Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
In light of ongoing discussions about reforming the workshop phase of arbitration, I wanted to state that the drafters of this case don't plan to do anything differently with this case's workshop. If things start getting hairy, we reserve the right to intervene. -- BDD ( talk) 00:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I have mixed up the proposals and the remedies. I'd be glad if a clerk or an arbitrator would put them into the right place, if it is deemed as helpful to the case. I guess I've put my remedy in the section of GPinkerton proposals and answer ob Beeblebrox already came. Thank you in advance. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac:, Hi, I am surprised by your removal of my evidence analysis. I thought this was the purpose of this workshop. Otherwise, where is that supposed to be added? Nobody has removed the massive amounts of text and book excerpts on this page page added by GPinkerton. I feel I am being treated unfairly when the other party has canvassed and moved content from one person to another to play the system and exceed their word limit. Can you please clarify? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I just want to note that given the extreme length of submissions offered by many participants, over already extended limits, I did not have capacity (and to the extent I did have capacity, a willingness) to go through evidence before the section closed. As I don't feel comfortable participating in the workshop without a firm grasp of the presented evidence, I haven't really participated yet in the Workshop. I have been working my way through the evidence today so hopefully I will be ready soon to read the Workshop. But I wanted to note this given the stated desire of some participants, both this case and among the community generally, for more arb participation in the Workshop why that has been challenging for me in this particular case. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This workshop is scheduled to close on or after 00:00 13 February 2021, which is in around 26 hours. It is recommended to post your proposals and/or analysis of evidence on the workshop page sooner rather than later to ensure that you have them in before the phase closes. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was just too late to add the following comment to Proposed remedies by AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم). If any arbitrator finds it to be of any value, they may put it in at their discretion.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, my acquaintance with GPinkerton is what got me interested in this ArbCom case. I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum that GPinkerton shows unacceptable combative behavior, has great difficulties in editing collaboratively, and from time to time engages in personal attacks. I would add that they show a considerable lack of self-reflection, and can be mind-bogglingly rude, in a way that is often disruptive. However, as also pointed out by Amr ibn Kulthoum, this behavior extends over a wide range of articles. It has, in fact, little or nothing to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. This is important to establish, because I believe that any measures taken against GPinkerton should have equally little to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. I believe that GPinkerton is at least partly right in arguing that their topic ban is misconstrued, in so far as tendentious editing is not one of the problems posed by their behavior. On the contrary, they have spent a great deal of energy in undoing the tendentious editing of others, including that of some of the other parties in this case. GPinkerton is a highly knowledgeable editor with a very genuine interest to build an encyclopedia, and should probably not be topic-banned. On the other hand, I do believe that some form of restriction on uncivil behavior is surely called for. I just lack the experience to know what form that could take. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This is clear and avowed POV-pushing and my saying so is no kind of personal attack. It's not slander if it's true. GPinkerton ( talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Dreamy Jazz:, @ Barkeep49:, (@ KevinL: you gave a final warning to GPinkerton on their Talk page a few days ago): here we go again, second wild personal attack in less than one hour. When is time to take action? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
And now apparently, his words are worthless, and he lied about Kurdish nomads in the Jazira
Several of the latest edits, at least as to my judgement probably refer to a content dispute of (a) certain article(s) (sections). But they are a clear evidence of that there are needed some admin tools, as the discussions would go on forth and forth, as long as they don't come. Thank you for the patience, Arbiters. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 06:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I think
this should be signed as {{subst:Unsigned|Paradise Chronicle|18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)}}
Assem Khidhr (
talk) 12:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am just letting you know that the removing of Kurdistan in Kurmanji or Kurdish-Turkish conflict is going on just like the whole case has never happened and done by the exact same editor who brought forward here. The editor wasn't blocked, now they feel empowered and probably believe you approve their statement on Kurds and Kurdistan just as the Admins did at the ANI as I reported him. As long as this is permitted, it will happen. There are more similar edits as well. This is just an obvious one. An ArbCom ruling on this is needed. Admins need tools to ban such behavior, if they don't get any tools they won't ban them. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Official names should be usedis in contravention of the policy at WP:COMMONNAME, and this error is explained more thoroughly at WP:OFFICIALNAMES.
If Wikipedia would do what you are suggesting, then Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, would be promoting a conception and presenting it to the reader as a "fact".does not appear to be informed by references to the way Wikipedia works. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It's understandable why no admin would volunteer to handle an ANI report when there's already a dozen arbs on the case (literally). I don't think anyone is meaning to rush the PD: we gave the arbs plenty to read and they gave us extensions so we could give them more to read; even a postponement of the PD date would not be unreasonable under these circumstances. That said, it would be nice if editors did not engage in the very same conduct that is being complained of in this case (like removing mentions of "Kurdistan") until the case is over. Avoiding the continuation of these disputes until the case closes is a common courtesy that everyone should extend. Levivich harass/ hound 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
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.
In light of ongoing discussions about reforming the workshop phase of arbitration, I wanted to state that the drafters of this case don't plan to do anything differently with this case's workshop. If things start getting hairy, we reserve the right to intervene. -- BDD ( talk) 00:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess I have mixed up the proposals and the remedies. I'd be glad if a clerk or an arbitrator would put them into the right place, if it is deemed as helpful to the case. I guess I've put my remedy in the section of GPinkerton proposals and answer ob Beeblebrox already came. Thank you in advance. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 00:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Primefac:, Hi, I am surprised by your removal of my evidence analysis. I thought this was the purpose of this workshop. Otherwise, where is that supposed to be added? Nobody has removed the massive amounts of text and book excerpts on this page page added by GPinkerton. I feel I am being treated unfairly when the other party has canvassed and moved content from one person to another to play the system and exceed their word limit. Can you please clarify? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 11:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I just want to note that given the extreme length of submissions offered by many participants, over already extended limits, I did not have capacity (and to the extent I did have capacity, a willingness) to go through evidence before the section closed. As I don't feel comfortable participating in the workshop without a firm grasp of the presented evidence, I haven't really participated yet in the Workshop. I have been working my way through the evidence today so hopefully I will be ready soon to read the Workshop. But I wanted to note this given the stated desire of some participants, both this case and among the community generally, for more arb participation in the Workshop why that has been challenging for me in this particular case. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
This workshop is scheduled to close on or after 00:00 13 February 2021, which is in around 26 hours. It is recommended to post your proposals and/or analysis of evidence on the workshop page sooner rather than later to ensure that you have them in before the phase closes. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was just too late to add the following comment to Proposed remedies by AIK (عمرو بن كلثوم). If any arbitrator finds it to be of any value, they may put it in at their discretion.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, my acquaintance with GPinkerton is what got me interested in this ArbCom case. I agree with Amr ibn Kulthoum that GPinkerton shows unacceptable combative behavior, has great difficulties in editing collaboratively, and from time to time engages in personal attacks. I would add that they show a considerable lack of self-reflection, and can be mind-bogglingly rude, in a way that is often disruptive. However, as also pointed out by Amr ibn Kulthoum, this behavior extends over a wide range of articles. It has, in fact, little or nothing to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. This is important to establish, because I believe that any measures taken against GPinkerton should have equally little to do with the Kurds or Kurdistan. I believe that GPinkerton is at least partly right in arguing that their topic ban is misconstrued, in so far as tendentious editing is not one of the problems posed by their behavior. On the contrary, they have spent a great deal of energy in undoing the tendentious editing of others, including that of some of the other parties in this case. GPinkerton is a highly knowledgeable editor with a very genuine interest to build an encyclopedia, and should probably not be topic-banned. On the other hand, I do believe that some form of restriction on uncivil behavior is surely called for. I just lack the experience to know what form that could take. Apaugasma ( talk| contribs) 00:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
This is clear and avowed POV-pushing and my saying so is no kind of personal attack. It's not slander if it's true. GPinkerton ( talk) 04:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)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)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
@ Dreamy Jazz:, @ Barkeep49:, (@ KevinL: you gave a final warning to GPinkerton on their Talk page a few days ago): here we go again, second wild personal attack in less than one hour. When is time to take action? Thanks, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 00:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
And now apparently, his words are worthless, and he lied about Kurdish nomads in the Jazira
Several of the latest edits, at least as to my judgement probably refer to a content dispute of (a) certain article(s) (sections). But they are a clear evidence of that there are needed some admin tools, as the discussions would go on forth and forth, as long as they don't come. Thank you for the patience, Arbiters. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 06:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I think
this should be signed as {{subst:Unsigned|Paradise Chronicle|18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)}}
Assem Khidhr (
talk) 12:28, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am just letting you know that the removing of Kurdistan in Kurmanji or Kurdish-Turkish conflict is going on just like the whole case has never happened and done by the exact same editor who brought forward here. The editor wasn't blocked, now they feel empowered and probably believe you approve their statement on Kurds and Kurdistan just as the Admins did at the ANI as I reported him. As long as this is permitted, it will happen. There are more similar edits as well. This is just an obvious one. An ArbCom ruling on this is needed. Admins need tools to ban such behavior, if they don't get any tools they won't ban them. Paradise Chronicle ( talk) 18:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Official names should be usedis in contravention of the policy at WP:COMMONNAME, and this error is explained more thoroughly at WP:OFFICIALNAMES.
If Wikipedia would do what you are suggesting, then Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia, would be promoting a conception and presenting it to the reader as a "fact".does not appear to be informed by references to the way Wikipedia works. GPinkerton ( talk) 20:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
It's understandable why no admin would volunteer to handle an ANI report when there's already a dozen arbs on the case (literally). I don't think anyone is meaning to rush the PD: we gave the arbs plenty to read and they gave us extensions so we could give them more to read; even a postponement of the PD date would not be unreasonable under these circumstances. That said, it would be nice if editors did not engage in the very same conduct that is being complained of in this case (like removing mentions of "Kurdistan") until the case is over. Avoiding the continuation of these disputes until the case closes is a common courtesy that everyone should extend. Levivich harass/ hound 20:35, 16 February 2021 (UTC)