User:Paradise Chronicle, User:Levivich, and I have run into difficulty in a content dispute with editors with whom it has become clear there are conduct and POV-pushing issues; namely the other parties identified in this case. It has become clear that though Syrian Kurdistan is covered by the General Sanctions applied to the Syrian Civil War articles, the issues with it and numerous Kurdish-related pages across the Near/Middle East fall outside the direct remit of WP:SCW sanctions, which have proven unable to resolve the project-wide dispute. Numerous editors have received blocks for their contributions to this topic (including myself, including for having raised multiple ANI reports on the subject). Meanwhile the disruption has continued, as evidenced by the numerous diffs collected by interested parties at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds, with accompanying disruption: this edit for example.

The geopolitical "Kurdish Question" has long been salient in international politics. Kurdistan, the cultural homeland of the Kurds, spans four modern states (Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq) and the Kurds are a repressed minority long subjected to state suppression, including 20th-century military offensives, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Problem behaviours have included:

denying the existence of a (Syrian) Kurdistan.
erasure or "whitewashing" historical events, including denial of ethnic cleansing in the Arab Belt.
removing well-sourced mentions of matters relating to Kurds.
removing mentions of Kurdish populations and names, including moving articles to non-Kurdish place names (such as those changed under the Arab Belt).
using unreliable sources to contradict academic sources.
quoting selectively, misquoting, and misrepresenting sources.

On the Syrian Kurdistan page (and elsewhere), editors have been seeking to deny that the Arab Nationalist Ba'ath Party perpetrated a campaign of ethnic cleansing known as the "Arab Belt" in Syrian Kurdistan, and moreover, have questioned that the existence of the place, in the face of numerous reliable sources. (In Iraq, the same party later organized the Anfal genocide.) Editors (particularly User:عمرو بن كلثوم, User:Supreme Deliciousness, and User:Thepharoah17) argue that the historically Kurdish-majority borderlands of Syria and bordering Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan were not historically populated by Kurds until the post-WWI French Mandate of Syria.

This conduct is beyond the pale in light of the well-attested fact that the national socialist Ba'ath Party's Arab Belt ethnic cleansing plan in the newly renamed Syrian Arab Republic, denied Kurds' civil rights on the fictitious grounds that they were illegal 20th-century immigrants escaping persecution in the Turkish Republic; this exclusion endured until the Civil War. From the 1960s on, it has been a central myth of Syrian Arab nationalism that Kurds do not belong within Syria's modern borders and that Syrian Kurdistan is a figment of Kurdish nationalists' imagination: there is evidence of propagation of this idea on Talk:Syrian Kurdistan and on many other articles. This is akin to Holocaust denial. GPinkerton (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paradise Chronicle

I was going to request a case myself but on the wider Kurdish issue. The Kurdish issue is really in need of an ArbCom Case. That the topic banned but really influential editor (leading editor) in the article Syrian Kurdistan, GPinkerton chose this way to be able to take part in the discussion, is understandable. How to describe or even if the Kurds should be described on Wikipedia is a long lasting conflict (not only content dispute, but behavioral issue and dispute) and there can be provided similar diffs as extensively presented in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds for a way longer time span if needed. The issues presented for Syrian Kurdistan are clearly relevant and often also count for the Kurdish issue in general.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, I also support a case on the wider Kurdish issue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear ArbCom committee, as I have written before, I was working on a case on my own (together with Levivich) until GPinkerton made a move before us. Under User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase you can see the preparations for it. I has some more diffs added than the one of GPinkerton and a broader case on the Kurdish issue can be made out of it. You can also merge the two cases. If you want us to further work on a case, we'll prepare a case you can accept. The Kurdish issue is really in need of a case, we (Paradise Chronicle, Levivich and GPinkerton) would be able to participate in a case constructively with sources and diffs and also have quite a good knowledge on where there are issues which need a solution. I know, the fact that GPinkerton filed the request faces some opposition, but he can really provide a lot of diffs and sources to the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the Holocaust or Genocide link of the Kurdish issue: It is something different, but it deserves a similar Admin/Sysop attention. Nor the Jews or the Armenians had to face a denial of their ethnicity by the country they were living in. But generations of Syrians and Turks were raised up to University levels that Kurds don't exist (or are still educated in this way) and there of course exist Wikipedia editors who where raised in such an environment. It is normal that there exist editors who deny there exist Kurds in a certain part of the world or a deny the existence of a Kurdistan. One statement in this very discussion, clearly shows that there exist such editors. What we can do on Wikipedia is to educate them that they exist, and this we can do by forcing them to accept reliable often cited academic scholarship and not erase anything for OR or unsourced. But this, Admins/Sysops also must be willing to enforce, which is really seldmomly the case, which can also be observed in this very discussion here. At times Admins enforce it, and those admins get some praise by me, but it would be good that the existence of Kurds, Kurdish language and Kurdistan would become something we don't have to source like we also don't have to source it for other nations or languages. I've been discussing this Kurdish issue with admins and editors for months and sincerely I am getting tired of it. It is not my job to to clean up this mess, it is the Admins job and it is really easy to clean it up. Admins restrict editors rights for bludgeoning or a sometimes not even violated 1RR rule but not for the persistent denial of a cultural region against academic scholarship? It is clear a Kurdish ArbCom Case is due but the will by the ArbCom must be there.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Not much to add other than that the stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan isn't a content dispute (and I really don't understand how anyone can think it is). TBANs are long overdue. A dozen ANI threads hasn't fixed this. Half a dozen editors already sanctioned. Admins divided. And it continues every day. Asking whether Syrian Kurds exist is like asking whether German Jews exist. I'm embarrassed by my colleagues who treat this question as if it were a legitimate question. Levivich ^harass/_hound 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if Supreme Deliciousness would stop WP:ADMINSHOPPING for sanctions against myself and others, at least while this case request is open [1] [2] [3]. Concerns about conduct in this area (my own or others) should be centralized here. Levivich ^harass/_hound 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the proper scope of the dispute is "Kurds and Kurdistan", not just "Syrian Kurdistan". (Kurdistan includes parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia.) User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds include examples of Kurd-related disruption outside of Syria, and even outside of Kurdistan. Levivich ^harass/_hound 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by عمرو بن كلثوم

My first reaction to this case is really shock to see it come from an "editor" with so many problematic behavior issues across a wide topic of areas. There has been a case against them almost every month at the at the ANB, with the last one being this lengthy discussion about their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in at least eight different articles covering a wide range of topics (e.g., Holocaust in Bulgaria, Bulgaria during World War II, Hagia Sophia, Murder of Samuel Paty, etc.). This case is just another piece of evidence confirming that. Their edit-warring behavior is complemented with a very aggressive personal attack attitude. See these examples they wrote against me: here here, here. Their Talk page is full with warnings about WP:Edit warring, WP:Civility issues. Warning and cases are just too many to count, but here are some recent examples:

IvanVector gave them a final warning here on 22 Nov. but they kept going with their personal attack behavior such as here on 24 Nov. here on 26 Nov..
A series of warnings by Girth Summit (who moderated the Syrian Kurdistan content dispute) here on 26 Nov., here on 26 Nov. here on 27 Nov

They were indeffed by Guerillero here on 4 Dec. but then the block was converted to a tban of Middle East post 1453, which of course that they never respected. Here are some warnings after the indef was lifted and during the tban:

Valereee: a series of warnings here on 30 Dec., here on 31 Dec., here on 31 Dec. too and here (same day) reflecting on GPinkerton's behavior.
El C: last warning one here on Jan. 4.

I think I'll stop here for now out of respect for your time, but the list really goes on and on. As for the content dispute, this lengthy difference gives you an idea (no need to post walls of text here). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One does not have look elsewhere to see crystal clear the politically-motivated POV-pushing mentality that is driving this case and the edits by GPinkerton and Levivich. The last paragraph in GPinkerton's statement above shows that they are here to right great wrongs. Likewise, Levivich above says Asking whether Syrian Kurds exist is like asking whether German Jews exist. See the admin comments about Levivich's claims/behavior at this page such as this comment from Joe Roe. On that same page you can also see the comments by El C regarding the Holocaust and Palestine/Israel analogy pushed by GPinkerton and Levivich.

Let me be clear here, nobody here agrees with human rights violations coming from any side (including the Syrian government), and nobody is saying Kurds do not exist in Syria. Actually, I challenge GPinkerton et al. to show evidence of their claims. However, this does not mean we can change or delete historical facts to suit our political beliefs as Levivich and GPinkerton have done at the Syrian Kurdistan page. Based on their political convictions, GPinkerton and Levivich have changed text to present "Syrian Kurdistan" and "rojava" as non-disputed terms. Of course some people call the area Syrian Kurdistan, but many more refer to it as "Kurdish-inhabited area" or Kurdish-populated area, Kurdish enclaves in Syria (ready to present quotes and references upon request). Here is an excerpt from Michael Gunter (2018), one of the Kurdish studies experts, regarding the use of these terms: The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria".. You may want to see how Levivich removed massive amounts of text showing French mandate ethnic census numbers as well as British and French scholarship on Kurdish immigration and ethnographic maps showing the demographics of that area. To further debunk this conspiracy theory pushed by GPinkerton et al., none of the references used in that article about Kurdish population history in Syria is even Arab or Syrian, let alone Baathist. See my edit at ANB showing several quotes from western sources on the Kurdish immigration issue that Levivich et al. love to call conspiracy theory or Baathism inventions, etc., and have been removing or trying to hide any reference to that in the Syrian Kurdistan page. You may also want to see the grey literature and whitewashing and the type of sources used in the articles about Kurds in Syria (e.g. Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Human rights in the AANES, Rojava conflict, etc.). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C: thanks for the catch and sorry for the miswording (too many ideas jumping around in my head :)). Corrected that now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Attar-Aram syria

This is a content dispute. Its baffling that the editor who started this is comparing the content dispute to Holocaust denial!!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thepharoah17

As I have already stated, I am done and have no further interest in the Kurds issue. I still don't know a lot of features on Wikipedia such as an ArbCom or how to nominate an article for deletion. I just learned about the three revert rule a few days ago (not that I ever needed to know because I never edit warred). My main goal was to get rid of the Irish sockpuppet who repeatedly caused trouble in Northern Ireland issues and so decided to come here and cause this mess and I have achieved this goal. I will just say this for the record, though. This is maybe an idea you guys are missing. Kurdistan is a secular idea. It doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist. Most Kurds are Muslims. Why would Muslims want to separate from a Muslim nation? The ones who want an independent Kurdish state are the non-religious Kurds. The Ottoman Empire even gave Kurds their own province called the Kurdistan Eyalet. Even when Erdogan said Turks and Kurds are brothers, he meant Turks and Kurds are both Muslims. See for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_of_Salah_al-Din_the_Kurd. That's why there isn't really such thing as a Kurdish name. They're just either different pronunciations of the Arabic name or a translation. See for example: Erbil and Ras al-Ayn. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

GPinkerton is topic banned from making Middle East edits, so she is not allowed to file this, so it should be speedily closed and GPinkerton blocked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, You forgot to mention User:Konli17, that was edit warring, and was the main disruption at the article, why didn't you mention him?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, There was large amount of edit warring before by a sockpuppet Konli17 adding fake maps into the article, but as soon as he and GPinkertion got banned the article got calm. There is still content disputes at the talkpage, ~~but I don't believe an arb case is necessary.~~ --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, no one ever said Syrian Kurds doesn't exist.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem at the Syrian Kurdistan article was a now blocked sock User:Konli17 who kept on adding fake maps and edit warring/disrupting the article. Hes the one that started everything. The other main problem was GPinkerton who arrived at the article and also disrupted and edit warred and made it impossible to edit or have a normal discussion at the talkpage because of her behavior.

Take a look at this AN discussion to see the history of GPinkerton and all the disputes she has been involved in:[4]. Any topic she touches she wreaks havoc at. Syrian Kurdistan is just another one in her long list. She will continue on to other articles after and do the same thing there. Why anyone lifted her indef block is beyond me. Unfortunately GPinkertons current topic ban is only temporary and she will come back and continue her disruption at Syrian Kurdistan. As soon as GPinkerton and Konli17 was removed from the article it became calm.

The third and last problem is Levivich who with a newly implanted source restriction rule has veto power and has removed large amounts of undisputed historical information and maps. Anyone who disagrees to this will be blocked. The solution to fixing the problem at Syrian Kurdistan is easy: Permanent block GPinkerton from the topic area (and frankly from Wikipedia altogether as she will just continue disrupting another topic area) and remove the newly implanted source restriction rule at the Syrian Kurdistan article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it a bit more. The problems will not go away. The incivility will return. The ability to file enforcement requests is needed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

valereee is not telling the truth here:[5] when she says: "I declared only recent scholarship was acceptable for disputed content", because user Levivich removed undisputed sourced content based on that the source was old, not because the content was disputed:[6]. And valereee accepted this:[7]. So it now "became disputed" because an editor used her new rule to "dispute" something, not because the content was disputed by another source. Basically giving unprecedented veto power to Levivich and other users to remove sourced and undisputed content out of the article. This has now led to large amounts of undisputed and well sourced historical information and historical maps being removed from the article, and no one dares to say anything against this in fear of getting blocked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

GPinkerton fails to make the case that this is anything other than a routine content dispute. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I am not in any way involved in this dispute, and I do not see what ArbCom can do here at this point. However, the area was recently put under community general sanctions (added to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), which have caused some amount of controversy (see the AN discussion cited above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_introducing_source_restriction). It might help if the case get resolved by motion and standard discretionary sanctions in the area get introduced. This will not significantly change the situation, but will make more clear who may do what and which are enforcement and appeal avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

I'm not sure how practical this may be, but long before the flareup at Syrian Kurdistan, I've been calling for a sanctions regime that would encompass the Kurds topic area, overall. Note, for example, the Kurdish-related disruption on the part of Emblemmor whom I've just indeffed mere minutes ago after Semsûrî brought their disruption to my attention. Not to put you on the spot, Semsûrî, but I invite you to summarize to the Committee some of the problems that you have been forced to deal with in the topic area for such a long time. El_C 17:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semsûrî, I just recall that we tried to get a General sanctions regime to cover the topic area, but that we didn't get enough traction to see it through, though I forget the exact reason of why the proposal failed (I believe EdJohnston also participated, perhaps he remembers). Right, in 2019, there was indeed massive disruption largely pertaining to Ezdîkî and Yazidi politics. I suppose what I'm advocating here is for the Committee to issue a blanket Kurds-related DS, which among other things would cover Syrian Kurdistan and more. This way we can have better enforcement for any future Kurdish-related disruption, disruption which could emerge on a number of different fronts. El_C 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for me, everyone here are mostly focused on this particular Syrian Kurdistan dispute (in the context of the SCW GS, and so on), which of course makes perfect sense. Nevertheless, I still wish to stress to the Committee that there is a unique Kurdish common thread to many other disputes which, again, tend to arise on a number of different fronts. Yes, Syrian Kurdistan is the locus here, but other Kurds-related disruption has happened before and is likely to happen again. Like on the Kurdish-Turkish front; on the Kurdish-Iraqi front; on the Kurdish-Iranian front; on the overall national aspirations of Greater Kurdistan; on the diaspora (like, for example, the million plus Kurds who reside in Germany); on the ethnic front, including various related ethnic groups; on the linguistic front, like with Kurmanji and other Kurdish dialects. In short, while I do realize that proposing a blanket Kurds-centred DS may immediately seem like a bit of an overreach, ultimately, I still think going wide is the way to go here as far as the scope of any sanctions regime the Committee might venture to entertain. El_C 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, here are two indeffs from yesterday: User talk:Emblemmor#Indefinite_block and User_talk:Meysam#Indefinite_block (brought to my attention here) pertaining to Kurds in Iran. El_C 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, above you write that: On that same page you can also see the comments about the Holocaust and Palestine/Israel analogy pushed by GPinkerton and Levivich, some of them by El C. Thanks for the ping, but I don't actually understand why you use the word "push" when referring to my comments. I basically said two things in that discussion thread: 1. That I did not like for the Holocaust to be used as an analogy in this instance (Levivich then agreed). And 2. That my own sense is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has received far greater scrutiny on the project due to it being much more well known in the "general zeitgeist than the Kurds are." So, I still stand behind both positions. El_C 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, thanks — I appreciate you correcting the wording there. El_C 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned, Barkeep49, I can't speak for other admins, but to me, the main advantage of a wide Kurds-centred DS, mostly revolves around having DS alerts available. It'd be a time saver, serving as a simple reference point to inform users that the topic area is fraught. Otherwise, myself at least, I don't really need to have a DS to be able to handle the disruption effectively. I mean, a lack of DS (or GS) didn't really prevent me from blocking tens and tens of disruptive users or from protecting close to 100 related pages during the peak of the disruption in 2019 and early 2020. But, I may not be around to help with the next big flareup, and sorry if this sounds arrogant, but other admins may not be as confident in taking decisive action without this extra discretion. El_C 06:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Semsûrî

[In response to El_C:] The massive disruption and vandalism throughout all of 2019 and perhaps into last year has dwindled down to sporadic disruption. I could make a thorough summarization but most of it wasn't actually pertaining to Kurdish topics in Syria but everything else. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I'm a bit bemused that anyone familiar with what's been going on at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan for the last several months would consider this a routine content dispute, but really admins could use some tools there (and based on the issues there, I'm assuming at other Kurd-related topics). If arbcom can help with that, I'd urge them to take the case. —valereee (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, frankly if the committee would like to weigh in on what ARBPIA-equivalent discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on "all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed" and Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project means, I'd find it helpful.

For those who haven't been watching at the article talk and AN, after weeks of watching multiple editors arguing a particular POV ad nauseam from primary documents, old sources, and news stories when the subject is thoroughly and amply covered in recent scholarship in the academic press, I declared only recent scholarship was acceptable for disputed content because I thought it fell under 'other reasonable measures' and I believed it was both necessary and proportionate. The move has received mixed reviews. I still think it's reasonable, necessary and proportionate, but for me personally and probably admins working at other articles in the area it would be helpful to know whether the committee agree, don't agree, or doesn't want to comment. —valereee (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Worm That Turned, yes, that's the sanction in question. There's been discussion at AN. —valereee (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EI C that a broader topic than simply Syrian Kurdistan is needed. I've seen similar complaints about POV pushing at multiple article talks related to the Kurds. The editors in the general topic of SCW are just convinced their own understanding of the situation is the literal truth and there are enough of them and they're so willing to argue forever that it wears out more-neutral editors. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question by MJL

The only question I have is if there is a larger Kurd-related sanction, would it include geographically related ethnic groups like the Assyrians/Arameans/Syriacs [a topic which involves a smaller but more long-standing dispute about their identity), the Turks in Northern Kurdistan (or even just Turkey per a recent ARCA (permalink)], and the Syrian Turkmen (not to forget about them)? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Bushranger

While it's obvious there are problems, quite possibly major ones, in this topic area, GPinkerton has a history of bludegoning and forum-shopping on the topic, with demands for immediate action in a way that at one point, I believe, had five threads open at once on AN/I and AN and quite frankly only made the situation worse and discouraged action through their sky-is-falling franticness on the issue, as well as a seeming belief that only they are capable of bringing to light this clear and present danger to the encyclopedia - to the point it got them topic-banned [8]. As Valereee observes there is a case to be made (a strong one, perhaps even) that additional tools are needed to corral this topic area, and I absolutely believe that there are issues that need to have some editors hit with a large trout; however, I'm not entirely sure this is escalated to ArbCom yet, and I also absolutely believe that GPinkerton should drop the stick on this issue. (Furthermore, I find it absolutely baffling that a topic-banned editor is allowed to weasel around that ban by jumping to ArbCom to demand action be taken on the topic they are banned from.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Syria and Kurdistan)

The community and the corps of administrators have taken action in this dispute, including imposing restrictions on the filing party, and by imposing Syrian Civil War general sanctions. The filing party asks the ArbCom to review those actions. I have in the past urged ArbCom to accept a case when there was some, even if not clear or convincing, evidence that ArbCom needed to act. I am in this case suggesting that ArbCom open a limited inquiry to determine whether the actions being taken by the community are effective, or whether ArbCom needs to open a full evidentiary case.

Discretionary sanctions and general sanctions are sometimes necessary to deal with areas that are subject to battleground editing because they are real battlegrounds. The Syrian Civil War has been one of the bloodiest battlegrounds in the past decade. I advise ArbCom to open a limited inquiry into whether the actions by the community are effectively dealing with the battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Syrian Kurdistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Syrian Kurdistan: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Awaiting more statements. In response to one of the comments so far, GPinkerton's filing of the request for arbitration is permissible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion yet on whether this is a case which needs an ArbCom case. However, I am prepared to say that I am not currently in favor of Ymblanter's suggestion that we put this topic under DS. Some arbs will only do DS after a full case, which has some logic but isn't my stance. If the community is going to do GS - and I think it should which is why I've closed a couple of discussions that established consensus for GS - then I think it should also build its own capacity and come to its own understanding on how to clean stuff like this up. ArbCom should be solving problems the community can't. Just because it might be more expedient for us to do something within our authority is not a reason for me to believe the community can't cleanup the inconsistencies identified in that AN thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in this from the community at large. However, I'm pretty sympathetic to taking a case where multiple administrators are saying "I need help in administrating this topic area". El C do you have a diff or two that might illustrate the point you're making that there's an issue here beyond Syrian Kurdistan? Valereee what help would you see the committee providing that the existing GS does not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks to Valereee and El C for lending their perspective. The only case I can see myself voting to accept is one with a broader scope along the lines of what El C suggests. For ArbCom to work effectively we need editors with the time, skill, and inclination to participate in the process. Limited participation can work when the scope is limited. If we're going to go wide, and truthfully Syrian Kurdistan isn't exactly a narrow topic, then we're going to need more than limited participation. The AN thread about Valereee's GS sanction got lots of participation, granted, but that wouldn't be the focus of this case. Is there enough community desire to see us handle this to suggest a case is warranted? I think right now I'm leaning no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning accept. However, the fact that the community is going for GS here gives me some pause. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 05:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly an area that I would expect Arbcom to have to step in, we've had long running disruption and multiple attempts from the community to handle it - especially when looking at the wider area. However, I'm not certain about taking this case in particular. From what I can see, the area is under Community General Sanctions and the specific page that this arbcom request is about - Syrian Kurdistan has just had a page level sanction put upon it. So I'm torn - I am leaning decline at this point since there has just been a reasonable attempt to improve situations, however I could accept a case on the wider area, understanding that these issue have been going for so long. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing issues with PragerU page

Initiated by Noteduck (talk) at 09:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Noteduck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Springee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Shinealittlelight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hipal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MasterTriangle12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

an attempt at dispute resolution that left the original contributing editor (myself) very much unsatisfied[13]
Not formal dispute resolution process, but evidence of futility of finding consensus[14]
not formal arbitration, but evidence of protracted debate and failure to find consensus[15][16]
not formal arbitration, but some of the regular to and fro on this page[17][18][19][20]

Statement by Noteduck

Controversial articles repeatedly fought over in the comments section, controversial material is repeatedly questioned and deleted. In particular, the "critiques of videos" subheading is vehemently contested. Some of the controversial PragerU videos that have been repeatedly deleted from "critiques of videos":

PragerU's videos featuring holocaust denier Owen Benjamin, reported on by three journalistic sources, one of which is very strong[21]
PragerU's video defending Robert E. Lee, reported on by (at least) one journalistic source with editorship[22]
PragerU's video with Douglas Murray (journalist) reported on by at least four sources (journalistic and academic[23]
reference to PragerU's well-documented[24] links to far right and far-right figures repeatedly deleted despite support from two academic sources

Those are from the current talk page, not taking into account extensive archives[25][26]. Worth noting that the three editors most engaged in deleting material - Springee, Shinealittlelight and Hipal (formerly known as User:Ronz) - have been editing this page since at least May 2017 for Hipal/Ronz[27], February 2019 for Shinealittlelight[28] September 2019 for Springee[29] Hipal/Ronz's clearly has ongoing preoccupation with editing material from PragerU and Dennis Prager pages. In Hipal's CURRENT talk page there's only one mention of PragerU (a reversion) or Dennis Prager[30] but in Hipal's deleted talk page history many - see see[31][32][33][34]. Shinealittlelight has edit warred on PragerU page[35] In PragerU's history[36] it's clear Hipal (in particular), Shinealittlelight and Springee watch this page and are constantly rejecting new material. I counted nearly 200 edits of PragerU page by Hipal, much of it rejection of new material.

No consensus will emerge as nobody can agree on what material meets due weight criteria on this page.[37] I believe false balance is a real problem - of course NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. I contend that the removal of material betrays a politically partisan desire to remove unflattering material. Standards some editors hold for inclusion of material is so high that the result is a minimalist article that whitewashes controversial aspects of PragerU by omission.

sorry if amendments to your statement aren't allowed, feel free to delete. I thought this was somewhat related, and demonstrates the fixation Hipal has on editing material related to PragerU and Dennis Prager. By my (again, not scientific) calculation Hipal has 117 edits on Dennis Prager's[38] page since 2016. These don't appear to be mere housekeeping like correcting vandalism - there's a very high number of reversals and contestation of new source material

Primefac thanks for your response. My impression from reading the Wikipedia:Third opinion page is that this option is exclusively reserved for disputes between two editors, and not wider disputes like this one. My first thought was indeed AN/ANI, but other editors involved were extremely skeptical. I received comments like this one, coming from a far more experienced editor mind you:

I suspect you don't understand what administrators are. They are not mediators nor do they have special status when it comes to determining consensus. Have you looked at WP:DR yet? --Hipal (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I discussed the option of arbitration with MasterTriangle12 - we are both concerned about what we see as partisan bias on this page, and both of us thought arbitration could be a good option.[39] As for formal RfC's, my concern is that the issues with this page are simply too extensive and the disputes about it too long-running for them to be very practical. As you can see from the talk page (including the archives), there are multiple long-running disputes about this page - I've raised four discrete issues in my arbitration request, and this is just scratching the surface. Springee, Shinealittlelight and myself did attempt to follow the dispute resolution process to reach a consensus here[40] in relation to a video made by Douglas Murray called "The Suicide of Europe". I was in practice "outvoted" by the combined weight of Springee Shinealittlelight and Hipal, who in practice seem to always band together, but I don't believe the outcome was satisfactory. As it was, criticisms of the video backed by four sources were culled to a single perfunctory sentence with just one source left in. I maintain that this cannot be explained except for partisan bias.[41] I think some kind of formal ruling on this page is long overdue, given the extensive history of disputes, reversals, claims of undue weight, partisan bias and so on in the talk page. That said, it seems absolutely justified that I should have referred this grievance to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. I mixed up the wording of "dispute resolution" and "arbitration", which I was confused by as they're very similar, and somehow treated the two as interchangable. I maintain that this dispute is quite serious and that the contributions that some editors have repeatedly made betray a partisan political bias and suppression of source material unfavorable to PragerU, which I believe I have justified in my arbitration request and in the material I have presented on the article's talk page.[42] If this dispute would be better resolved by the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard then I am happy to send it there. If I made a mistake I can assure you it was an honest one Noteduck (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as per a request by arbitration clerk Dreamy Jazz, I've drastically shortened my arbitration request Noteduck (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

a side point about my statement that MasterTriangle12 suggested trying arbitration - they did so quite informally and the responsibility for launching the arbitration request is mine alone - MasterTriangle12 just offered a suggestion, and I could have done more thorough research about alternative avenues for resolution. I intend to file a dispute resolution request for what I maintain are serious problems with the PragerU page that require outside intervention. My plan is to list myself, MasterTriangle12, Springee, Shinealittlelight and Hipal as "users involved" unless any of them object to this Noteduck (talk) 09:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

Statement by Shinealittlelight

Statement by Hipal

Statement by MasterTriangle12

This was premature, but I was not aware enough of these processes to advise on it properly, sorry to add clutter before it is due.

Statement by Robert McClenon (PragerU)

The suggestion has been made by one of the arbitrators that this dispute be taken to the dispute resolution noticeboard. I have a two-part comment.

First, I am willing to mediate the dispute at DRN. There is a content dispute. I don't know whether there is also a conduct issue, but resolving the content dispute may minimize any conduct problems. The dispute is not suitable for Third Opinion; and it is always better to try to resolve a dispute in a content forum before resorting to a conduct forum such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement. DRN tries to facilitate compromise, but often a dispute turns out to require a Request for Comments, and, if so, I will write a neutrally worded RFC.

However, second, I have a request and a plea both to this filing party and to other filing parties at DRN. Be concise. It is difficult for either a volunteer mediator or the other editors to respond to a 1300-word statement. It is almost impossible to boil down an overly long statement to a topic question that can be used as the summary of an RFC. This statement is too long. Overly long statements may make the poster feel better, but they do not help to clarify the issues. The purpose of DRN is to improve the article, not just to expound. Be concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Ongoing issues with PragerU page: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Ongoing issues with PragerU page: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/9/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

Noteduck, am I correct in that this dispute has not been subject to review at dispute resolution, third opinion, AN/ANI, or even a formal RfC on the article's talk page? Primefac (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per the response to my query and commented on by the 4 below me. Primefac (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid this isn't quite ready for this committee - the very final step in our dispute resolution processes. I'd suggest you take it to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Decline Worm^TT(talk) 12:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as premature. Katie^talk 14:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline "Needs attention" doesn't necessarily mean "needs ArbCom attention". Please try other venues. --BDD (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as a content issue and thanks to Robert McClenon for offering to mediate this. I urge you all to accept this offer by a highly experienced and respected mediator. Regards So Why 18:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Arbitration is the last resort. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline, also generally per the other comments above, and with hopes that the dispute can be resolved through easier means. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]