Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Proposed decision

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: Dreamy Jazz (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: BDD (Talk) & Primefac (Talk) & Maxim (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 12 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 7
1–2 6
3–4 5

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Preexisting disputes[edit]

2) Issues that are contentious in real life are likely to be so on Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors. Conduct that furthers a preexisting dispute on Wikipedia should receive special attention from the community, up to and including sanctions. It is perfectly possible to present a balanced, accurate, and verifiable encyclopedia article about contentious issues or preexisting disputes.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See proposed copyedit below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I've supported, but the second sentence could use copyediting. Notable real-life disputes are "imported into" Wikipedia in the sense that we write articles about them. I think what is meant is along the lines of "Wikipedia does not permit the animosity arising from disputed issues to affect the neutrality of encyclopedia articles or the standards of behavior expected from contributors." Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made this copyedit (cc BDD, Primefac). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view[edit]

3) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, with all relevant points of view represented in reasonable proportion to their importance and relevance to the subject-matter of the article. Undue weight should not be given to aspects that are peripheral to the topic. Original research and synthesized claims are prohibited. A neutral point of view requires fair representation of all significant historical interpretations. This refers to legitimate differences in interpretation of the historical record, as opposed to views considered fringe, outdated, or significantly biased or inaccurate by the substantial consensus of reliable sources.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Sourcing of articles[edit]

4) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the reliable sources or dispute resolution noticeboards should be used.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Explaining what the community as a whole does is not getting involved in content. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is a good principle to state. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I share Beeblebrox's concerns below. While the principle is not wrong per se, it is not really necessary either. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While sources are a part of this dispute, I do not think we should be weighing in on whether it was right or wrong, only if the actions taken were reasonable. But I do not feel strongly enough to oppose. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I'm a little (ok, very) wary of anything that even suggests the committee is going to start involving itself in content decisions. While this statement is not untrue and basically just reflects policy, I don't think it is necessary. I assume it was included to support the FoF on the editing restriction, but we don't actually need it to get there as what we are deciding is if the restriction is within administrative authority and discretion, which seems like it is supported by principle 10. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I feel the opposite way - the committee at times needs to look at how sources are used (or misused) rather than wholly restricting a review to civility. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How sources are used is one thing, I feel like this tiptoes up to what sources are used, that's something else. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac: Is "Content Noticeboard" a typo? KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure; funny how you can read over something a dozen times and not notice... but BDD wrote that one. Primefac (talk) 01:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think an arb in 2009 wrote it, but mea culpa! --BDD (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

5) Editors are expected to show reasonable courtesy to one another, even during contentious situations and disagreements, and not resort to personal attacks.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

National and territorial disputes[edit]

6) Several of Wikipedia's most bitter disputes have revolved around national or ethnic conflicts such as rival national claims to disputed territories or areas. Editors working on articles on these topics may frequently have strong viewpoints, often originating in their own national or other backgrounds. Such editors may be the most knowledgeable people interested in creating Wikipedia content about the area or the dispute, and are permitted and encouraged to contribute if they can do so consistent with Wikipedia's fundamental policies. However, they should bear in mind while editing that they may consciously or unconsciously be expressing their personal views rather than editing with a neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
The last few words might use clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a minor copyedit to clarify this to mean what I think it does. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personalising disputes[edit]

7) In content disputes, editors must always comment on the content and not the contributor. Personalising content disputes disrupts the consensus-building process on which Wikipedia depends.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The word "always" here may be aspirational, in that the divide between a content dispute and a conduct issue is not always 100% sharp, but the gist of the expectation is clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Wikipedia is not a battleground[edit]

8) Wikipedia is not a battleground. Consequently, it is not a venue for the furtherance of grudges and personal disputes.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Tendentious editing[edit]

9) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from editing these articles. In extreme cases, they may be banned from the site.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

General sanctions[edit]

10) Subject to community approval, general sanctions are imposed on certain contentious and strife-torn topics to create an acceptable and collaborative editing environment. Such sanctions often follow the model of discretionary sanctions as imposed by the Arbitration Committee, which allows administrators to impose a variety of reasonable measures on users or articles that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this is the first time ArbCom has weighed in on GS in its principles and I think the drafting arbs for this statement. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Conduct during arbitration cases[edit]

11) The arbitration policy states that "Editors are expected to conduct themselves with appropriate decorum during arbitration cases, and may face sanctions if they fail to do so". The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. While grievances must often be aired during such a case, it is expected that editors will do so without being unnecessarily rude or hostile, and will respond calmly to allegations against them. Accusations of misbehaviour must be backed with clear evidence or not made at all. Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by arbitrators or clerks including by warnings, blocks, or bans from further participation in the case. Behaviour during a case may be considered as part of an editor's overall conduct in the matter at hand.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 15:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. While it depends on the arbitrator, we generally allow a bit more leeway on cases, but that's not a blank check to behave contrary to basic decency and to further embitter disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with David's point that there is a range of behavior that is tolerated at ArbCom. However, that range does have limits. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim(talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per David Fuchs and Barkeep49. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SoWhy 16:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I believe especially strongly in this principle. Arbitration is already one of the most drama filled and stressful parts of Wikipedia, and I think it is more than fair to expect the best behavior during cases to make the process as smooth as possible. Furthermore, if an editor cannot behave well during an Arb case, with dozens of editors scrutinizing their every move, how could they possibly be expected to behave well elsewhere with less scrutiny? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute centers on reliable sourcing, non-neutral point of view, and battleground behavior at articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, especially at Syrian Kurdistan. The dispute has resulted in a strained editing environment featuring assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, and incivility. It is further characterized by tendentious and battleground editing, with frequent accusations towards perceived opponents of pushing points of view for or against Kurds and Kurdistan. Finally, there have been extensive disputes as to the validity of sources, although the Arbitration Committee notes that assessing the suitability of individual sources is not within its jurisdiction.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. That last sentence, I think, sums up why we do not need principle 3.1.4 above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Valereee's source restriction[edit]

2) Valereee imposed a source restriction at Syrian Kurdistan [1], which was within reasonable administrative discretion under a general sanctions authorization.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I know that this was a point of concern for parties in this case. I have some level of concern with "bespoke" DS/GS sanctions but for me a source restriction is a standard GS/DS sanction at this point and so I do not have a concern as a general point with this sanction. Nor do I think it was inappropriate given the evidence at the time of imposition. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. When reviewing admin actions, our role is to determine if the action under review was within the realm of reasonable administrative discretion, not to absolutely declare it right or wrong, and I believe in this case it was within admin discretion. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. What Beeblebrox said. Regards SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I am finding this a difficult vote. The precedent of an administrator deciding what sources may and may not be used on a controversial article, even with the backing of general sanctions or discretionary sanctions, is troublesome. Obviously sourcing a disputed statement to recent scholarship rather than to a less reliable source like a result-oriented partisan document will be preferable, but within reasonable limits, source selection is a content issue to be worked out among editors. In this case, the argument is that reasonable limits were exceeded and the situation on the page was rapidly deteriorating, warranting an admittedly extraordinary action. The restriction as imposed is a blunt instrument, and I am troubled that it now seems to be permanently enacted on that page; surely it by now should have been replaced with something more nuanced. But in this finding, we are asked to comment on the restriction as of the time it was imposed, and I can accept it as a good-faith, carefully explained action by one of the few admins monitoring a problematic article to address increasing chaos on the article. I will support the finding on that basis. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Would I have formulated the restriction as such? Probably not. Was it reasonable to attempt to prevent disruption and form consensus? Yes. We should leave our admins the discretion they need to try to fix problematic disputes. The source restriction was an inventive idea to try to solve the dispute, and entirely within what we expect of admins. As I said above, and as Beeblebrox says, we judge not whether admin action was right or wrong, but reasonable. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

GPinkerton[edit]

3) GPinkerton has a history of disruptive editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area and elsewhere. This pattern includes edit-warring (e.g. [2][3][4][5]) and personalizing disputes (e.g. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]) for which they have been warned on several occasions by multiple administrators [14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. GPinkerton has been blocked on multiple occasions [25]. The last block, of indefinite length, was later converted to a topic ban from the Middle East post-1453 AD [26]. GPinkerton has since violated the topic ban [27][28] and received multiple warnings from an uninvolved administrator [29][30].

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In reviewing the history here, I find myself in agreement with GPinkerton on several of the issues raised, and I don't necessarily agree that every single diff listed was problematic. Still, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that GPinkerton's method of responding to disputes has sometimes worsened situations rather than helped to resolve them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. A bit overkill on the diffs IMO, but I agree with the substance of it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. We all have a duty to facilitate collaboration on this project, and many diffs presented here fall short. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Thepharoah17[edit]

4) Thepharoah17 has shown a battleground mentality with respect to Kurds and Kurdistan topic area: they attempted to sidetrack concerns about their article-writing due to an unrelated bias from the other editor,[31] and claimed they have no further interest in the topic yet returned to make similar edits shortly thereafter.[32][33] Thepharoah17 has edited tendentiously in the topic area by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[34][35][36], pushing an anti-Kurd POV,[37][38][39][40] and drawing equivalencies between Kurdish groups and the Islamic State.[41]

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although I'm not sure first three diffs are needed (editors are free to change their mind about what they want to edit). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:27, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم[edit]

5) عمرو بن كلثوم has edited tendentiously in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area, by seeking to erase Kurdish names and mentions of Kurdistan,[42][43] and by pushing anti-Kurd POV.[44][45] On three occasions, twice in 2015 and once in 2020, عمرو بن كلثوم has been blocked for conduct in the topic area, which included edit-warring. [46][47][48][49]

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Supporting primarily the findings on tendentious editing and POV pushing. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I appreciate the comments regarding the blocks, and generally prefer older blocks not included - however given the recent behaviour, I believe it is reasonable to include. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I think we should not be judging based on five year old blocks. In fact, I do not think we should be judging almost anything that happened five years ago. Imagine if you were judged for something you did five years ago! You'd probably feel pretty cringey about it. Times change. People change. Except in unusual circumstances, we should keep our analysis to more recent events. But I agree that the more recent behavior is problematic. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
  • Two of the blocks mentioned here are from 2015 and then nothing until December's partial block. If the December block hadn't happened I wouldn't support including that at all. December's partial block does put this in a new light, but I still think the large gap is important context for that last sentence. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noted the timing of the blocks explicitly in the finding. @Primefac and BDD: does that change your vote? Maxim(talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness[edit]

6) Supreme Deliciousness has engaged in tendentious editing in the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area. This pattern of editing has centered on the misuse of sources [50][51][52] as part of a broader battleground-style approach to article edits [53][54] and talk page discussion [55][56][57]. Supreme Deliciousness has been blocked on two occasions for conduct in Kurds and Kurdistan topic area [58][59][60].

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I support this but I will note that the one of the blocks (the 1 hour one) is not something administrators should make a habit of doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I agree with Barkeep49 on this one: one-hour blocks almost never comply with WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise Chronicle[edit]

7) Paradise Chronicle has accused other editors of pushing extreme views without evidence.[61][62]

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

GPinkerton: decorum at arbitration case pages[edit]

8) GPinkerton's conduct during the case repeatedly fell well short of expectations. On multiple occasions, GPinkerton antagonized other parties to the case [63][64][65], and was subsequently issued warnings by arbitrators [66][67]. 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 [68][69]. 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 [70].

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The committee exists to end problems, not to just move them into project space. When a dispute gets all the way to a full case, that should be a clue to everyone involved that they need to consider their own behavior and if they are part of the problem, not just carry on the same behavior at the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Before we close this case, I want to take a moment to express my position on this kind of finding. There are two strong reasons for including findings like this one, and I believe that we should have a finding akin to this in every case where a participant repeatedly or seriously falls well short of conduct expectations.
    First, at ArbCom, just like on Wikipedia generally, our standards of conduct are important to ensure that no one is driven out of the process due to attacks from other participants. It's all the more important that editors feel free to contribute during arbitration, the dispute resolution mechanism of last resort. Therefore, including these findings and enacting remedies that consider such findings is important to discourage highly harmful misbehavior during arbitration proceedings. (After all, we specifically note during every evidence and workshop phase, Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision. If we fail to follow through, people will get the message.)
    Second, if editors can't get their act together during arbitration, when they know that they're under a great amount of scrutiny, it doesn't take much to imagine how they will be behaving after the case concludes and the scrutiny lessens. Therefore, conduct during arbitration can serve as a demonstration of a user's potential continued conduct after arbitration.
    Now, I understand that tensions at arbitration are high, and I'm prepared to take that under consideration in relatively minor cases of disruption. But civility and decorum are still important at ArbCom, and participants are expected to comply with Wikipedia policy when contributing to arbitration cases. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SoWhy 16:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is an important finding to me. We repeatedly reminded GP to behave, yet they fancied themselves above the rules. We don't have limits just as some sort of power trip, we have them so that cases are fair, and considered thoroughly and promptly. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I don't generally like "decorum at case pages" findings, though this is accurate, it will not weigh significantly in my remedy votes. The main reason I'm supporting is their reaction over the past 24 hours, filing a fresh case and ending up blocked at ANI. WormTT(talk) 09:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Standard discretionary sanctions[edit]

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think it's clear that these do not supersede or replace GS already in place that might also apply to this topic, such as Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting SoWhy's comment, would it be easier to combine the existing sanctions with these new ones? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. To NYB's point I think Kurdistan is a distinct enough issue from Syrian topics that they shouldn't really be merged. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Also to NYB's point, Syria is a separate issue from Kurdistan. Sure, they're intertwined, but the Kurdish ethnic group extends well beyond Syria, as would numerous theoretical models of a broader Kurdistan. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As a matter of personal practice, I plan to elaborate on every vote I cast to authorize discretionary sanctions. Administrators in this topic area should use discretionary sanctions to respond to developing cases of battleground editing and tendentious editing. The intentional misuse of sources in most cases should lead to the quick issuance of a warning or sanction; on a second violation, a significant sanction should be imposed. Guidance and warnings for newer editors should be useful, but if an editor isn't getting it, removal from the topic area is appropriate. On page restrictions: it's ok to use non-standard restrictions in the shortish term to manage a page facing active disruption, but consult with other admins if the restrictions last longer than a few days, and keep an eye on things to make sure that the restriction is not creating unintended consequences. When uninvolved administrators suggest modifications to user sanctions or page restrictions, please carefully consider them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Though noting I'd prefer combining the intertwined areas into one set of sanctions. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

GPinkerton banned[edit]

2) GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to clarify my position, in light of certain conversations that have occurred. In the last 48 hours I have gone from supporting this to being on the fence to potentially either abstaining or opposing, because I think that GPinkerton has the potential to be a boon to the project; there were some glimmers of hope this weekend that this case might be the impetus for them to do better. However (to paraphrase something CaptainEek said to me at one point off-wiki) just because GPinkerton means well does not mean they have done well in practice.
    I honestly believe that GP has Wikipedia's best interests in mind, but part of that involves playing nice with others. Their editing and borderline-tendentious editing today (in particular, filing a new case on the same subject instead of waiting for a reply that would indicate that would not be a good idea) combined with receiving a partial block for breaking their existing topic ban, indicate that we are not quite at that stage yet. I genuinely hope that some time away will do them well and we will be receiving an unblock request in twelve months. Primefac (talk) 02:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. On the basis that the disruption is not only contained to the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area. Additionally, while in general sub-optimal conduct at a case invariably tends to happen due to the already-high tensions that lead to the case in the first place, GPinkerton's conduct in this case was particularly poor, and puts more serious doubt on GPinkerton's ability to participate collaboratively on Wikipedia. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've given this quite a bit of thought as an ArbCom ban is a rare beast these days, and the path back to being a member of the community in good standing is a rough one, but in the end I do support a ban. I'm just not seeing a lot of learning from past mistakes here, and it doesn't seem to be limited to this one topic area. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. GP's conduct during this case has pushed me over the edge. If GP could not behave, would not behave, with the highest level of scrutiny we have on Wiki, how can we know that GP will behave when not being watched like a hawk? I understand Arb cases are difficult things, and I don't expect perfect conduct. But I expect that editors will make a good effort to play within the rules. I did not see any such effort from GP. At every turn they were trying to bend the rules, test us, or just flat out break the rules and expect to be treated differently. Combined with evidence of disruption in other areas, I'm afraid that a topic ban alone is not sufficient. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. With regret. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, I entirely endorse what Barkeep49 wrote below. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think our content in this area is better because of GP. And with-out a little bit of stubborness it wouldn't have happened (supporting evidence). I don't think they can modulate the passion which drives them to help the encyclopedia in ways that let them collaborate with others. Even in discussions with arbitrators, with this sanction on the table, they had a hard time avoiding taking swipes at us and not refighting past injustices. If they can't make it work here, I can't have faith that they can make it work elsewhere. And that's too bad, because they've done important productive work in an area of the encyclopedia that can have real life importance. I think there was a chance yesterday to have turned this around but rather than seeing if that happens, they attempted to double down and get what they could before being banned, necessitating a block. I'd have preferred this to have been a minimum appeal of 6 months (with appeals every 12 months) but I will be ready in 12 months, if they choose to appeal, to look favorably on their appeal in hopes that a break will put them in a position to resist their less productive impulses. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. A close call given that issues have arisen in more than one topic-area, but given that GPinkerton has edited in good faith and raised some admittedly legitimate concerns, I would prefer a less severe sanction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Is there evidence of disruption outside of this topic area? I think the topic ban is definitely called for given the pattern of disruption documented. The disruption during this case suggests a ban may be necessary but it also all could suggest that a topic ban would be sufficient to stop disruption. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The indef block in December is not based only on conduct in Kurds/Kurdistan topic area, and the topic ban following the unblock is Middle East post -1453. The diffs in FoF show similar conduct across multiple topic areas. Maxim(talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got a bunch of reading to do before I cast my vote (it's on the docket for tomorrow) and this is currently passing. But if this ends up not passing I think a 2-way iBAN between GP and SD will be necessary as I'm not sure their disagreement will stop outside of this area. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a good point Barkeep. I think we might as well pass an IBan anyway, in case of unblock. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton topic-banned[edit]

3) GPinkerton (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Regardless of whether Remedy 2 passes, this is an area in which GP should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. My first thought was to have the site-ban as an only choice but I agree with Primefac's reasoning here. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not decided on the site ban but this is pretty clearly justified. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Primefac's reasoning independently of #2. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. second choice Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With some reluctance, but I can see the rationale for this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Regardless of previous remedy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Even if not site banned, I think a topic ban is necessary sanction, and should be in place even if they appeal a site ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Topic ban should be in place, as well as site ban. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Needed in addition to the site ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
  • Beeblebrox, did you mean to support? (There was a missing line break in the wikitext that may've confused matters.) --BDD (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thepharoah17 topic-banned[edit]

4) Thepharoah17 (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم banned[edit]

5) عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. I don't think there is enough of a pattern of misconduct to support a banning. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The poor conduct seems confined to the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area so I don't think this measure is necessary. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FoF does not support a site ban. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. With the topic ban, this should not be necessary. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This would be overkill, but its good that the PD has some options. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I believe concerns are covered by the topic ban. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I was on the fence between opposing and abstaining, but this is closer to where I sit. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. While we used the "blocked three times" as evidence of long-term issues, the fact is that recently there has not been as much, which in my mind means this is something that a topic ban will hopefully cure. However, much like SD below we might just be kicking the can down the road for future disruption. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:

عمرو بن كلثوم topic-banned[edit]

6) عمرو بن كلثوم (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Regardless of whether Remedy 5 passes, this is an area in which AIK should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Supreme Deliciousness banned[edit]

7) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. I don't think the sum career of SC suggests a lesser remedy is the best option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FoF does not show enough misconduct to support this remedy. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The poor conduct seems confined to the Kurds and Kurdistan topic area so I don't think this measure is necessary. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Hoping, poor conduct was confined to this area as Maxim notes and thus can be handled by a topic ban instead. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A topic ban should be sufficient here as well. I hope he takes this to heart, especially given Beeblebrox's concerns below. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'm concerned that we're fundamentally hitting issues in the same area as 12/13 years ago, and seriously consider that a siteban is the correct option. However since this has already failed, I'll simply abstain. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Multiple groups of blocks over the years in the same subject area is problematic, but the large gaps between them would seem to indicate this is hopefully a cycle that will be broken by a topic ban. However, much like AIK above we might just be kicking the can down the road for future disruption. Primefac (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with the worry that we're kicking the can down the road. However, I won't stand in the way of the Committee's majority. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I always try to very carefully consider any suggestion that someone be banned by the committee, so I'm still thinking this over, but I would note that their block log indicates they have been previously subject to an arbcom sanction, specifically a one-year topic ban that was also related to race/ethnicity, and the also have had an AE enforcement block and several blocks for edit warring. Yes, much of it was some time ago, but it's also worth noting that the vast majority of Wikipedia users manage not to get blocked five or six times for a variety of issues. Whether this passes or not, I would suggest that SD seriously consider their future actions when editing in sensitive topic areas. If they are unable to leave their personal biases at the door, they should move on to other topic areas. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am leaning support here, but agree that our FoF does not show enough support. I echo Fuchs' opinion that the sum career of SD has been a negative, but think we need to provide a finding to that effect if we are to site ban. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the fence and considering support, like CaptainEek. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned[edit]

8) Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from articles related to Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Regardless of whether Remedy 7 passes, this is an area in which SD should be prohibited from editing (i.e. even if they successfully appeal their ban should it pass). Primefac (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. At a minimum. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Paradise Chronicle reminded[edit]

9) Paradise Chronicle is reminded to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

Support:
Primefac (talk) 15:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. BDD (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I just want to note that the aspersion here - tying people to ISIL - is really pernicious. This is, I think, the right remedy given the totality of evidence but I want to underscore that point. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC) Edit: Second choice to warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim(talk) 18:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to #10. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I prefer 'reminded' to 'warned' - they serve the same purpose but the former carries a less overt authoritarian tone. I think editors get the message whichever verb is used. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Equal choice with 10 (but only one should pass). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice to 10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I feel like these "reminders" are just replacing the equally toothless "admonishment" and that if we have an FoF ona specific users' misconduct, a formal warning is more appropriate, per below. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Beeblebrox, shifting to (10). Primefac (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. That this case was opened should have served as a reminder enough. I think a warning is necessary. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't know why we're choosing between "reminding" / "warning" (and indeed "admonishiment") which are all fairly synonymous to the vast majority of editors. But since we are, I would suggest the other. Perhaps simply tweaking the text next time? WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Paradise Chronicle warned[edit]

10) Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

Support:
  1. Beeblebrox's point is well taken. Reminding and warning a user over the same thing may be redundant, but I don't see them as mutually exclusive. --BDD (talk) 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the reasons I wrote in the reminded above, this does seem like the right word to describe what we're doing. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. Regards SoWhy 16:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. second choice Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal choice with 9 (but only one should pass). Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Equal choice to 9. The point to these reminded/warned language to me is simply to set up precedents for future arbitration and community discussion if a user continues being disruptive. The precise word doesn't much matter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:02, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Equal preference to 9. Maxim(talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. WormTT(talk) 09:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm adding this option as I do not believe a "reminder" is in any way a remedy to a problem. We warn people all the time for behavior that does not rise to the level of an arbcom finding so I don't see why we should be shy about doing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose this is clearer than "reminded" but I think both serve the same purpose as a log of an issue not rising to the level of needing a sanction at that time (and can be taken into account later if further issues arise). I actually prefer 'reminded' myself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.
Comments:

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Template[edit]

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

General[edit]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 06:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) by MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Preexisting disputes 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Neutral point of view 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Sourcing of articles 9 0 2 PASSING ·
5 Civility 12 0 0 PASSING ·
6 National and territorial disputes 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Personalising disputes 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 Wikipedia is not a battleground 12 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Tendentious editing 12 0 0 PASSING ·
10 General sanctions 12 0 0 PASSING ·
11 Conduct during arbitration cases 12 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed findings
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Valereee's source restriction 12 0 0 PASSING ·
3 GPinkerton 11 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Thepharoah17 12 0 0 PASSING ·
5 عمرو بن كلثوم 11 0 1 PASSING ·
6 Supreme Deliciousness 12 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Paradise Chronicle 12 0 0 PASSING ·
8 GPinkerton: decorum at arbitration case pages 11 0 1 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Standard discretionary sanctions 12 0 0 PASSING ·
2 GPinkerton banned 11 1 0 PASSING ·
3 GPinkerton topic-banned 12 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Thepharoah17 topic-banned 11 0 0 PASSING ·
5 عمرو بن كلثوم banned 0 11 1 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
6 عمرو بن كلثوم topic-banned 11 0 0 PASSING ·
7 Supreme Deliciousness banned 1 7 3 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
8 Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned 12 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Paradise Chronicle reminded 5 4 0 NOT PASSING 2 Two votes are second choice to 10. Two votes are equal choice with 10 and one of them notes that only one should pass. As 10 passes and this does not the second choice and equal choice votes do not count towards the supports, so 3 has been taken off the support count
10 Paradise Chronicle warned 12 0 0 PASSING · One vote is second choice to 9. One vote is equal choice with 10, but notes that only one should pass
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We appear to have a pretty clear decision and I see no reason to expect it to change. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As much as being on the fence is understandable, we've reached a point that everything is passing or failing. If the arbs on the fence (including myself) flipped to support, it would still currently fail. The case is ready to be closed. WormTT(talk) 09:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Maxim(talk) 13:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Given the continuing disruption, I'd rather close this sooner rather than wait another 24 hours. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BDD (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thanks to everyone for your patience and to Barkeep49 for the vote. I'm now ready to close this case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SoWhy 08:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

:# I'm here out of respect for L235 to give time to him (and/or other arbs who are still on the fence about issues) the time needed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
While there's currently a majority opposing remedy 7, several arbs (myself included) are still on the fence and I'd appreciate a day or so before closing to consider it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I missed your comment to that effect at the time. I'm certainly fine with waiting another day if that's the case. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now voted on the remedy, but I'd like to see principle 4 reworded to remove potential confusing elements (cc BDD). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
L235, I changed "content noticeboard" to "dispute resolution noticeboard". The former was deprecated in 2011. Maxim(talk) 19:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks—that's about what I would've done. --BDD (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, wouldn't another possibility be a relevant content-related noticeboard (e.g. a wikiproject page) or the relevant article talkpage? / On a separate issue, I'd welcome any thoughts on my copyedit suggestions on principle 2, though I won't hold up the closing if it's left unchanged. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the copyedit, NYB. And I would say DRN is the best alternative venue for a dispute on sourcing – the principle already assumes talkpage discussion ("If discussion there does not resolve the dispute ...") and a wikiproject page is not an approprate venue for forming consensus on a dispute. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision&oldid=1079519881"