This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched To request an amendment or clarification of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. To report a violation of an arbitration decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To request the assistance of an arbitration clerk, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks.

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

FWIW I agree with Procrastinating Reader that this doesn't put any more power in the hands of one editor than in the hands of all editors. Every editor is free to dispute content not souced to recent scholarship by saying, "Hey, I don't think that's appropriate for inclusion. Please find it in recent scholarship." For disputed content, only recent scholarship can be used. I disagree with both Joe Roe and SD that this means pre-2000 details can't be included. It means they can't be included if they're disputed and no recent scholarship is even discussing them. Which in the case of a subject which is thoroughly covered in recent scholarship is as it should be, IMO. If there's copious recent scholarship about a subject, and none of those scholars are even discussing something, why would anyone argue to include it? If they are mentioning it, we report what they say. —valereee ( talk) 16:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Valereee, was all the talk about Kurdish immigration into northeastern Syria disputed, or is recent scholarship not discussing that? Here is an excerpt from the 2005 "Companion to the History of the Middle East" ^[1]:

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.

Also White (2011) [The Emergence of Minorities in the Middle East: The Politics of Community in French Mandate Syria https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1r2178] provides some specific examples on this Kurdish immigration and how it shaped the border and border areas in Syria. How is adding info from medieval times (like Kurdish mercenaries in the Krac des chevaliers or Ayyubid dynasty control of Syria added recently by Levivich under your admin protection of the Syrian Kurdistan article) more relevant than Kurdish immigration into Syria during the 20th century? Unless I am missing something, this is clearly double standards. I'll be adding some of that into into the respective articles when I get a chance. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Straw man fallacy. This is more about the tendentious misinterpretation of statistics than the relevance of the 20th century. We have seen plenty of sources stating exactly why there is a POV push to insist on the essential foreignness of Kurds in Syria (and accompanying denial of ethnic cleansing by the Syrian Arab Republic), and it is impossible not extrapolate a motive for your insistence on this same discredited dogma refuted by all reliable sources. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ عمرو بن كلثوم, if it's being discussed in recent scholarship then this editing restriction wouldn't exclude it. There may be other reasons other editors want to exclude some information. This restriction isn't intended to be the only reason an editor could argue to exclude something. Inclusion still needs consensus. Literally the entire point of this restriction was to prevent people from over and over and over and over again bringing in older lower-quality sources when there are large numbers of top-quality recent sources. That's it. Please ping me if you respond, I've got 5000+ pages on my watch and I don't always see when someone responds to me if they don't ping me. I never mind being pinged. :) —valereee ( talk) 22:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

GPinkerton posted her evidence very late on the 5th before the discussion was closed: [1] I want to assume good faith and hope this was by accident, but how am I and other editors supposed to rebuttal when she posted her evidence 30 minutes before the closure? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 02:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Supreme Deliciousness and anyone else who may be interested, we're working on this now and we'll have an update soon. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Supreme Deliciousness, KevinL, Isn't there a section at the workshop where evidence will be analyzed in detail?. I thought this would be done there. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 07:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I agree with SD. The nature of the "evidence" input by GPinkerton, who went back 5 or 10 years to manage to find some random blocks unrelated to the topic at hand, is concerning, especially coming from a user with an average of one block per month during the last year or so, including one indefinite block. See here for a small part of one complaint last November by several editors on their behavior that involved many admins and took several weeks. Also, the nature of there diffs is almost entirely either content dispute or removal of unsourced content. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 08:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I've extended the evidence phase until 8 February. I hope this is sufficient time for everyone to respond. Maxim_(talk) 14:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks Maxim for the extension, but I am not really sure how to proceed with such a large number of unsubstantiated and outright false or misrepresented claims. I hope the committee look at the contributions (whether mentioned in this case or not) of every user in detail. GPinkerton has had so many tendentious editing battles and complaints against. I would argue their edits have kept admins busy more than any other editor in 2020. Anyway, do we respond to the claims of GPinkerton (and other users) one by one and debunk them or what? For example, this canvassing claim difference they added is a comment I just left a couple of days ago to an Admin ( User:El C) about a disruptive user related to the topic. How is that considered canvassing? Their claim about me "minimizing Kurdish population statistics" in this difference is false again, as usual. According to the reference used (Table 3, p 11-12) (reporting French mandate statistics), the number of Kurds in Jazira province was 42,500 out of a total population of 139,546. It does not take an Einstein to figure out that the percentage is 30.45%, not 37%, as was claimed before my edit. The entire table and all numbers are presented in Al-Jazira_Province page. These are just too very quick examples so I hope the committee does not take accusations (especially from this user with so extensive edit-warring and block history) at face value. Thanks again. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 02:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, we may look further into editors' contributions by our own discretion, but you should make sure to highlight yourself anything you especially want us to see—and that goes for everyone. -- BDD ( talk) 03:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

To follow up on this point, عمرو بن كلثوم, we will consider all evidence submitted in accordance with applicable rules and policies, regardless of the identity of the editor submitting the evidence. But that also means you are free to submit evidence in response. If "debunking" specific claims is what you view as the best way to proceed, you are free to do so (in a manner consistent with applicable rules and policies). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks KevinL and L235. Do I/we debunk claims here at the Talk page as I just did above for two example claims, or should I submit this on the main case page? Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 03:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ عمرو بن كلثوم: Rebuttal evidence should go on the evidence page. Analysis of evidence can go in the analysis section of the workshop or, depending on circumstances, on this talk page. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm probably going to need another 100 diffs' limit then. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:31, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GPinkerton: Could you elaborate on what you need the diffs for? Also, your evidence should not assume any subject knowledge of the topic area; if you are trying to show that someone is misrepresenting sources or is editing in a biased manner, simply linking to the diffs without explanation will not be sufficient. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, Obviously I will need it to add more to the body of evidence proving that عمرو بن كلثوم and Supreme Deliciousness's personal attacks and casting of aspersion is part of their efforts to discredit NPOV editors and enforce Ba'athist revisionist history on the encyclopaedia. With more diffs and further explanation (if readers are not interested in reading the linked discussions for themselves) it will rapidly become clear that neither or these users can defend their actions and need to take the (since proven incorrect) objections of others in POV-pushing discussions that have involved my discovery, reporting, and correction of, historical POV issues in various articles whose subjects (just as was later the case with Syrian Kurdistan and the Syrian civil war) mean that there is a determined and motivated nationalistic POV pushed by numerous editors (namely, in subjects such as the Holocaust in Bulgaria (where Bulgaria's responsibility is officially denied), the Hagia Sophia (in which Turkish nationalism and the Turkish invasion of Syrian Kurdistan has played a big role), and Biblical literalism, which has caused long-term abusers like Debresser to edit war over the impossibility of the existence of certain Biblical figures). I should be noted that in all these cases, the articles' edit histories and page statistics prove that it is my writing that has gained community consensus, and it is universally the case that my detractors have been proven wrong, as will be seen is also the case in this issue. It should now be clear that عمرو بن كلثوم is dredging up settled disputes, that the community has found in my favour, and is misrepresenting them as proving some point of his. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, Anyone who has read through the archives of the talk page of Syrian Kurdistan and the numerous reports I made at ANI on the subject will be an expert on the matter; there is surely no call for further additions to the reams and reams of quoted material and cited arguments that can be found there. If answers to a specific question are needed then please ask them, but it would be preferable if I were un-topic-banned so I could continue to improve the Syrian Kurdistan article and the Arab Belt article, which at present the POV-pushing users have been able to edit but which I have never touched. I was hoping to make the sort of edit poposed here, which was of course met with personal attacks and denialism. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• Note that there is a dedicated section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop#Analysis of evidence for the analysis of evidence, and there are no word limits there, as far as I understand. Nsk92 ( talk) 14:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

As the evidence phase has been extended, the phase will now end in around 27 hours at or after 00:00 9 February 2021. Although evidence may be submitted up to the deadline, it is better that you post your evidence sooner than later to ensure that you get it in before the phase closes. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My main evidence is below 1000 words, but if you ad the rebuttals to GPinkerton and Valereee it is longer. I this okey? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 11:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The Evidence and rebuttals presented by Amr Ibn Kulthum are more than 2000 words long. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 11:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I am discussing with the arbitrators about both of the above on clerk-l. Me or an arbitrator will let you both know here with the decision. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 12:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The arbitrators have granted Supreme Deliciousness an extension to cover their statement as is at 1,500 words. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

And I have asked AIK to shorten their evidence, or request an extension. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Dreamy Jazz, I have pinged you on my Talk page where you had left the message to request an extension, but have not heard back from you, and the deadline is looming. Thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 21:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

عمرو بن كلثوم, hi. The ping did not go through. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم There is feature at preferences that will enable to advert you if links or "pings" to disambiguation pages are made. The links and pings then show up (only for the editor) in orange. I've activated the feature, quite helpful. I see you still have the problem with the pings to Dreamy Jazz.:) Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 01:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

User:Paradise Chronicle: Thanks for the tip :) Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 01:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• GPinkerton has so far added almost 3400 words and around 200 diffs. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Unavoidable I'm afraid; the evidence is so voluminous and goes back many months and years. Nothing to do with me ... GPinkerton ( talk) 23:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Did you ask for permission and was it granted to you by the arbitrators? -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I notice you did no such thing when massively exceeding your word limit in the previous stage ... GPinkerton ( talk) 00:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Dreamy Jazz: If you are according more extension to other parties, I would like to get one too. Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

عمرو بن كلثوم, they have the same limit as you of 2k words. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 01:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ GPinkerton: Your submission is egregiously over the limit, at 3,429 words. The evidence will be open for a short while longer; if the evidence phase is not closed when you see this message, please trim your submission. The rules for participation at ArbCom must be followed to be fair to all participants – in six years, I have not seen a single case where folks genuinely could not express what they needed to say in 2,000 words. Please note that if the submission is not trimmed, the committee may, in its discretion: (a) remove or collapse all words after your 2000th word; (b) ignore the excessive part of your submission, and/or (c) consider behavior of case participants negatively in reaching its decision. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, it cannot be considered fair that one side of the dispute is allowed more words and diffs than the other, as is presently the case. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:57, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Each editor is restricted to the same number of words and diffs, and so far you are the only one that has exceeded them. Primefac ( talk) 13:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, that's my point. The reason this has ended up here is because there is a lot of evidence about a number of problematic editors and systematic POV issues and the objections of these editors has drowned out the concerns raised by neutral editors like myself. Levivich and Ivanvector have deigned not to give evidence (as is their right) despite earlier interest in the lodging the case, and so it has largely fallen to me to try and explain the complex and long-standing issues of three or four editors who are all long-time Wikipedians in an even more complex geopolitical-historiographical issue in which arbitrators and others are professedly not at all well-versed. The issue has all the vitriol and politico-strategic entrenchments of the Palestine issue, with about ten times the population, with four times the number of involved sovereign states, much less of the international attention, and a much more overt and military struggle ongoing with many times the involved belligerents. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

FTR I have no evidence to present that hasn't already been presented. I'm happy to donate my allotment of words and diffs to anyone who needs it. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich: I could be incorrect, but I've never seen anyone donate their allotment of words and diffs - doing so could lead to extremely problematic situations.

If you have nothing to present, that's fine, but everyone needs to stay around the 2,000 word / 200 diff limit individually. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have no idea what the rules are but supposing I just copied everything from GPink's section past 2,000 words into my section. Or if GP removed some material and afterwards I posted the same material in my section. Or what if GP and I had simply conferred beforehand and agreed to divide up the material and still presented a total of 4k/400 between us? Is any of that allowed? I have no idea. But it all seems to me to be the same as "donating" my words to GP. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 20:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Levivich, I suggest you do as you suggested with the portion of the evidence deleted by DreamyJazz. GPinkerton ( talk) 13:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Given the Evidence phase is closed, this seems like a day late and a dollar short. Primefac ( talk) 14:04, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, well it's always important that procedure's importance is elevated above all else ... GPinkerton ( talk) 14:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I assume with they, all are meant at the word extension? And the evidence extension is also for all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradise Chronicle ( talk • contribs) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Paradise Chronicle: - That's how I read the above. SQL ^{Query me!} 19:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Paradise Chronicle: I apologize, but I think I misinterpreted the above. I'm working on getting an up-to-date answer for you. I just waded into this case. SQL ^{Query me!} 21:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My evidence is 1000 words and I got 500 extra for my rebuttals. GPinkerion and Amr got 2K words each. I then asked for 105 extra words and did not receive it and now the evidence page is closed. How is this fair?-- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 12:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

How can i defend my self? I deleted the map because it was added by a blocked sock. I fighting actively against several sock puppets. Shadow4dark ( talk) 00:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

On the workshop page there is a section for analysis of evidence, you can reply there to specific pieces of evidence. Beeblebrox ( talk) 01:00, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

As we see, the case gets rather vivid and some rules that are also enforced would help. Please impose rules and sanctions, but equally for all editors involved in the ArbCom Case on Kurds and Kurdistan. For example if a complaint comes that the late presentation of evidence by GPinkerton doesn't allow rebuttals, only allow rebuttals. Then if you allow to exceed the word limit to one editor, other editors will also exceed. If you don't say something on the validity of the evidence we must assume you see evidence relating to Bulgaria and Christianity as valid for Kurds and Kurdistan. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 03:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You know, this isn't the first time the committee has ever heard a case where some participants may have tried to present evidence outside the scope of the case. In fact, it happens quite a lot, nearly every case actually. If people want to make unwarranted assumptions that the drafters aren't able to see that moving forward, that's their problem. As for extensions, they have traditionally been granted fairly liberally, and again, it isn't news to us that if one participant asks for one it can lead to others asking as well. It's an imperfect process, and we are having both internal and public discussions about how to improve future cases to mitigate some of these issues, but no conclusions have been reached yet and (as noted above) no new rules will be applied to this case. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

That really begs the question why. If arbcom sees evidence that is out of scope, why is still sitting on the page? Why are there discussions about evidence length extensions while out-of-scope evidence is allowed to remain? Knowing that people will want to respond to allegations, why allow out-of-scope allegations to remain and be responded to, adding to the workload for everyone involved (literally every person who tries to read the page will have more to read)? Enforcing the scope isn't a new rule. Allowing the evidence to remain while acknowledging that it's there and out scope and yet doing nothing about that... that's hella confusing. Levivich  ^harass/ _hound 19:40, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

People choose to push the edges of scope all the time. As a regular participant of AN/ANI you no doubt see that there. If people wish to use some of their limited words and diffs to go out of scope I'm OK with that. Better that, in my opinion, than for someone to self-censor something that would have been in scope and helpful. This case shows that even black and white rules like word/diff limits are hard for people at times. Why spend even greater effort to enforce (potentially against very good faith people who are not going to be subject to any negative outcome in the case) more discretionary rules, when there are other, lower conflict, ways of enforcing those rules? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you Beeblebrox and all the arbiters for your really tolerant guidance through the case. But also, the question about the evaluation of the evidence is why? I've probably drafted for about 5 hours on the Tell Abyad rebuttal and analysis and it is still rather modest. If we would only know what evidence is seen as valid and which not. Most of the evidence I can respond to with a clear rebuttal, but searching all the diffs...let alone the presentation of the sources for the finding of facts. Maybe this is just for a case in the future, but I think that if requested, the evaluation of the evidence could be enhanced. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 21:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Well I was writing an answer to the first answer of Beeblebrox while they answered to Levivich. Ok, then we seem to have to bet and hope we bet good. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 21:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Just clarifying but Beeblebrox and I are different people. Both Arbs whose usernames start with the letter B. The way you can tell us apart is he says smart things and I say things less smart with twice as many words :). Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Levivich and I feel like it may actually cause further confusion as to what is and isn't in scope. I'm looking at all this evidence and for most of it thinking, "these editors are providing evidence against their own position"...and then I'm wondering if maybe it's me who is misunderstanding what the scope is here lol... —valereee ( talk) 21:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, Maxim, Beeblebrox, Dreamy Jazz: Is canvassing to game the system and bypass the word restriction here allowed? You may want to see this. If it's OK, then I'll be on look out for volunteers to add a few dozen differences to the evidence. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 05:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• It would be very wrong to take the comment above for a statement of anything other than bad faith on عمرو بن كلثوم's part. See here. No canvassing has been involved, as عمرو بن كلثوم has once again wrongly claimed in the desperate hope of defending his own inexcusable behaviour. GPinkerton ( talk) 05:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Supreme Deliciousness, Semsûrî, Brunswicknic, Valereee, ProcrastinatingReader, Paradise Chronicle, El C, عمرو بن كلثوم, GPinkerton, and Shadow4dark: Hi everyone, I hope you're doing well and sorry for the mass ping – out of fairness I'm pinging everyone who has sent in evidence, even though this doesn't apply to many of you. I know ArbCom cases can be stressful and the tension can run pretty high, but I encourage you to take a moment and remember why you're submitting evidence. In the end, you're trying to convince ArbCom (14 pretty busy people) of your position, and word limits are actually designed to help you do that. Extensions to 2,000 words have already been granted to many case participants, and in my experience that is enough space in even the most complex cases if some effort is made to explain things well but concisely. Trying to think of ways to game the rules doesn't generally reflect well on parties attempting to do so, and there is no guarantee that evidence submitted that way will be be accorded equal recognition.

Separately, and as a general statement, I want to note that we (obviously) frown upon selective quotations and misrepresentations of what others have said, and such behavior may see a finding at the final decision. (I hasten to add: don't go around accusing others, here or at workshop, of selective quotation and misrepresentation unless you have solid evidence that that's what they intended to do!) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: [2] [3] [4]. -- Supreme Deliciousness ( talk) 21:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have trimmed the evidence submissions by GPinkerton and AIK to be under their limit of 2k words. If either of you wish to add this evidence back in, you will need to shorten other evidence in your section before readding the evidence you wish to remain. This means that you can't re-add the evidence while it puts you over your word limits. If you wish to calculate your word count, an on-wiki javascript tool is User:L235/wordcount.js. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

@ Dreamy Jazz: Thanks for trimming my submission. I am happy with it. Cheers Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 07:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Good to hear. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your work and good luck with this arbitration. Brunswicknic ( talk) 09:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC) reply