Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#GPinkerton

GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4]) and personalizing disputes (e.g. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]) for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. GPinkerton has been blocked on multiple occasions [24]. The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic from the Middle East post-1453 AD [25]. GPinkerton has since violated the topic ban [26] [27] and received multiple warnings from an uninvolved administrator [28] [29].

This is not correct on several points.

• All the evidence dates either from the beginning of my time as an editor ( [30]) or relate specifically to exposing the tendentious editing on the Kurds topic area, points which have been reinforced by other sections of the proposed decision. (i.e., [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] all relate to Syrian Kurdistan, and all the comments for which I am being accused of incivility accurately describe the behaviour of the tendentious editors I reported as parties to this case). This is shooting the messenger, as was Guerillero's indefinite block, which was issued for reporting the matter of tendentious editing at ANI. This was recognized by [46].
• It is incorrect to claim that I violated a topic ban. [47] is a perfectly legitimate edit on a page specifically set up to prepare for this ArbCom case, as I stated at the time ( [48]). Likewise with [49], as was recognized by the administrator in question ( [50] [51] [52]). I was told this was acceptable (and desirable) by multiple uninvolved administrators ( [53] [54]).
• It is incorrect to say Valereee as uninvolved (subsequently self-declared involvement here: [55])
• All blocks (excepting at the start of my time as an editor) relate to Syrian Kurdistan, where I have nowhere been accused of tendentious editing by uninvolved editors with knowledge of the case. Blocks accusing me of doing so are meritless and should not be considered by the committee, since they were shooting the messenger, not accurate gauges of reality. This should be recognized by the committee.
• The topic ban is of no relevance and should be overturned, since it is not preventing disruption and has never been needed. The committee should recognize this.

Content changes I have made are supported by the community, including in all instances in which "edit warring" has been claimed by tendentious editors. Accusations of disruptive editing in any topic area are unjustified and have in many instances been motivated by malice. The committee should recognize this. GPinkerton ( talk) 16:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#GPinkerton:_decorum_at_arbitration_case_pages

8) GPinkerton's conduct during the case repeatedly fell well short of expectations. On multiple occasions, GPinkerton antagonized other parties to the case [56] [57] [58], and was subsequently issued warnings by arbitrators [59] [60]. GPinkerton has further refused to follow the norms of the arbitration process by submitting and maintaining an evidence submission far greater than the limits on words and diffs [61] [62]. As a result of these actions, an arbitration clerk removed a portion of the evidence submission which exceeded the prescribed limits on words and diffs [63].

Is incorrect on several counts.

• [64] (Where I said: 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.) is an accurate description of the comment above ( [65]) which contained a bad faith false accusation of canvassing. It would be wrong for the committee to sanction me for this edit, which is not antagonism but a statement of fact.
• [66] (Where I said: It should be noted that your last edits are irrelevant to the case at hand. Please stay on topic so as not to waste yet more time.) is not antagonistic. It would be wrong for the committee to sanction me for having supposedly refused to follow the norms of the arbitration process by submitting and maintaining an evidence submission far greater than the limits on words and diffs and sanction me for reminding other editors to follow the norms of the arbitration process, which they had failed to do by inserting irrelevant claims such as had been made [67].
• [68] (Where I said: the evidence is so voluminous and goes back many months and years. Nothing to do with me ...) is a bizarre edit to claim as antagonistic. Will someone now deny that this the evidence is so voluminous and goes back many months and years and that, being a new editor, this disruption can not possibly have anything more than Nothing to do with me ...?

The committee should be able to vote on a proposed finding of fact that other parties have been uncivil and have breached not only decorum on the arbitration page in pursuit of their POV, but also through talk page contributions, edit summaries, malicious reports, and rebarbative accusations of all kinds. It is an omission not to include such a proposal, and repeats the error of shooting the messenger. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ Barkeep49: regarding this comment: just because a user's long-term tendentious editing has been ignored until now (and encouraged by the fact that editors like me who reported were indefinitely blocked) is not evidence that disruptive editing was not happening or that blocks should not have been issued to stop it. GPinkerton ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  I am not taking issue with the characterization of the editing as "tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area". Ultimately that being true is what will guide me when I get to remedies. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

• @ GPinkerton: do you feel that there are no problems with your conduct? Do you feel that the blocks, warnings, and the topic ban you have received in past year to all be unjustified? Do you feel that the half-dozen to dozen or so administrators who have imposed those measures to have some sort of individual or collective vendetta towards you, or to be otherwise motivated by malice? Maxim_(talk) 18:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  Maxim, I have freely admitted losing patience with the POV-pushing on Syrian Kurdistan. I maintain that all the blocks I have received are indeed unjustified.

  • The block by Girth Summit on 19 November 2020 relates to the Syrian Kurdistan-related fake news article ( "Backed by the US and France, YPG terror groups unleashed violence upon Syrian people who were protesting against French President Emmanual Macron's hostility toward Islam." (sic)) from Turkish state media added to push a pro-Erdogan POV at Murder of Samuel Paty, which I repeatedly reverted (i.e.: insertions: [69], [70], revert, [71], blanking, my revert). Other users deleted my NPOV treatment of more reliable source ( my edit, unjustified revert)
  • The block by Valereee on 28 November 2020 relates to Syrian Kurdistan, where in response to Valereee's comment of "Neither GS nor I are going to get involved in the content dispute." I wrote Well someone needs to, because the ongoing behavioural issue is tendentious use and abuse of sources and a WP:AGENDA with a blithely carefree approach to uncritically repeating 20th-century propaganda claims as though appropriate for deciding content. Incivility is just a by-product of stonewalling; the content dispute is the behavioural issue. I do not think, in light of everything that has transpired in this arbitration case, that this comment is at all unjustified, and hence the resultant block should also be annulled, though I was shortly afterwards unblocked.
  • The block by Valereee on 2 December 2020 relates to Syrian Kurdistan, where in response to عمرو بن كلثوم's argumentum ex silentio fallacies and fictitious nationalistic claims about Arab majorities (inter alia: When you claim these areas are "part of Kurdistan", what does that make of the native population (majority) living on their lands before Kurds arrived? Trespassers? Does that sound fair to you?) and Supreme Deliciousness's comment supporting it certainly it belongs in the article, although definitely not with the ridiculous misinterpretation that it proves the Ba'athist lie that the Kurds were not a majority in Syrian Kurdistan. It does not, and indeed the fact that even after all this discussion no source has bee produced which states what you have claimed speaks volumes about the credibility of this long-debunked and nationalistic claim. In context, and seeing that my identification of عمرو بن كلثوم's and Supreme Deliciousness's tendentious editing has been supported by reams of evidence and other editors, there does not seem justification for this.
  • The block by Guerillero on 4 December 2020 claimed I was Clearly here to right great wrongs and not to build an encyclopedia. This is patently untrue and unjustified.

  I think all these should be struck from the record and certainly should not be used to poison the well and shoot the messenger. NB that I have not edited any Kurdistan related articles ever (unlike the editors arbiters are suggesting be topic-banned rather than site-banned). GPinkerton ( talk) 18:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

  A long time ago, Levivich told the following "joke".

I think about it somewhat regularly because it tells a hard truth about the shortcomings of Wikipedia's processes. One problem is, that everyone likes to think of themselves as the boat builder and no one thinks of themselves as the vandal. And another problem is that sometimes they're both boat builders, it's just that one is trying to build a raft and one is trying to build a sailboat. So instead what we do is try to come up with systems that discourage fighting in the first place. The premise of those systems is that the right thing will win out in the end. If an editor can't buy into that premise, then that's going to be a problem. When I'm on the losing end of the argument, I have to tell myself consensus can change and wait for that to happen.

I have only dived deep today into your first bullet point (some of this other stuff I did examine over the course of the case). I am not going to try to tell you that your content was wrong. However, I am going to say that the way you went about it was wrong. It was edit warring and discouraging edit warring is one of those systems mentioned above, that Wikipedia has setup to prevent fighting. Rather than acknowledging that you want us to say that you were right about the content. On Wikipedia hoping that if you're persistent enough you will be recognized as right and those who disagreed with you are wrong is asking to be disappointed. There is no winning. There is no losing. There is only our content as it is today and the opportunity to feel pride in having helped create it.

Valereee below points out a positive read on some of your perseverance. I think that's probably true too. But ultimately as an arbitrator I need to know that you can find ways to work with others. Because if you can't I have to vote for the site ban. And it seems like our content would become a little worse in the short run if I did that. But I believe that the good stuff will win out in the end I also believe that fostering a more collaborative environment will help that happen. Personally I'm not a huge fan of listing 37 different diffs in the two Findings of Fact that concern you. Seems like a bit much. However, it's there. So to repeat what Maxim started by asking you, do you feel that there are no problems with your conduct identified anywhere in this case? Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49, I hope I have never given out a hint that I think that there are no problems with your conduct identified anywhere in this case, and I have certainly outright stated the opposite several times during the course of it, including again in the comment above, so there should be no danger of anyone thinking that.

For the 37 different diffs in the two Findings of Fact I have already provided an explanation here and here, so while it is there, it is also explained.

I will have a fuller answer soon, but in the meantime, can you explain how it can be right for you to oppose a site-ban for that editor on the grounds of insufficient evidence in light of all the huge quantity of evidence I and others presented on the matter, yet you say: "I have to vote for the site ban" for me. I am not among those who for the best part of the last ten years have converted Wikipedia into the most widely read and accessible source of genocide denial (in Syrian Kurdistan's Arab Belt) in the English-speaking world. I'm not suggesting I am blameless, but suggesting site-banning me while opposing site-banning in the case of the long-term, committed tendentious editors is surely disproportionate and counter-productive.

I will give a more detailed answer soon. GPinkerton ( talk) 07:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I just re-read all of your comments above this. The only comment I see that is anything close to an acknowledgement that maybe your conduct hasn't been perfect is I have freely admitted losing patience with the POV-pushing on Syrian Kurdistan. This strikes me as more of a "I work too hard" answer to the stereotypical job interview question of "What's your greatest weakness" (an awful question imo). Then the next sentence is I maintain that all the blocks I have received are indeed unjustified. You then write 400+ words explaining why that is true. I spent 30 minutes examining the diffs and explanation in the first bullet point about the 19 November block and my conclusion was: you edit warred. So, in my opinion, the block was justified. And your inability to acknowledge that, and instead re-litigating why your version of the content you edit warred about was correct, is why I'm not sure what the right vote is here. I tried to explain in my previous reply to you, with sympathy, why even if you're right on the merits of the content edit warring is a problem. And if you can't accept ideas like that, then I don't think merely topic banning you is enough to stop disruption.

My default is in a case focused on a specific area (like this) rather than a specific editor is to oppose site bans since trouble in one area doesn't mean an editor needs to be removed from all areas. It's this perspective, that has lead me to oppose site bans for other editors. I hope that they can be productive editors elsewhere. To answer your question, that's the difference between you and the people I've already opposed. I also want to believe that you can edit productively but, to date, your intransigence and aggressive behavior in this very case give me pause. So rather than yet again telling me where you've been unfairly accused, I am hoping in your longer answer you'll tell me which of those 37 diffs, specifically, you acknowledge are a problem and what can you do to assure me (and potentially other arbs) that the problem won't repeat. Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49, apparently the committee never examined all the evidence I submitted and I only submitted evidence in one topic area. Had I known that ten years of dedicated genocide denial was only grounds for a topic ban on Wikipedia perhaps I would not have been so vicious against those perpetrating it. I never denied edit warring and I never claimed it was not a problem; I said it was a result of misunderstanding, as the other belligerent said: [72]. Many of the diffs are responses to accusations of bad faith editing, and omit the personal attacks and accusations to which they are retorts.

• [73] I should have said "you should read". (this in response to genocide denial)
• [74] I should have said "No, the reliable sources attribute the claim to Niketas Choniates, where it originates. If you had read the source then you would know that. Moreover, one of the (weak, POV) sources you adduced as evidence for the "fact" is merely quoting the judgement of Greek historian (and labelled as such) who is effectively quoting Niketas. Please do not again tell me Mehmed "purchased" the mosque again, because the fake news website it was referenced to was written by someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.
• [75] I should have said "you should read Scroll up. Read. اقرأ " (this in response to genocide denial)
• [76] I should have said " We cannot use an article that has little to do with the topic at hand because all these respected academic sources are not somehow worthless. Syrian Kurdistan is a thing. The idea it didn't exist before 2011 is impossible and wholly unsupported by reliable sources. (this in response to denialism)
• [77] I should have said: "Your arguments appear hypocritical. I've expanded with quotes since it seems you don't have access to reliable sources."
• [78] I should have said: "Look again at the sources Evidence is ample and in plain view, and if we were to to ignore it that would interlard the encyclopaedia with fringe ethno-nationalism that is not supported by any reliable sources, and should be discovered and will be excised root and stem according to Wikipedia's core policies." (this in response to genocide denial)
• [79] I should have said: "You need to give up appearing to misuse sources and appearing to make statements that are demonstrably false." (this in response to genocide denial)
• [80] I should have said: "It would be very wrong to take the comment above for a statement of anything other than misunderstanding on عمرو بن كلثوم's part. See here. No canvassing has been involved, as عمرو بن كلثوم has mistakenly claimed.
• This diff was clearly a waste of time.

Now, it will certainly be true that where ethnic cleansing has occurred, and where this is denied, and where Wikipedia is used to promote the denial of the ethnic cleansing and the ethnicity which it affected, I'm afraid I have been too forthright in discovering this and reporting it, although the personal attacks made by other parties in this case have been far worse and far more numerous, as well as extending over a much longer span of time. Indeed, it was my attempts to bring this to administrator attention that caused me to be indefinitely blocked, as the blocking admin stated. This was unjustified, as was the irrelevant and unhelpful topic ban imposed afterwards. This has caused intense frustration, as has the inability or unwillingness for either administrator or arbitrator to take this problem at all seriously. Because of this, and because of the repeated affirmations by parties that they were not going to defer to reliable sources but would continue to push the nationalistic line coupled with the failure of most others to recognize this, I lost all ability to assume good faith. I have said as much multiple times in the course of this case, and beforehand. I don't think I should be punished again for the edit war misunderstanding four months ago. I don't think I should ever have been blocked for posting my concerns at ANI, and I certainly don't think the fact that so far all attention has fallen on me to be the focus of punishment (as the supposed cause of disruption) in various blocks should be considered grounds to topic-ban me for the same edit war misunderstanding that I was blocked for in November. Had I never tried to bring this to the attention of the community, I would never have been blocked and never topic banned and Wikipedia would be continuing to host denialist content even more than it is doing now. My having lost patience with Wikipedia's slowness and unwillingness to remove established editors is not acceptable, but it is understandable; such serious topics as genocide denial are too important for Wikipedia to ignore. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I am very unhappy with how long this has gone on for, how long Wikipedia has been corrupted like this, how much of the project has been interlarded with nationalistic propaganda of the worst kind. This had made me very angry with those responsible, and I have not afforded them the dignity Wikipedia rules require. Paradoxically, this might have led to their being less stringently punished. In retrospect, my perspective and feeling about genocide denial were not then so clear or so important to the rest of the community, and the facts of the matter were not (then) known, and I should have had more patience and civility in explaining why and how Wikipedia was being abused and ideologies promoted through it. I had thought such editors were blocked on sight. I was dismayed by the inaction and dismissal my reports were met with, and I should have had greater fortitude in not responding to all the personal attacks and false accusations against me with insults. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49 Boat: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88]

Vandalism? GPinkerton ( talk) 20:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Re: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision#GPinkerton_banned

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

• @ Barkeep49: regarding: [89], it will be noted that the discussion linked here: [90] is about an edit war relating Syrian Kurdistan, in which I repeatedly reverted vandalism which added Turkish-made fake news accusing the US and France of attacking civilians in Turkish-occupied Syrian Kurdistan, which it presented as supporting both Erdogan's occupying forces and his current Islamist aggression against France and Emmanuel Macron, as detailed at Murder_of_Samuel_Paty#Turkey;_Erdoğan–Macron_dispute. The POV claims made in the edits I reverted are so wholly unsuitable for an encyclopaedia that I removed them along with their atrocious source. In another instance I reverted blanking of sourced material. The editr tat deleted this material later apologized for doing so, so it is wrong to invoke this as some kind of evidence of anything other than there being a dedicated group of POV-pushers on this topic, not least the parties named in this case. This was then an excuse for editors like Supreme Deliciousness and Debresser (both long-term edit warriors with a convinced POV regarding the map of the middle east) to air their various grievances and make their dislike of me and the NPOV I represented in that discussion. GPinkerton ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this explanation. I look forward to reading your response to Maxim's question above as I think about all of this. Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Re:Omission

BDD & Primefac there appears to be no mention of Attar-aram syria in the proposed decision. Surely the evidence for malpractice (tendentious editing, POV-pushing, personal attacks) is overwhelming? Will ArbCom be endorsing such edits in the future? This is very concerning! GPinkerton ( talk) 19:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Evidence pertaining to Attar-Aram syria's behavior was not included in the evidence phase. Participants were advised to present concise evidence and adhere to length limits. A lack of mention of an editor in the proposed decision is not an endorsement of their behavior, any more than a condemnation of it. -- BDD ( talk) 20:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

BDD, arbitrators refused to consider evidence when it was presented, or again when asked to do so [91]. I cannot be held responsible if too much evidence exists for it to fit within the arbitrary limits. Should I file a new case then? GPinkerton ( talk) 20:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You were soliciting others to take your evidence and present it as their own, which is why my reply (which you link in your reply above) is as it was. However, when your initial evidence was trimmed following the close of evidence, the edit summary clearly states that anything removed could be re-added if the total amount of evidence still fit within the limits (i.e. remove Thing A, add Thing B). Primefac ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, soliciting? Paradise Chronicle suggested doing so, did so, no-one objected, and Levivich volunteered to do the same and my reply to that is "soliciting"? How was I to know that when various other users broke their word limits by multiples in the initial phase that was considered acceptable but when I who had the most to say and the most to prove it would be treated differently? Unlike some of the tendentious editors the committee is considering treating more lightly than me, I have never been through arbitration before and never wanted to do so. I never heard of a judge letting someone off scot free on the grounds that there was too much evidence! GPinkerton ( talk) 07:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I feel like we're misunderstanding each other. In the initial conversation you link above, whether "soliciting" or "asking" or just "musing" you were (at the time) basically wanting someone else to take part of your evidence and post it as their own. The specific diff you linked was telling you that the evidence phase was closed so no one would be able to take you up on that. However, you did have the opportunity to modify your evidence as mentioned in my diff from Dreamy Jazz. The fact that you chose not to modify your initial evidence to include Attar-aram syria is a result of your own choice.

I'm not really sure why you feel that I ... would be treated differently with regard to your evidence - as far as I am aware, you received just as much of an extension for words and diffs as everyone else.

Finally, as has been discussed many times in discussing ArbCom (most notably WP:AHRFC), ArbCom is similar to a "court system" but the analogy pretty much stops at the name - we have rules about the amount of evidence that can be presented, and if you're over it's removed and not considered (i.e. rules are rules). This means that you need to prioritize the most important text and diffs in order to make your point. Primefac ( talk) 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, I was referring to the main page where a word limit was set, abided to by some editors, and blithely ignored by certain others. I kept to the limit that time, but since no sanction was placed on the problem editors, I assumed the same would be the case in future. As for wanting someone else to take part of your evidence and post it as their own, this is not anywhere discouraged except by your comment, which you applied to Levivich's offer to do as Paradise Chronicle had already done, but you have not objected to Paradise Chronicle's having done so. More evidence was presented against me than I was able to present against my detractors. If the word limits on parties are equal, and all accused parties use their word limits not to justify themselves but to make baseless attacks on me, then if the number of parties accused of malpractice is greater than the number of parties accusing then it follows that the arbitration committee has given greater space to the accused, and consequently, I had less space than the "Syrian Kurdistan isn't real; the Syrian government never did ethnic cleansing, reliable sources don't matter" side of the argument to adduce evidence. This defect in the process has limited my ability to collect and present diffs from the editors' concerned misbehaviour in all other parts of the project; I specifically limited my evidence to just that that directly concerned Kurds and Kurdistan. As a result, the arbitrators appear to be deciding there is insufficient evidence to site-ban these editors, though they had plenty of space to read the venom directed at me and opt instead to topic-ban or site-ban me, a gesture not merited by the facts of the case. I'll ask again, should I file a new case? Would the problem be considered then? GPinkerton ( talk) 19:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC) reply

FYI today's disruption

[92], [93]

NB: question to arbitrators

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

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

Illustration

Hi Attar, re the so-called rojava article, obviously some users here are trying to depict this area of Syria as being Kurdish, and it seems this agenda requires hiding how the current demographic situation has developed. Don't give up, this is what they are after. I am not giving up either and you have my support. Cheers. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk)

Thanks User:عمرو بن كلثوم, I will never give up, I have many sources to shut them and I wont allow them to force their propaganda like they do in social media. I did say that I wont restore the deleted material, but I just added another short sourced sentence to summaries the deleted one and give the same meaning so that neutral readers will understand the atrocities committed when those people made part of our country theirs. Cheers.-- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Refutation of false accusations made by Attar-Aram syria

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

Further question

Barkeep49 Maxim SoWhy BDD Casliber Newyorkbrad David Fuchs CaptainEek Beeblebrox Primefac Can these members of the committee please explain why the tendentious genocide denial and other malpractice proven in this case is of lesser significance to Wikipedia than "decorum"? Unlike those editors whose site-ban is opposed by the same arbiters as support banning me, I have never tried to deny that I have been uncivil, and no-one has accused me of editing tendentiously. Why are the personal attacks, demonstrably false allegations, and breaking of ArbCom rules being ignored for those editors, but used to punish me for bringing this to ArbCom's attention? I have said many times that I have done wrong in relation to this case, but ArbCom appears to prefer unrepentant nationalists to remain on the project and neutral editors to be removed. Can anyone explain why?

I don't believe I should be banned, but if I am, it is surely unthinkable that those editors with whom ArbCom has agreed there is huge POV problem are not. Unlike them, I have repeatedly shown that I am aware of what has gone wrong, and how to improve. I fear this has been ignored along with most of my evidence. I sought to get ArbCom's attention with this case, and I have clearly singularly failed to make an impression regarding the importance of the case beyond Wikipedia, or regarding my own desire to see this remedied at all costs to myself. I did this because I was aware that neutrality is more important than my own ability to edit. For that failing in this, and for all else, I am very sorry. GPinkerton ( talk) 19:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is full of people who think their righteousness forgives all sins, while those they are opposed must be castigated for every one. On this very page you simultaneously admit you've made mistakes but say every sanction against you is unjustified. This lack of clue is IMO incompatible with continued editing—which is a privilege, not a right. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

David Fuchs I haven't said that at all!? I said the recent blocks were unjustified, and that does not preclude my having been wrong! The blocks being unjustified is not a claim of innocence on my part. GPinkerton ( talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

@ GPinkerton: I'm genuinely sorry to see the pronoun usage here; no Wikipedia editor should be referred to using pronouns they did not agree to use. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, I would have included this in my evidence if I had had space; had I known arbitrators would refuse to site-ban because of limited evidence, I would have included more evidence of the the kind of personal attacks and aggressive behaviour I've been subject to, rather than limiting it to Kurdistan-related disruption on talkpages and mainspace. I was unware ArbCom considered tendentious editing a minor offence but indecorousness a ban-able one; had I known I would have included more evidence of what I considered to be less serious malpractice by these serval editors. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Everyone is beholden to the same rules with evidence; that you could not figure out how to make points succinctly is not our fault or responsibility. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

David Fuchs, not everyone is beholden to same rules: no-one but me had been penalized for exceeding word limits, and no-one at all was sanctioned for exceeding word limits here: [ [94]]. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Here's how I think about it in the abstract: Tendentious editing isn't a "minor" offense; rather, it's one that's almost always limited to a particular topic, so a topic ban is often the appropriate outcome. Incivility and failure to work effectively with others on a collaborative project, on the other hand, make an editor ill-suited to be a Wikipedia editor wherever they go, and the problem is much bigger than just that they're unpleasant: those editors could also drive away untold numbers of potential editors. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

L235, it has not been shown that I have demonstrated "failure to work effectively with others on a collaborative project". I have admitted that I cannot work or be civil with with the tendentious editors and genocide-deniers. I do not believe this failure is worse than systematically subverting Wikipedia in many topic areas for many years, as has been shown to be the case with editors towards whom I have been uncivil.

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

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

@ Beeblebrox: My question askes why the appalling behaviour of Supreme Deliciousness, Attar-Aram syria, and عمرو بن كلثوم has been considered suitable to the project. It also asks why I am being penalized for exceeding word limits and yet no-one is being penalized for exceeding word limits. Is decorum not so important on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan or what? GPinkerton ( talk) 22:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

You keep phrasing it in the classic have you stopped beating your wife fashion, which is why you aren't happy with the answers. Nobody is going to tell you why we approve of the edits of other people we also sanctioned, because that's not a question that actually has an answer. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Beeblebrox, you opposed site-banning even when these editors have demonstrating worse and longer-term incivility across a wide range of articles. That is opposing a sanction. My question asks why you have done as you have done, nothing more. GPinkerton ( talk) 22:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

GPinkerton, you keep saying that you were being penalized for exceeding word limits and yet no-one is being penalized for exceeding word limits, yet that's simply not true. For reference:

• SD: 1472 words (1000 word extension granted)
• PC: 975 words
• AIK: 2055 words (1000 word extension granted, trimmed from 2238 words, Arbs said the 55 extra were just quotes so not necessary to remove)
• GP: 1953 words (1000 word extension granted, trimmed from 3277 words)

Everyone else was under 1000 and did not need an extension. So please, stop saying that no one else was penalized; everyone was treated the same. To echo Beeblebrox, it's not about which "side" you are on, so it does not matter if the other three listed above are for or against you, everyone gets the same word limit (plus potential extensions). Primefac ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, I'm not talking about the evidence page. I'm (still) talking about the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan page. Look there and see the truth of what I'm saying. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I also keep asking whether the evidence will be considered if another case if filed. Will it? GPinkerton ( talk) 23:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have done so anyway. It would be very wrong to ban me and do nothing abut the long-term tendentious editing. GPinkerton ( talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Two things, we're very likely to pull that case request, because the DS are very likely going to be enacted and chances are good if those editors are editing in a problematic way they'll be tbanned in due course. So no, your evidence will not be considered.

Second thing, the case requests factor into whether we take a case, but the Evidence phase is really where decisions are made. I do note though that multiple editors, including yourself, are over the limit, so I'm still not really sure where this penalization thing is coming from. Primefac ( talk) 23:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, chances are good if those editors are editing in a problematic way they'll be tbanned in due course sounds reassuring, but since their disruption has been doing on for as much as ten years, even while covering areas supposedly protected by Syrian Civil War sanctions and Israel-Palestine sanctions, that doesn't seem very likely. This is precisely why I have been so forceful all this time; the stupid territory in Syria means nothing to me, but means the world for some of the other parties to the case, as they themselves have noted. The years of disruption to topics under discretionary and general sanctions have not attracted a ban or block thus far, so there is little chance of me hoping that will change in the next 5-10 years if it hasn't already.

Only I was mentioned in the proposed decision as having inappropriate "decorum". The abusive behaviour and personal attacks on me, and the exceeding of word limits by other parties, have all been summarily ignored by the drafting arbiters, despite it continuing to the present day.

If the case requests factor into whether we take a case, but the Evidence phase is really where decisions are made, then why are both given word limits, but editors only penalized for breaking them really where decisions are made? This gives quite the wrong impression. GPinkerton ( talk) 01:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Primefac, regarding your last comment, I asked on 20 February whether I should file a new case. It would not be right to characterize my actions as "not waiting". I waited. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply

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

Further statement

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

Recidivism

[95] Incorrigible and deliberate POV-pushing continues apace. Perhaps they'll be action this time? GPinkerton ( talk) 02:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC) [96] and from Supreme Delciousness making baseless allegation and improperly reformatting my comments. Please act. GPinkerton ( talk) 02:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC) reply