Vaumas (1956) clearly shows the effect on the inflowing immigration on the population of Syrian Jazira province ^[2].

Historical population

Year	Pop.	±%
1929	40,000	—
1931	44,153	+10.4%
1932	63,000	+42.7%
1933	64,886	+3.0%
1935	94,596	+45.8%
1937	98,144	+3.8%
1938	103,514	+5.5%
1939	106,052	+2.5%
1940	126,508	+19.3%
1941	129,145	+2.1%
1942	136,107	+5.4%
1943	146,001	+7.3%
1946	151,137	+3.5%
1950	159,300	+5.4%
1951	162,145	+1.8%
1952	177,388	+9.4%
1953	232,104	+30.8%
1954	233,998	+0.8%

The commonly used name for the area (still not very neutral, but definitely less exclusive than "Syrian Kurdistan") is demonstrated in Kaya (2012):

Although it is well established that these maps overlook the heterogeneous character of the population inhabiting the area as well as the political boundaries of the existing states, they appear in almost all types of sources, from Kurdish websites to non-Kurdish academic works, journals and newspapers. They typically refer to the region as ‘Kurdish populated areas’ or the ‘Kurdish region’.

Likewise, Jordi Tejel (2018) ^[3] (in a book edited by Michael Gunter and cited by GPinkerton), says the following:

Overall, a relative freedom of action related to propaganda and training that was available to PKK representatives, and to a lesser extent to the KDP and the PUK, led to an increasing awareness of the Kurdish identity in Syria and to the strengthening of the pan-Kurdist ideal by “proxy”. The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria"

Even the Kurdish activist Ismet Cheriff Vanly, writing in 1993, when describing Kurdistan referred to the Kurdish areas of in Syria as follows ^[4]:

Kurdistan in Iraq is often referred to as Southern Kurdistan but in fact it occupies a more or less central position in the Kurdish territories. It is the link between what is variously known as Turkish, Northern or Western Kurdistan to the north and north-west, and so-called Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan to the east and south-east, and it also borders on the mainly Kurdish areas of the Syrian Jezireh.

Along the same lines, a declassified CIA report talks about "Turkish Kurdistan", "Kurdistan" in Iran", and "Kurdistan" in Iraq, but for Syria it uses the term "Kurds in Syria" (see quotes below).

Back to the Syrian Kurdistan page, this version was a consensus/compromise version that was last edited by user Applodion, a moderate and decent user who usually edits in favor of Kurds and their autonomous administration, but is still and reasonable and not hostile (to put it nicely) towards the other ethnic constituents like some other users here. That version does show the Kurdish nationalistic name, but does point out that it is disputed. Then the edit-warring sock puppet Konli17 shows up and starts a "Major clean-up, ..." here that started this mess, then GPinkerton shows up and continues the edit-warring and takes over from the sock-puppet. Even admin Valereee accepted that the name is disputed here, then she recused herself but came back after and placed a source restriction (as indicated before by user Supreme Deliciousness in the evidence) and handed a few brief Talk page blocks to three users (Supreme Deliciousness, Fiveby and myself) because we were not in agreement with the POV-pushing and presentation of the "Syrian Kurdistan" term is an undisputed fact.

Below are some non-exhaustive examples of scholarship on Kurdish immigration from Turkey into Syria.

Short summary

@ Barkeep49:: The area under question has always been called Jazira or Syria Jazira and has historically been "the domain the Arab Shammar tribe", who allowed Kurdish tribes paying tributes to come down from the Turkish mountains in the winter for grazing. According to many accounts (detailed below), most Kurds who live here now arrived from Turkey in the 20th century (after the border was created) (see Jordi Tejel below: number of Kurdish villages jumping from 45 in 1927 to 700-800 in 1939). Kurds now live here together with other large groups in a three-way split (i.e., Kurds, Arabs, and Christians) and no one group represents an absolute majority (@ Valereee: had commented on that before on that article's Talk page). GPinkerton et al. are pushing the Kurdish nationalistic name (Syrian Kurdistan) as THE undisputed name for the area. Jordi Tejel quoted below says:

The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria"

Even the Kurdish activist Ismet Cheriff Vanly, writing in 1993, when describing Kurdistan referred to the Kurdish areas of in Syria as follows ^[5]:

Kurdistan in Iraq is often referred to as Southern Kurdistan but in fact it occupies a more or less central position in the Kurdish territories. It is the link between what is variously known as Turkish, Northern or Western Kurdistan to the north and north-west, and so-called Eastern or Iranian Kurdistan to the east and south-east, and it also borders on the mainly Kurdish areas of the Syrian Jezireh.

Likewise, CIA report talks about "Turkish Kurdistan", "Kurdistan" in Iran", and "Kurdistan" in Iraq, but for Syria it uses the term "Kurds in Syria" (see quotes below). That's the problem in a nutshell. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 18:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without counting any of the passages quoted that's nearly 900 more words and with the passages it figures to be about twice that in total. Can I get a 150 or 200 word version that would entice me to read the whole thing? Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by parties:

This long screed is Exhibit B for tendentious editing. Here one can see the fabrication عمرو بن كلثوم is pursuing. There is absolutely nothing to support the wild and emotional claim made by that user:

According to official French mandate of Syria census numbers presented in 1939 there were 54,769 Muslim Arabs (including 25,000 nomads), 53,315 Kurds (in addition to 2181 Kurdo-Christians and 1602 Yezidis), and the rest being Christian (40,283). As you can see, this is almost a perfect three way split, with no dominant group, and even after all the Kurdish (and Christian) immigration in the previous two decades, the number of Kurds is only half the population in 1939. How would that justify adopting the Kurdish nationalistic name for the area and imply the other "native" half of the population are now foreigners on their land?

The only way عمرو بن كلثوم's POV nonsense can be accepted is if we follow the WP:EDITORIALIZING made by عمرو بن كلثوم himself: there is absolutely no suggestion whatever in the cited source (the PhD thesis produced under the academic supervisor عمرو بن كلثوم has before avowed is a biased source (because his published work uses the words "Syrian Kurdistan" to refer Syrian Kurdistan)) that the "25,000 nomads" are "Muslim Arabs" as عمرو بن كلثوم falsely claims. Everyone can see for themselves how fatuous rubbish is in no way supported by either logic or the documentation. It is only by wrongly adding this fictitious demographic manipulation that عمرو بن كلثوم seeks to persuade himself and the world that Syrian Kurdistan is not and has never been Kurdish, despite numerous reliable sources stating exactly the contrary and the cited source also proving that the Kurds were the majority, just as today, and just as all good sources report. It should be noted that none of the sources cited by عمرو بن كلثوم actually match any of عمرو بن كلثوم's POV claims. They also report why the Syrian Arab Republic's dictators have for so long pursued the policy of ethnic denialism in evidence here ... GPinkerton ( talk) 11:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It should also be noted explicitly that not one of these sources supports عمرو بن كلثوم's claims that:

1. the notion of Syrian Kurdistan did not exist until the 21st century
2. the area known as Syrian Kurdistan was not majority Kurdish at the imposition of the French Mandate
3. the national socialist Ba'ath Party is correct in claiming that immigration from Turkish Kurdistan in the Mandatory period and after somehow fundamentally altered the demographics of Syrian Kurdistan and that Syrian Kurdistan was neither Kurdish nor part of Kurdistan until the late 20th or 21st century (the claims have been conflicting).

Although these sources are alleged by عمرو بن كلثوم to support his POV outline above, none actually does. To adduce evidence of some migration within Kurdistan from long before and long after the French Mandate is not enough to verify the impossible claims of عمرو بن كلثوم and the Ba'athist dictatorship that Syrian Kurdistan does not exist and the Kurds who populate it all foreigners and illegal immigrants to boot. Whether this habitual and apparently incorrigible error of reasoning is deliberate or not has no bearing on its disruptiveness, which is surely undeniable. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

This appears to be a very long and detailed attempt to prove why it's true that Syrian Kurdistan doesn't actually exist. —valereee ( talk) 19:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Analysis by Levivich

TLDR: Disruption documented in the evidence section includes removal/denial of "Kurdistan" and "____ Kurdistans" (e.g. "Syrian Kurdistan"), dismissal of academic sources as pro-Kurdish propaganda, and misuse of old sources in an attempt to disprove modern academic sources (e.g. about whether Syrian Kurdistan exists and is called "Syrian Kurdistan"). Many editors have been blocked, the source restriction on the article Syrian Kurdistan has helped, but ultimately the disruption extends far beyond that single article. Diffs and links to specific evidence sections, along with commentary sections, are below. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 05:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Levivich, we should not selectively choose certain sources that say one thing and then selectively disregard sources that say another thing. Your view of what Syrian Kurdistan is, is not in accordance with the following academic scholars: [38] [39] [40] [41]. Historical sources also show no Kurdistan in Syria: [42]. We should present both sides and not present one side as an undisputed truth. The current lead in the SK article which you supported: [43] straight out does this in the first two sentences of the article. This is a clear npov violation. Also, there has been no "misuse" of old sources as shown below: [44] -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 08:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I would like to expand on my comment a bit, Levivich says: "dismissal of academic sources as pro-Kurdish propaganda,"... here is an academic scholar published by the University of Cambridge that straight out says that Kurdish nationalists are promoting "the idea that Kurdistan is one country artificially divided among regional states" and influencing the way scholars perceive their case: [45]. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The first comment above is clear proof of everything Levivich and I (and others) have said about Supreme Deliciousness's (and others') WP:RGW attitude to the topic (and others). GPinkerton ( talk) 13:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The next comment above is clear proof of Supreme Deliciousness's incompetence and quote-mining. The University of Cambridge and Cambridge University Press are two different things, and being the author of a chapter of book published by the one does not make the author a University of Cambridge scholar. Furthermore, Supreme Deliciousness has clearly not read even as far as the introduction, which states unambiguously that, in relation to Kurdistan on the second page

The focus of this book is not to establish whether such a territory actually exists or not. Clearly, imaginations of homelands are socially and politically constructed, rather than being natural and perennial, and the same can be said for state territories. The fact that states have internationally recognised boundaries does not make their territories less constructed or more natural.

In other words, it is clear that Supreme Deliciousness's claims for this source are false, and in fact the author is stating clear as bell that the so-called Syrian Arab Republic is only as real as is Syrian Kurdistan. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

GPinkerton, the text I added above has nothing to do with the quote you added. It was about the influence of Kurdish nationalists on scholars. And I would appreciate it if you would stop with the personal attacks. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

If you can't see the error of your own ways, that's your fault, not Wikipedia's. The quote I added refutes your biased and false misrepresentation of the author's view, which you have confused with your own erroneous one. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Flat-earth is not a content dispute and neither is this

I understand Arbcom doesn't decide content disputes. However, there are some content disputes, or some positions taken in content disputes, that are so unsupported or so fringe as to be disruptive and become a behavioral issue. Suggesting that Syrian Kurdistan (or Kurdistan in general) "doesn't exist" or is "not real" is like suggesting the Earth is flat:

1. There are no reliable sources that state directly "the Earth is flat", and similarly no RS says explicitly "Syrian Kurdistan is not real" or "doesn't exist".
2. Though some RSes say the Earth is not round—because it's a spheroid—using such sources to support an argument that the Earth is flat would be misuse of those sources. Similarly, though some sources say Syrian Kurdistan includes both a physical and an abstract (ideological, or imagined) component, that is not the same thing as saying Syrian Kurdistan is not real or doesn't exist.
3. Though some old sources say the Earth is flat, we shouldn't use those sources to support a statement in wikivoice that the Earth is flat, especially since they're contradicted by modern RSes. Similarly, though some sources that pre-date modern Syria don't use the term "Syrian Kurdistan", those shouldn't be used in the article Syrian Kurdistan to dispute whether Syrian Kurdistan exists.

Specific examples of these three argument fallacies (or whatever we call them) are in the evidence, summarized/analyzed below. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 06:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Levivich, are you implying that these modern academic scholars: [46] [47] [48] [49] are "unsupported" and "fringe" ? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 19:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Supreme Deliciousness: No, Levivich is stating quite correctly that your understanding (or pretended understanding) of all these sources is wrong and the POV arguments you are making are not supported by them, and that you have been told this now numerous times by many parties. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:52, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@SD: This is the kind of WP:SEALIONing that makes me think a TBAN is necessary to prevent disruption. Of course I don't think those scholars in those four links are unsupported or fringe, and of course nothing I wrote could possibly give that impression. None of the scholars in those four links are even old, there's all modern scholarship, and they're all cited in Syrian Kurdistan (I added almost all of them). Exactly none of them say Syrian Kurdistan doesn't exist or isn't real; most of them are cited in the lead of Syrian Kurdistan for the exact opposite proposition. Those four links are examples of you misusing or misrepresenting sources, for the reasons I explained in the linked-to talk page discussions (where I posted full quotes, and so on), which are mentioned in the analysis subsections below. You know very well what I think of those scholars because we've discussed them at length, so you know that I am not implying that any of them are unsupported or fringe, you know I've used and relied on them heavily, and that's why your question is SEALIONing and not in good faith. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Have I added to the article that SK "doesn't exist or isn't real" ? I have added to the article what the sources say.-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

I agree. This is not a content dispute; many of the editors giving evidence are presenting it as such, but I believe this is absolutely a behavioral issue. —valereee ( talk) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Removal and denial of Kurdistans, contra sources

• Dozens of academic sources supporting that Syrian Kurdistan exists and that it's called "Syrian Kurdistan" (as opposed to just "north Syria" or similar) were posted on the talk page by multiple editors, such as by GPinkerton in November [50] ^[1] and by Levivich in December and January (see Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 4#Dec 12 lead paragraph draft, #"Syrian Kurdistan", and #Why recent academic sources). ^[2]
• Multiple editors removed mentions of, and denied the existence of, Syrian Kurdistan, Turkish Kurdistan, etc.:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Editors denying a Syrian Kurdistan — Supreme Deliciousness (SD): "Syrian Kurdistan" or "kurdistan" does not exist in Syria as a factual entity, it is only a disputed belief held by some people. [51] (Compare that statement with the sources cited in the first two sentences of Syrian Kurdistan.)
  • Also SD: We have several sources saying "Syrian Kurdistan" is not real. [52] ^[3] No source says Syrian Kurdistan is "not real"; see extended discussion at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 4#Dec 12 lead paragraph draft and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 4#"Syrian Kurdistan" ^[4]
  • More examples in evidence sections:
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness seeks to remove the names "Syrian Kurdistan" and "Rojava" altogether
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم denies Syrian Kurdistan is the common name for Syrian Kurdistan in spite of the evidence
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم eradicates mentions of (Syrian) Kurdistan/Kurds and removes Kurdish place names, flags, etc.
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Thepharoah17 whitewashes Turkish invasions of Turkish Kurdistan, eradicates mentions of the place, and removes Kurdish place names
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Thepharoah17 eradicates mentions of Syrian Kurdistan and removes or displaces Kurdish place names
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Editors remove the mention of Kurdistan
    • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Removal the Kurdish name of a locality — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sources

^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم changes his opinion on sources when he thinks it suits him ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم seeks to remove the names "Syrian Kurdistan" and "Rojava" altogether, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم denies Syrian Kurdistan is the common name for Syrian Kurdistan in spite of the evidence and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness misrepresents sources ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness is obsessed with misinterpreting a table in PhD thesis to continue their long-term POV push on demography ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness misrepresents sources

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Dismissal of sources as pro-Kurdish or propaganda

Multiple editors dismissed academic sources as "pro-Kurdish" or "propaganda":

• Amr ibn Kulthoum عمرو بن كلثوم (AIK) removed four recent academic works, referring in edit summary to them as "Kurdish propaganda pieces" [53]: ^[1]
  1. Lowe, Robert (2014), Romano, David; Gurses, Mehmet (eds.), "The Emergence of Western Kurdistan and the Future of Syria", Conflict, Democratization, and the Kurds in the Middle East: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, and Syria, New York: Palgrave Macmillan US, pp. 225–246, doi: 10.1057/9781137409997_12, ISBN  978-1-137-40999-7, retrieved 2020-11-10
  2. Riamei, Mr Lungthuiyang (2017-08-15). Kurdistan: The Quest for Representation and Self-Determination: The Quest for Representation and Self-Determination. KW Publishers Pvt Ltd. ISBN  978-93-86288-87-5.
  3. Schmidinger, Thomas (2014). Krieg und Revolution in Syrisch-Kurdistan: Analysen und Stimmen aus Rojava (in German). Mandelbaum. ISBN  978-3-85476-636-0.
  4. Gunter, Michael M. (2016). The Kurds: A Modern History. Markus Wiener Publishers. p. 89. ISBN  978-1-558766150. (see Michael Gunter)
• AIK dismisses academic sources as "pro-Kurdish anyway" [54] ^[2]
• AIK responds to the list of "pro-Kurdish" sources (all of which are recent academic works) with Google search results and news media [55] ^[3]
• SD: "Amir Hassanpour is a kurdish writer. So its a kurdish pov." [56] ^[4] — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sources

^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Denying academic sources ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم uses contentious think-tank sources ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم seeks to remove the names "Syrian Kurdistan" and "Rojava" altogether ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness misrepresents sources

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Confirming Levivich's analysis is what I observed happen over and over and over. —valereee ( talk) 19:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Misuse of old sources

Multiple editors misused old (pre-modern-Syria and thus pre-Syrian Kurdistan) sources to support claims that Syrian Kurdistan, etc., doesn't exist:

• SD, in this case writes Today's Kurdish nationalist claim is that part of Syria is "Kurdistan". They call this "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Western Kurdistan". There are historical sources that show that "Western Kurdistan" is not in Syria. These historical sources therefore exposes today's Kurdish nationalist claims as having no historical basis. Levich decides to remove the well source historical information from the article: [16][17], ^[1] citing two diffs:
  • the first diff removes from Syrian Kurdistan sources that are over 100 years old, from before modern Syria existed, when it was all still part of the Ottoman Empire. Of course those sources "shows 'Western Kurdistan' as not being in Syria", because they pre-date Syria.
  • the second diff removes a map that is over 200 years old, not in English, showing no borders, as noted in the edit summary
  • Prior to this case, SD has used these pre-modern-Syria sources to suggest "'Western Kurdistan' as not being in Syria": [57] ^[2]
• AIK cites 1907 map [58] ^[3]
• AIK cites a 1948 CIA report [59] referring to it as a more neutral account about northern Syria and Kurds, compared to the POV sources you cite. ^[4]
• From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness adds an irrelevant and massive context-free quote from an absurdly unreliable source to POV-push for Syrian nationalism:
  • SD adds three-paragraph block quote from the same CIA report [60]
  • Argues that the source is required because it says "Kurds had equal rights, received fair treatment..." and "by removing this documented CIA quote this valuable historical information is completely absent from the article." [61]
  • Cites the CIA report again to argues "So if kurds in 1946 wanted the "creation" of a "Kurdistan" in Syria, then a "Syrian Kurdistan" couldn't have possibly existed prior to that date, during the 1920s or Ottoman Empire. These claims are therefor a historical impossibility." [62] Note he is using the 1946 report to disprove modern scholarship (such as the sources cited in the first two sentences of Syrian Kurdistan).
  • And again [63]
  • Argues it's an WP:RS because It was a secret report written and distributed by the CIA... [64]
  • This led to SD being partial blocked. [65] — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sources

^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#User:Levivich removes reliably sourced information that shows "Western Kurdistan" as not being in Syria ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness makes basic errors of logic in support of his POV-push ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم is obsessed with misinterpreting a table in PhD thesis to continue their long-term POV push on demography ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم is obsessed with misinterpreting a table in PhD thesis to continue their long-term POV push on demography

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Levivich, your missing the logic, concerning the first diff you said: "Of course those sources "shows 'Western Kurdistan' as not being in Syria", because they pre-date Syria"... The sources showed Western Kurdistan, the westernmost outline of Kurdistan, as being a place not in today's Syria, but in Iran or Turkey. So that modern day Syria didn't exist back then has no importance to what the source implies. What is important here is that these old sources confirm that at that point of time in history, "Kurdistan" didn't exist in the land that later became modern Syria. There is no "Misuse of old sources". Concerning the second diff, it shows the borders of Kurdistan according to the Cedid Atlas. It is a historical map and was presented as a historical Cedid Atlas map.

I do agree with you that adding a three-paragraph block quote from the CIA report was not the best thing I did as the quote was too big. But having a smaller quote or text sourced from it and presented as being from the CIA report, I don't see anything wrong with it. I have also used modern academic scholarly sources: [66] [67] [68] [69].-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 07:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

As best I can tell, you sincerely believe that these older sources disprove the modern sources that say Syrian Kurdistan is a real place that exists (or that this is the name of that place). While you're entitled to believe whatever you want, when it comes to what we say in Wikipedia articles, we should follow the newer sources and not the older ones (and it really shouldn't take a source restriction to get us there). Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 08:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

this comment by Supreme Deliciousness in the section below is as wrong as it is hypocritical. Supreme Deliciousness is a named party in the case, so should logically only be posting in the "comments by parties" sections (a stricture by which he failed to abide). Valereee, by contrast, is not, and so not being, should. Now Supreme Deliciousness merely flailing. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others:

Confirming that insistence upon the use of old sources to somehow disprove recent scholarship was a repeated issue, and not just a new old source every day or a different editor bringing in yet another old source but on at least one occasion the same editor bringing in the same old source multiple times days apart. —valereee ( talk) 19:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You declared yourself involved before: [70] so you shouldn't be posting in the "others" section. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure the fact I no longer consider myself an uninvolved admin w/re Syrian Kurdistan means I'm now a party, but you seem to be posting in the 'others' sections pretty frequently yourself, SD. :D —valereee ( talk) 20:10, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Many blocks

Many editors have been blocked in this topic area. Evidence sections containing examples of blocks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Source restriction

The source restriction placed on 2 Jan 2021 by Valereee [71] ^[1] has reduced the disruption at that article, as can be seen from the article Syrian Kurdistan itself: compare 150 diffs since source restriction with 150 prior to source restriction, and article on 1 Jan with article on 30 Jan ( combined diff). For discussion of the rationale behind the source restriction, see the discussion at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan/Archive 5#Why recent academic sources. ^[2] It was appealed at AN but there was no consensus to overturn. [72] ^[3] — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sources

^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Admin User:Valereee introduces source restriction that gives editors veto power to remove undisputed historical info and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Syrian Kurdistan source restriction ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Supreme Deliciousness misrepresents sources ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Syrian Kurdistan source restriction

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is key to note, I think. What's more is the effect that restriction had on the talk page, not just the article. The talk page was a total mess prior to it. Certainly, the restriction was impactful. One party disputes whether that impact was a positive on article content, though one would say that if it prevented them from introducing problematic content. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 19:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Widespread disruption

The disruption extends beyond Syrian Kurdistan:

• From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#عمرو بن كلثوم creates POV RMs: After months of argument about whether "Syrian Kurdistan" aka "Western Kurdistan" aka "Rojava" exists (or if it's just "Northern Syria"), and after being blocked on 15 Dec 2020, AIK starts an RM to move "Rojava conflict" to "Northeastern Syria conflict" [73]. SD and Thepharoah17 support, but ultimately there is no consensus for the move.
• From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Evidence presented by Semsûrî:
  • Disruption in 2019 at Kurdish language Kurmanji spreads to the redirect Kurmanjis and the language template Template:lang-kmr
  • Disruption in 2019 at List of Yazidi settlements and Persecution of Yazidis by Kurds
  • POV pushing at in 2019 Feyli (tribe), Lak (tribe), and Laki language (see the "before" and "after" links at the bottom of this evidence section)
  • Hounding in 2020 at Kifri, Jalawla, and Khanaqin
• From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Evidence presented by Brunswicknic: Disruption at Gaziantep — the last 100 edits at that article speak for themselves
• From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Evidence presented by El C: referring to 2-month disruption in 2020 by Special:Contributions/ShewanKara, "This is par for the course. My hope, then, is that the Committee approves of ACDS measures to address this chronic, poorly-attended (from an enforcement perspective) problems that have been afflicting this topic area for so long." (emphasis in original)
• More examples:
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Turkish Government POV - Whitewashing events
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Thepharoah17 whitewashes Turkish invasion of Syrian Kurdistan
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Thepharoah17 whitewashes Turkish invasions of Turkish Kurdistan, eradicates mentions of the place, and removes Kurdish place names — Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 04:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unfairness, veto power, final thought

In evidence ^[1] and workshop ^[2] sections there's been discussion about valereee acting unfairly and giving me effective veto power over the article Syrian Kurdistan. I understand that perception, because in the course of the talk page discussions that ultimately resulted in the current lead paragraph of the article, a number of editors who disagreed with me in the content dispute were sanctioned (but not because they disagreed with me, not only editors who disagreed with me, and not sanctioned only by valereee), the source restriction was imposed, and I added sources that met the restriction while removing sources that did not meet the restriction. But what looks like an admin and an editor teaming up is just that she was the active admin at that article during that time and I was the active editor, both of us I think coming to the article after seeing the multiple noticeboard threads about the dispute, and both of us operating under the same WP:CCPOLs, which I think already suggest building articles like SK using the highest-quality, most-recent scholarship available. That's not unfairness, that's what everyone should be doing. An admin and an editor collaborating at an article is nothing to be ashamed of, so long as everyone's following the WP:PAGs. What editors should not be doing is spending time trying to convince other editors why recent scholarship is better than older scholarship (when both are available), or why scholarship is better than news media (when both are available). WP:RS (with subsections like WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) is a guideline not a policy, but it enjoys a great deal of global consensus and it shouldn't be disregarded, nor should editors have to re-establish its guidance article by article.

Final thought: the dispute to date at Syrian Kurdistan involved mostly how the article defined the term "Syrian Kurdistan". The sum total of all the article's disruptive and productive edits listed on the evidence page have resulted in the article as it is today, warts and all. In the future, editors at that article will have to come to consensus about very difficult questions, such as whether or not the article will use the words "ethnic cleansing" or "genocide". In answering these questions, the sources vary even among the highest-quality, most-recent scholarship available. These thorny issues are present throughout the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and in other topic areas as well, and while Arbcom can't resolve those content disputes, as Arbcom considers remedies, I hope it will think about remedies that can help editors resolve these future content disputes with minimal time and frustration all around (and better than how it's been so far). Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 09:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Sources

^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Admin User:Valereee introduces source restriction that gives editors veto power to remove undisputed historical info, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Unfair behavior of admin Valereee and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence#Syrian Kurdistan source restriction ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop#Unfair behavior and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop#Warned (2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"and I added sources that met the restriction while removing sources that did not meet the restriction."...no... the restriction says: "For any disputed content, only scholarship from the past 20 years can be used as sourcing, with preference for the past 10 years"... but the historical info you removed was not disputed, you used the rule to remove it so it then "became disputed": [74] [75]... exactly like administrator Joe Roe said would happen: [76]. It wasn't disputed before. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 15:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It wasn't disputed before. Well that's just nonsense: the dispute over that content had lasted for months (since Syrian Kurdistan was expanded into an article), spilled over into like a dozen AN/ANI threads, and led to maybe half a dozen blocks, all before the source restriction in January. Of course it was disputed before. I was not the first person to object to that content, I was the last, and the only reason I was able to keep it out is because of the source restriction. Before that, you and others were partial blocked. Before that, the article was full protected for a month to stop edit warring. "Not disputed before" is very much not true. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 17:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Let us also not forget who was mass reverting and POV-tag-bombing the article before the page was fully protected. [77], [78] GPinkerton ( talk) 17:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I would like to expand a bit, Levivich said "why recent scholarship is better than older scholarship"... I agree with him but there are some important factors we have to take into consideration: Here is an academic scholar published by the University of Cambridge that straight out says that Kurdish nationalists are promoting "the idea that Kurdistan is one country artificially divided among regional states" and influencing the way scholars perceive their case: [79]. So the scholars themselves have been influenced by Kurdish nationalists. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 20:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment by others: