Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Vatican Hill and Old St Peter's Basilica, Rome. Illustration from the Nuremberg Chronicle (1490). The large domed structure with windows at the left represents the Mausoleum of Honorius
The topmost column drum of the Column of Leo, (in the gardens of the Topkapi Palace, Istanbul. The Forum of Leo in Constantinople was the probably the last Roman forum of Antiquity.
The Constantinian dynasty in the reign of Constantine the Great and his sons, with the augustus crowned by the manus dei
The Triumph of Joseph in Egypt, a reminiscence of the Constantinopolitan Roman triumphs of the Macedonian dynasty
Detail of Anicia Juliana, a 6th-century member f the Valentinianic–Theodosian dynasties, from the Vienna Dioscurides, her own copy of Dioscurides's De materia medica

Bibliography[edit]

Articles I wrote ab initio:[edit]

Articles I largely or wholly wrote or rewrote:[edit]

Articles I contributed to:[edit]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your work at The Holocaust in Bulgaria (formerly Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews). Bob not snob (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
I admire your astounding resilience with which you approach criticism directed at you. You don't edit war, but expand articles significantly, and as to me really well sourced to make a point. Just brilliant. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar may be awarded to those who have prevented Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. - Daveout(talk) 20:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


December 2020[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero This is wrong on both counts! I have made thousands of constructive edits and this is simply shooting the messenger! You cannot possible have had time to look into all those diffs; so this is just reflexive. GPinkerton (talk) 15:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your third attempt to reopen your closed thread an ANI, it is fairly clear to me that you are here to right great wrongs and not build an encyclopedia. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 15:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero That's just not correct. Examination of the issue will show I am trying to preserve NPOV against intractable behavioural issues which long predate any involvement I had in the issue, with which I have no connection. I repeat that this is shooting the messenger. I have only made constructive edits to the relevant article, have made thousands of constructive edits on wholly unrelated subjects over three years, and far from RGW I am merely trying to align the article to what the academic sources say, an attempt resisted by the editors I have reported and whose behaviour administrators keep ignoring. What is NOTHERE about making an AN report? Where else would my concerns be addressed? GPinkerton (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit, Valereee is it normal policy to indefinitely block an editor for raising concerns about WP:CRUSH, and WP:TE at WP:AN? I'm very worried about this. GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector has also identified that there is a problem with the subject area; perhaps they will comment on the reaction of Guerillero to my WP:AN reports? GPinkerton (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector can you help me understand what I need to do remove this block? GPinkerton (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guerillero, I would agree with GPinkerton that they have made a lot of positive contributions to wikipedia. Take it from a guy who has been in many disputes with GPinkerton. I think an indef is too harsh.VR talk 16:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Guerillero, this is quite a weird indef. block for an editor who was had good arguments in the discussions and mostly underlined them with good sources, at least in the discussions I was involved with him. To bloc someone who argues with sources and is involved in several currently ongoing discussions for filing an ANI report straightly indef. within the personal! capacity of an admin, is not good for the democratic spirit of Wikipedia. In the same discussion there are multiple denials of a whole ethnic region cited in numerous sources, which just goes praised by the Admins with this bloc. With this block the ISIS-Assad-Erdogan POV wins over democracy.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • User:Paradise Chronicle, if you are contesting this block, attacking the blocking admin is usually not a good idea--"weird" is not a good term to use, and blaming the admin for allowing some sort of ISIS victory is definitely the wrong way to go about it. Guerillero has been an administrator for almost a decade, and they know what they are doing. That doesn't always make them right, but it certainly means that they thought carefully about the matter. Please find a more appropriate way to voice your concerns. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Drmies, I fully understand Paradise Chronicle's frustration in the way this issue has been handled over the past six months; I would never have taken the case to ANI if it had not been a serious and intractable problem that had been going five months or more already. GPinkerton (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Drmies, but admins are refusing to address this very Erdogan-Assad POV (both often called Dictators by the Academics and their racist Anti-Kurdish stance is also very well documented by the Academics) and prefer to block the ones who raise their concerns about it for "what ever". (filing an extensive and well-prepared report about this very topic!???). Some of the reported also called areas and towns which were liberated from ISIS and Jihadis (the terrorist faction in the Syrian Civil War) Kurdish occupied multiple times. You can't find a reliable source for such POV. Just check the discussions GPinkerton has brought into the ANI.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, you should make this argument somewhere else. GPinkerton (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to bring it up at the next Admin elex, there several admins can read it. Seeing you being blocked for filing an extensive and well prepared report, makes me feel that there is no remedy against ISIS-Assad and Erdogan POV in Syria Kurdistan for now. I hope your request is successful, but let's see.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found out Guerillero is a candidate for the ArbCom and I asked him for a comment about this block there. Maybe he wants to block all the ones who put up a report about an area where no admin is active? Who knows?They seem a decent candidate though, but in this block they made a mistake.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, you can try raising the issue yourself; feel free to re-use any part of any of my reports, or all of them. GPinkerton (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I know that subject area is a mess, and I have no doubt that there is a huge amount of disruption, and likely socking and meating. But it's convoluted and there are no easy answers. I do not know what happened at ANI, but I do know that if an admin says "don't do that", it's a good idea not to do that. My problem with Paradise's edits wasn't their advocacy or the place of it, but the tone and the word choice. "Admins are refusing to address..." is not something I really believe: it all depends on the forum and what the questions are. I know there's a request at ArbCom for disruption in the Horn of Africa; maybe this is another thing ArbCom should handle, though I am not convinced.

What I do know, again, is that Guerillero will not have made this call lightly. I am not familiar with what led to the block but I know you a little bit now and I'm sorry to say that I am not surprised. I do not think you are a net negative, and I think that an unblock request can be successful, but you need to drop the urgency and let go of the immediate need to get back to those articles or whatever (we're not the news anyway), and then draft a good request. As long as your desire to edit seems to be driven by the apparent need to right something that's wrong, and as long as that seems to go at the expense of normal procedures and collegial behavior, you are probably not going to be successful. Note: I am talking about appearances, and in the happy absence of much factual knowledge here. Feel free to me ping me if you think I can be of help--but please keep in mind that above all else I prefer economy; few words are best. Good luck. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, thanks for your comments and advice. The issue no-one seems interested in addressing is one related not to news but to the 1960s and before (especially the immediate aftermath of WWI) and the relationship of one to the other. This is all explained in the reports I have made (which I have a distinct feeling no-one has actually read properly) but because it isn't a well-known subject (or is being dismissed as partisan or related to the civil war) I am being unjustly accused of trying to "right great wrongs", whereas all I have done is make constructive edits and then discovered a pattern of behaviour that is, as I say, a massive problem.
More than anything I'd like someone to actually look in detail at the point I and others have been making about this problem; I think it would be discovered quite quickly there actually are easy answers in this case. I finished making the report at 15:49, 4 December 2020. Guerillero blocked me for it one minute or less afterwards. No-one can have read the report that quickly, examined the diffs, and come to a considered conclusion about the issue in that time. If no-one is going to believe that administrator oversight can fail in such a big way, then what hope is there? People seem quick to claim the "right great wrongs" line, but where is the actual evidence for that and why is no-one able to say I am actually wrong about any of this? GPinkerton (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well Drmies, I was at multiple noticeboards and all admins did were blocking or call to order for not following "rules". I can't recall an admin who came into the dispute expanding the article, providing irrefutable facts in the article or ruling for or against academic sources. They didn't even question Amr Ibn for only removing academic sources=evidence for the existence of Syrian Kurdistan. A non-googlebale PhD source made its way against many (more than 10, WP:Overkill) academic googleable sources through a large part of the discussion. The PhD book review calling Western Kurdistan an "invention" was used in the lead for quite some time. We have here an issue between academic sources or WP:OR and POV. This doesn't require much admin action. Just rule academic or not academic.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

I have been blocked for raising a report about problematic editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Intractable_problem_still_unaddressed_and_unabated;_administrator_action_deficient. I cannot be right that a serious problem be dealt with by indefinitely blocking the user that reported it and who has not been involved in it at all. Indeed, the blocking administrator cannot possibly have had time to read my report before deciding (quite against the ample evidence presented to the contrary) that I was the one not contributing constructively, and so this was clearly done reflexively, without judging the merits of the case and basically on prejudice. This has been a recurring theme in the mishandling of this entire issue. Below is the report:

I believe a very serious case of WP:CRUSH, WP:SEALION, and WP:TENDENTIOUS is afoot, and has been in progress for some time concerning Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). It has been claimed that the bad temper of the content dispute has made it impossible to determine that this is happening. I do not agree that this is the case. Briefly, the issue concerns a propaganda line, dreamt up in the 1960s by the national socialist Ba'ath Party rulers of the Second Syrian Republic, which stated that the Kurdish-majority and oil-rich provinces in the extreme north were not historically Kurdish and that the Kurdish inhabitants were without exception illegal immigrants from Turkish Kurdistan. Though many were refugees or their descendants from the wars of the end of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab nationalist Ba'athists decided to ignore longstanding Kurdish settlement in Syria and what is now al-Hasakah Governorate, which were Kurdish majority at the beginning of the French Mandate of Syria and Lebanon. This unequivocal fact is stated numerous times by all reliable sources.

Furthermore, it is directly reported by unimpeachable sources that this xenophobic and racist propaganda was purpose-built and deployed specifically for the purpose of the Ba'athist ethnic cleansing campaign in Syrian Kurdistan known as the Arab Belt. This too is well-evidenced by top-tier academic sources. However, a significant coterie of editors, whose members have been previously heavily active in Syrian civil war articles and repeatedly blocked for ethno-nationalistic edit warring in middle east topics generally, has emerged on the talk page of that article who repeat this nonsense as fact and are tenaciously distorting primary sources to (not-really-)agree with this nationalist claim. Evidence for all of this is abundant, yet no serious action has been taken, and the problem remains unacknowledged and unmitigated. The narrative continues to be presented as fact using wilfully misinterpreted primary sources and argumentum ex silentio in secondary sources while ignoring or dismissing as kurdish pov every and all reliable source. This has now been going on for many weeks and urgent action is desperately needed, just as it was when this issue first came to ANI more a month ago! So far little more than washing of hands and complaints about incivility have ensued; it is obvious actual steps need to be taken in a clear direction: away from the nationalist POV-pushing, which needs to be put permanently to an end. GPinkerton (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irrefutable evidence the narrative pushed on the talk page, of Kurds as foreigners in Syrian territory, is nothing but Arab Nationalist racism

and

  • Under the French mandate after World War I, Syria became an important center for Kurdish political and cultural activism until its independence in 1946. In addition to the Kurds in major urban centers and Kurdish enclaves in northern Syria, Kurdish refugees also arrived from Turkey. A Kurdish nationalist organization, Khoybun, operated in Syria and Lebanon and spearheaded the Ararat Re-bellion (1928-31) against Turkey. Exiled Kurdish nationalists from Turkey played a major role in Syria and Lebanon. The Jaladet, Sureya and Kamuran brothers from the princely Bedirkhan family, for example, led a Kurdish cultural movement. The end of the French mandate and the eventual rise of the Baath regime in Syria created a serious backlash for the Kurds. Gunter indicates that the Baath regime came to view Kurds as a foreign threat to the Arab nation, and it repressed them after the early 1960s. Kurds in Syria, as a result, came to be less known in the West, as compared to their compatriots in Iraq, Turkey and Iran. Some Kurds were stripped of their citizenship in 1962 on the grounds that they supposedly all came from Turkey. Moreover, the state tried to Arabize the Kurdish territories in northern Syria. Gunter adds that the fractured Kurdish political-party system is another reason for the invisibility of the Syrian Kurds until the early 2000s.
    — Akturk, Ahmet Serdar (assistant professor of history, Georgia Southern University) (2016). "Review: The Kurds: A Modern History, by Michael M. Gunter. Markus Wiener Publishers, 2015. 256 pages. $26.95, paperback". Middle East Policy. 23 (3): 152–156. doi:10.1111/mepo.12225. ISSN 1475-4967.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Evidence

Besides Syrian Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Arab Belt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), there may be large numbers of article where this POV push is going on, in Syrian Civil War- and Kurdistan-related issues, including over place names in disputed territories in Syria and other parts of the Middle East (Golan Heights, Jerusalem, etc. See contributions and block logs of involved users, including on Wikimedia Commons). See more discussions and diffs at:

I hope this is enough for someone to take this entrenched problem seriously. I can produce incontrovertible evidence that all of these claims these editors have been arguing are false, and I believe I have done so in the section above; further details are available on request. GPinkerton (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GPinkerton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

(see above)

Decline reason:

Declined per WP:NOTTHEM, WP:STICK, WP:IDNHT. I have moved the above overlong unblock request out of the unblock template because it nearly broke the template. Sandstein 20:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Sandstein Is it proper for you to respond to this request, since you are already part of the dispute? I have a feeling this should be examined by an WP:UNINVOLVED administrator, rather than one who has already made their position on whether I should bother reporting abuse plain. GPinkerton (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • (ec oooooh, too late) I'm afraid the community is feeling a bit exhausted by you. The admin actually did you a favor by unilaterally blocking you; if the block comes from the community -- which it still could -- you couldn't be unblocked without another community discussion. Guerillero's block can be addressed by an individual admin.
What you might try is opening an unblock request with a reason of, "I can see my editing is considered disruptive. I would like to take a step back from editing in contentious areas, so I'd like to request being able to resume editing under a tban from articles under discretionary sanctions."
I believe you're editing in good faith, but you just seem to be unable to hear what everyone is telling you about Syrian Kurdistan, and a look at your user talk shows multiple other warnings, long discussions in which other editors try to give advice, but you seem to continue to get in trouble when editing in contentious areas. I see you have an interest in church architecture. That might be a good place to focus. —valereee (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can tell you that no admin is going to unblock you with that as an unblock reason, and the longer you draw this out, the more likely it is someone's going to close the ANI with a community consensus block. —valereee (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I have only made constructive edits to that page. No-one has suggested otherwise. No-one has said I am editing disruptively, only that my talk page comments have been uncivil, which I have repeatedly accepted. Repeating this has obscured the real issue. I don't accept that there is any need for me to be topic-banned; quite the opposite. That should be the minimum sanction on the editors I have repeatedly reported and which administrators have repeatedly refused to acknowledge or deal with. This is purely shooting the messenger; it is apparently easier to block me that actually to look at the issue in which I am very clearly in the right and in which numerous behavioural issues have been identified which extend far beyond any page I have ever edited and has gone on for years before I ever edited Wikipedia. I have heard what others have told me, but none of that contradicts the facts here, and numerous uninvolved editors and admins have concurred with me that a mass-POV push is underway and needs to be dealt with, but no action has been taken and attempts I have made to secure this outcome ahs resulted in my being blocked without even reading the report I made. This simply isn't right. GPinkerton (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I REALLY suggest you read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks - especially the sections WP:GAB#Stick to the point and WP:GAB#Talk about yourself, not others. And you might reread the various warnings you were given earlier on this page - you're not listening to the very well meant advice, and at this point, you're unlikely to last long unless you start listening to the advice. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth Thanks for your comments, and I have listened to the advice. As far as I can see, none of it advises acceptance of mass POV pushing that I have nothing to do with and cessation of reports of such behaviour, and I have never been advised that making WP:AN reports would result in my being blocked! I cannot believe it is wrong for me to make WP:AN reports about breaches of policy, which is the states reason for this. What can I talk about that I have done wrong in this case? GPinkerton (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This may help. Wikipedia:Unblock perspectives. At this point, whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. Brutal perhaps, but that seems to be the case with WP. It is not what you are saying, it is how you are saying it. Please read Unblock perspectives. Read it a couple of times, and don't immediately comment. It may seem like a cynical piece, but it is the reality of how WP works. And what is going through the Admin's minds? Read Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. That will tell you. I am giving you this in total good faith, because technically you could be an excellent editor. Please just read the stuff and try to internalise it. Regards Simon Adler (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Simon Adler, sadly, it seems to me it is neither what I am saying nor how I am saying it, but that I am saying anything at all. I complain about administrator inaction; I am blocked by an administrator for doing so. I have asked for further explanation. I am wrong to think my complaint has merit? I would really rather the issue be dealt with and NPOV restored in the affected pages, which may run into the hundreds and certainly number in the dozens; unblocking is not my primary objective at the moment. GPinkerton (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton I have struck my above comments purely because I believe your points have validity, especially in the Syrian-Kurdistan articles. I would ask you again however to take seriously the points that essays on how to frame an acceptable appeal make. Please frame your appeals purely on the points those essays recommend. Realistically, it may well be that you will have to accept a topic ban on those areas for at least a year. Acceptance will allow you to continue to edit. You may have to modify your tone generally and be more measured in your edit summaries and language, whatever field you edit in. However, many new eyes have been drawn to the (I believe concerning) points you have made. Other, uninvolved editors may now cast a fresh eye on these articles. It should be encouraging to you that Drmies chose a colleagual tone in his last message. Please do not blame admins, for they are expected to be instant experts on a myriad of complex topics. Let the ordinary editing community take a look. These things can take time but if a consensus develops that your arguments have validity, then all readjusts itself. There is WP Karma. Goodnight, or rather Goodmorning. Simon Adler (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I am not involved because in closing your WP:AN request I have interacted with you in an administrative capacity only. Feel free, though, to make another unblock request, which will be reviewed by another admin. Sandstein 20:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, can you clarify whether you closed it because you believe the report has no merit or for some other reason? GPinkerton (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, it is your unblock request that had no merit. You must address your own conduct, not that of others. Sandstein 21:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, my unblock request came after I was blocked; you closed the AN thread before that; why? GPinkerton (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GPinkerton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Having been blocked for making a report to WP:AN about inadequate administrator action in regard to users' behaviour on Syrian Kurdistan and numerous related articles, (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Intractable_problem_still_unaddressed_and_unabated;_administrator_action_deficient), I propose that I be unblocked on condition that I do not make any further such reports. GPinkerton (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're still talking about others' actions as much as yourself, and still pulling in the issues that led to the block - the mass walls of text above and the multiple, over and over, noticeboard ranting are symptoms, not the disease. You have very clearly established that you are here to right great wrongs and not to collaboratly build an encyclopedia. You should have dropped the stick some time ago - if you believe there's a massive problem, but nobody else acts on it when you repeatedly bring it up, the answer is to accept that consensus is against you, not to continually rant about it and make demands - which you still are here since your block. My advice is that you take a deep breath, take a wikibreak for a week or so, and then come back with a clear head, assess your behavior and how that resulted in your being blocked, and then calmly explain how those reflections will allow you to avoid a repeat performance. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

GPinkerton (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I am ready to return to editing. I recognize that I have handled disputes poorly and I will endeavour to avoid conflict like that in future. I am willing to undertake to follow whatever restrictions or recommendations are proposed. I have always been here to build the encyclopaedia and I see that my actions recently have obscured that and got in the community's way. GPinkerton (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The blocking admin has proposed a topic ban, which GPinkerton promised to adhere to. Took a while, but glad we got this sorted. El_C 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss this unblock request. In it, you wrote "There is no risk of further disruption on my part" and " I'm ready to begin editing anew." and yet here we are. Given your previous promise, why should a reviewing administrator believe you this time? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the thousands of helpful edits I've made since and all the productive discussions I've been part of in between, and because I have always been editing in good faith. I got caught up in things and got carried away but I've never been hostile to the project's aims. You have expressed a desire not to be pinged so I haven't and because you have said you didn't want to interact I'm hesitant to respond at all. GPinkerton (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for forgetting that I previously expressed a desire not to interact with you. I have stricken my question and am unwatching this page.
Not that I want to get involved but about that last point: this is sending mixed signals: 1 2 3. Levivich harass/hound 02:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I was getting a lot of pings, and when I participate in a discussion I watchlist that discussion, so there is no need to constantly ping me. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rope extended[edit]

You know what? This (latest) unblock request actually makes sense to me. It's brief but it's good. Myself, I've only a passing familiarity with GPinkerton (in so far as me noticing active editors on my ~100,000 page watchlist), but my impression of him is of a content editor of the first order. I have never gotten a sense that he was on the project to right great wrongs, certainly not to the point of being NOTHERE. So, I'm willing to accept that the disruption and bludgeoning that led him to be sanctioned were episodic rather than systemic in nature. It may well be true that the problems GPinkerton claims to have identified in the topic area are real and acute, but that for whatever reason (say, shortage of volunteer hours), review mechanisms have failed him. And so, frustration set in, leading to the misconduct which brought on the block/s. Anyway, if GPinkerton's representation of the issues facing the topic area are accurate, eventually, someone else ie likely to bring em up. But, hey, it may take years to sort out, if at all. I know, lot of hypotheticals — sorry for digressing. My proposal: I am willing to lift the block, so long as the blocking admin is amenable (ping: Guerillero), with a topic ban from the topic area being imposed for a minimum of one year. That said, I would be remiss in neglecting to mention that a couple of matters give me pause. First, one problem with this (3rd) unblock request is that it was submitted a mere 2 days after the last one, which feels a bit rushed — 2 weeks would have been better. But, meh enough. What is more concerning is the block log, which is entirely filled with a recent succession of blocks and unblocks. I mean, this is as last chance saloon as it gets. But what can I say? I'm a hopeless optimist. El_C 23:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El C, FWIW, the blocks from me should be counted as halved from 4 to 2. It was half my rethinkings. —valereee (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Val. Yes, I did notice that you sitewide blocked then unblocked, the first time. And that you sitewide blocked, again, but then converted to a partial block, the second time (i.e. 4 entries in the log amounting to 2 distinct sets of actions). El_C 00:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, first of all thank you for your confidence and the good words, and I think your summation of the events is exactly right and all the blocks were for talk-page issues. Secondly, and having said I would accept whatever restriction, a year's topic ban seems a harsh measure from my perspective, since I did not make any disruptive edits to any article-page and, as you say, I'm not one to make tendentious edits. Also, how would a topic ban be defined; which exactly is the topic area? GPinkerton (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: I would be okay with a topic ban from Islam and post-632 CE middle east. That should allow GPinkerton to continue to work on archaeology articles away from the area of contention. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also be amendable to moving the topic ban to post-1453 CE --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero I don't understand? The disruption was occasioned only by Syrian Kurdistan, an article I expanded significantly and a subject has to do with post-WWI geopolitics (French Mandate of Syria 1919), not Islam. In addition, one of my main editing interests is the East Roman empire, so post-632 CE middle east would block me from an entire area which badly needs expansion. GPinkerton (talk) 01:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, you're welcome. Actually, I don't think one year is too harsh — intuitively, it feels just right. As for how the topic ban is to be defined in terms of scope, I'm not really sure. Initially, I thought it would be limited to anything to do with the Kurds (especially historical demography), but whatever you and Guerillero feel is best works for me. I confess to not being that familiar with the nature of your recent dispute/s, so I am happy to go with the flow on that front. El_C 01:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@El C and GPinkerton: My follow up was 1453, which would give you access to the whole Byzantine Empire --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero,El C, as I say, it's only Syrian Kurdistan that has been at issue. Originally I was blocked from that page for a week before it was upgraded to total and indefinite. Post-1919 would make more sense. GPinkerton (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your first block was for edit-warring on Vashti - so it's not just Syrian Kurdistan that makes you jump to edit warring. While you haven't had issues since then with that article ... neither have you edited it since you were unblocked, so it's not clear if the issues were resolved and you learned a lesson or if you just dropped the article completely. (And please don't ping me - I'm watching the page). -- Ealdgyth (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Debresser and me were blocked. I have not since removed his text, though I still think "unlikely" misrepresents the "could not" of the source. That was a long time ago, and I had not done much editing before that. (Although my account is older, I have had more time to contribute since this spring ...) GPinkerton (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 agrees on post-1453 middle east, FWIW. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That assessment appears to be based on my editing of Hagia Sophia being "highly problematic", which I don't think is at all justified. I have written nearly 50% of that article, replacing some very dubious material and incompetent bungling from year ago, and writing from scratch most of the recent politics sections, involving middle eastern geopolitics, and the only objections have been to particular 15th-century legends (and not others). GPinkerton (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I think that's a good topic ban limitation - keep it in the Middle East countries though - Hellespont and east of that. I'd lean post-1453, but post-632 would also work. Or just a ban from anything broadly related to Kurds would also work. GP needs to start listening to other folks when they give him advice - being right in a content discussion isn't everything on Wikipedia - collaborative editing IS, however. They did get drawn into a buzzsaw, but if they want to be effective, they need to edit in areas that are not as emotionally charged for them so they can learn the ropes of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talk • contribs)

Here is my offer. El C might offer you a better one, but this is mine. A 1 year topic ban from post-1453 middle east. After 6 months of issue free editing under the topic ban, approach me with a single article that you would like to improve (that is reasonable) and a plan to improve it and I will give you a carve out for that article. If you can show that you can edit without problems for six months and a carve out, I would be happy to lift the topic ban early. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guerillero, what you propose (and it seems to have support from others) seems fair to me. But there is one thing: having article improvement as a test isn't the best way to measure progress here. As others have noted, and GPinkerton agrees I think, it's not so much the article work, it's the stuff on talk pages, to put it crudely. That stuff is related to article edits (and warring), of course, but for me the question is whether GPinkerton can treat other editors on talk pages in collegial ways, without flooding them with text etc. I know this is not an easy thing to assess metrically or otherwise. El C, I do not know right now (plus it's really cold here and I need more coffee) how to formulate my thoughts any clearer, sorry. I do not oppose GPinkerton's return, and I hope I made that clear, but I also don't want to whisk away the frustration noted by other editors. Drmies (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't oppose GP's return, either, and I agree that from what I've seen, the problem isn't bad editing on articles. The problem is talk page behavior and GP's tendency to go directly to "but that's not the biggest problem here, why are admins ignoring the content problems I keep explaining at length and which are the fault of other editors' intentional misrepresentation of sources" whenever talk page behavior is brought up. Multiple people have tried to explain that admins are trying to solve the behavior issues so that other editors will maybe be willing to come in and help with the content disputes, but we can't seem to get through on that. That said, GP is correct that they weren't the only editor at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan ABFing and putting up walls of text. —valereee (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry to interject, but I think GPinkerton's bolded comment below is a pretty good crystal ball into what we're all going to be busy with for the days following any unblock until one or both of the users end up blocked again. Debresser's obvious vendetta is getting tiring, but GPinkerton just can't seem to do anything without finding fault, and seems entirely incapable of dropping any dispute, even while blocked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The bolded seems perfectly reasonable. The follow-up below it doesn't help, and GP would be wise to not say too much right now. But I'm sure it's frustrating for GP to see several admins expressing concerns about Debresser's vendetta without any of them actually doing anything about it. If an indef block of GP isn't enough to stop the spat between these two users, it would seem that fault lies on more than one side. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's really hard to drop a stick when every day different people keep showing up to fight. I'd be holding on to that stick pretty tightly, too. When is the last calendar day on which GP did not have to defend against new accusations posted by someone, somewhere on this website? Weeks? Over a month? We will not get anything from GP other than siege mentality until the siege ends, which should have been when GP was indefinitely blocked, because that is when any and all GP-caused disruption ended. I'm not commenting on the block, or on unblock conditions, but I am saying: let's give an editor some breathing room. Levivich harass/hound 20:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. GP understandably probably does feel under siege. GP, all are not against you, and if in the immediate future you behave as if they are, the outcome is likely to be unhappy. I don't want to see that happen. When this ends, put it behind you. Let the feeling dissipate. Do you think you can do that? —valereee (talk) 21:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valereee, I can. GPinkerton (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I proposed an interaction ban specifically to prevent attacks like Debresser's most recent, and none of you supported it (excepting GPinkerton of course). Levivich explicitly opposed it, and also made a specific proposal to do nothing. It's fine to keep saying "something needs to be done" but whenever someone with the authority to do something suggests an action, you say no. The only proposal in that clusterfuck of a discussion that got any kind of broad support (but hardly consensus) was the one that was titled "Permanent block", and look where we are; now you're saying no to that too. What do you expect admins to do here? Just unblocking GPinkerton with no further restrictions and doing nothing to address the ongoing toxic environment in the affected articles is just going to land us right back here in probably less than a week, and no I don't think that's entirely GPinkerton's doing.
    GPinkerton, ignoring everything else that's been written here, I will unblock you today on the sole condition that you will prepare an Arbcom case request regarding the behaviour of editors (not the content) involved in the Syrian Kurdistan talk page, or any broader scope you think is appropriate. I'm sure you are well aware that your own behaviour will also be scrutinized if the arbitration committee accepts your request. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, firstly, on a technical note, it's not very clear who is being addressed in your first paragraph, you may want to clarify.
    On the second point, I am certainly amenable to the idea of arbitration, but I don't know anything about Arbcom and will need a lot of guidance. Indeed, I'm not sure I'm really best placed to file the request at all, given all that's happened so far, but it would certainly need to treat of the same issues cropping up at, say, Al-Jazira Province (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (note recent history), Al-Hasakah Governorate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (note recent changes to "Demographics" section), Al-Malikiyah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (note move wars over Arabic vs Kurdish name), and Afrin District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (note recent changes). GPinkerton (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, I'd like you to keep this in mind, but Guerillero has inadvertently reminded me that I really don't have the capacity to support you in compiling evidence and filing a request right now, probably not before the new year and even then it's iffy. I do think that the broader dispute is going to end up at Arbcom eventually, but maybe someone else following this discussion can help you with preparing for that. My apologies, I'm going to have to bow out. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, OK thanks for your advice. GPinkerton (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @GPinkerton: I would take this on if I wasn't waiting on arbcom election results. If you are interested in filing a case request, I will convert your site block into a block from the article space, talk space, WP:ANI and WP:AN so you can work on the request. You seem to be uninterested in my offer, above, so I will let you work it out with El C for your reentry into the wider community --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 16:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero, thanks, I do understand your position in that regard. I don't mean to appear uninterested; I'm just confused as to what course I should take at this point. I'm getting conflicting advice and there seems doubt about what action should be taken, or when that action should be, or who should take it. On one hand a ban on my discussing the whole topic is proposed; on the other the proposal is for me to begin a new discussion on the matter. GPinkerton (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Guerillero, GPinkerton, I'm still ready to lift the block with immediate effect once both of you sign on to the scope, length and overall nature of the restriction. Guerillero's detailed proposal above (with its six-month followup and so on) works for me — so GPinkerton, all you have to say is I'm good with that, and as far as I'm concerned, you're good to go. As for Ivanvector's proposal about filing an arbitration case, I do generally like the idea of launching an arbitration case which covers the Kurdish topic area overall (I'll explain why in a sec), but I also think that such a step ought to be strictly voluntary. Which is to say: what I don't like about that proposal is Guerillero's notion of partially blocking GPinkerton from the entire article and article talk namespace (beyond the affected topic area) that are to be conditionally attached in the interim. I just don't see the utility in doing that (it feels like a bit of an overreach). In any case, once unblocked, GPinkerton would be free to file an arbitration case at any time while still being subject everywhere else to a restriction from the topic area. In fact, in my view, this (RfAR) ought to be the only place where he'd be allowed to discuss the dispute. Naturally, the Committee has the authority to modify any existing restrictions (including lifting them outright) as they see fit. But pursuing this should be totally up to him. I'll end this comment by telling everyone why the idea of an arbitration case involving the topic area appeals to me. It appeals to me because I strongly believe that the topic area would greatly benefit in being placed under the Committee's Discretionary Sanctions regime (probably more so than the recent Horn of Africa topic area, for example). In fact, earlier in the year (or later last year, I forget which), I myself had proposed General Sanctions which were to cover the topic area of the Kurds and Kurdistan. But while my proposal did enjoy support (and to the best of my recollection, no opposition) from several editors and admins familiar with the topic area, it still never quite got off the ground. So, having someone else give it a go — well, I'm all for that. But, again, if GPinkerton decides this isn't something he, himself, wishes to take on at this time (or at any point in the future), I just don't think that is something he should be faulted for in any way whatsoever. El_C 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, the Syrian part of Kurdistan is already under Discretionary Sanctions (relating to the Civil War and ISIS), but that does not seem to fix the issue.
    I said before I'm willing to undertake to follow whatever restrictions or recommendations are proposed, but I'd like to clarify some questions: would the topic ban prevent me from returning to editing the Murder of Samuel Paty? It's not the Middle East but various Middle Eastern countries (especially Turkey) involved themselves as the article was being written. Again, would it prevent me from making such edits as I recently made to the lead of Diyarbakır? It's a present-day city in Turkey but my expansions were all about Roman-era Amida in Mesopotamia. I was planning to make similar improvements at Dara (Mesopotamia) (ruined ancient city in Turkey, immediately north of the Syrian border) and Nusaybin (ancient Nisibis, present-day city literally on the border and contiguous with Qamishli, de facto capital of Syrian Kurdistan); would that be acceptable? All these places were vitally important Roman cities in Late Antiquity and strategically essential then as now. Would anything stop me editing Hagia Sophia? (I'm only about midway through rewriting all of it with proper sources ...) GPinkerton (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another test case would be Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_321#RfC:_Daily_Sabah; would I be barred from contributing to discussions like that? GPinkerton (talk) 14:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, as far as the scope of the ban goes, as drafted by Guerillero, it is: Islam and post-1453 CE middle east. Do I have an answer to your questions about this or that article? No, not immediately, sorry. It's probably better to ask Guerillero or Valereee about these, in any case, as they both are far more familiar with the nature of your dispute/s in so far as applying common sense to the terms of the ban as stated above. My role here was more narrowly to have unlocked the door by placing your unblock request on hold, and now I am standing ready to open said door once you give me the go ahead. Anyway, generally, I would advise you to err on the side of caution. Mind you, as far as borderline pages go, if you make uncontentious changes, it's likely that no one would end up caring. Still, I hope you are able to beware and be aware of the danger signs (whichever these are) of faltering in that. Finally, the reason I am advocating for a Kurdish (overall) DS, which I argue would serve editors better than the current coverage provided by the GS, is the following: first, the GS in this case is limited — for example, obviously, the pre-civil war relationship between the Ba'athist state and the Kurds precedes and falls outside the scope of WP:GS/SCW (granted, for articles other than Syrian Kurdistan, where the GS is already in effect). And second and equally important, AE, the reporting mechanism provided for DS violations, is a superior platform to AN and ANI, the reporting mechanisms provided for GS violations. El_C 04:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    El C, thanks for explaining all that, and I do agree the subject area is worthy of top-level sanctions. There are so many geopolitical grievances emballed in the Kurdish question that it's definitely worth pursuing. If you and Guerillero can spare your advice on how to go about all this I'd much appreciate it. GPinkerton (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder whether Girth Summit would comment on the idea of arbitration? I notice a new Kurdistan-related issue has arisen at ANI, encompassing Diyarbekir and Kirkuk. GPinkerton (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, I can't work out the indenting here, and I haven't been following this discussion (I've had a lot going on in real life in the last couple of weeks, haven't been doing much on wiki) - what idea of arbitration are you asking me to comment on? GirthSummit (blether) 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, sorry I'm not used to the way reply link magically decides where comments should go. In the comments a few above, Ivanvector and El C have suggested an arbitration request should be filed dealing with either the editors on the Syrian Kurdistan page or even with the whole Kurdish Question on Wikipedia, extending beyond the Syrian Civil War/ISIS sanctions that currently cover the Syrian angle of the long-running geopolitical issue(s). (I've noticed you've been away, hope everything's OK.) I just ask because you were involved in earlier discussions and the first block I was given in the matter, and I saw your name appear on the new ANI thread, which deals with the general topic. GPinkerton (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    GPinkerton, arbitration isn't an area I'm deeply familiar with. In general terms, if either Ivanvector or El C said something was worth trying, I would be surprised if it wasn't a good idea. If they both say it's worth trying...
    Everything is well with me, but my school is experiencing some COVID-themed staff absences, so I'm covering lessons in what would otherwise have been my non-contact time, which has the knock-on effect of pushing marking and prep work into the evenings. Oh, and we got a new puppy So yeah, free time is lacking at the moment - roll on the Christmas hols. GirthSummit (blether) 16:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Girth Summit, part of the difficulty is that a range of options for framing the request are presented and I know even less about arbitration. I guess it was also a question of whether you thought discretionary sanctions would help in any of the Kurdistan-related pages that have come to ANI recently, including the one you recently commented on.
    You do sound busy, so no urgent need for your help! GPinkerton (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also like to ask for Levivich's opinion on possible arbitration on the Kurdish question, now that the continuing discussion has turned another circle and all the arguments have been reiterated another time without progress. GPinkerton (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That really depends on the election results, doesn't it? :-) Arbcom is like democracy: the worst possible system, except for all the others. This is a multi-editor, multi-article content-turned-conduct dispute that has been raging for months with maybe a dozen noticeboard threads and like half a dozen admin issuing blocks of multiple users, concerning our coverage of entho-religious civil wars occurring simultaneously in multiple states in the Middle East, involving Putin, Trump, and ISIS. So arbcom will probably decline. :-P Broadening DS and GS (and then also actually using those powers by imposing sanctions as needed) is probably inevitable and may be a good idea, and it's also probably inevitable that this will reach some arbcom at some point, and someone has to file the case request, so I can see the argument for why not you and why not now. But I think it's very likely your conduct will be examined and the arbs (any arbs) are likely to agree with admins, who all seem to agree with sanctions, and so I think an arbcom case will likely end with you being sanctioned (possibly also others, and possibly others worse than you). That may happen either way and you may think it's worth it anyway, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Levivich harass/hound 22:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, I think that without an ex machina intervention the story is just going to go on repeating. Some participants are (or have been) already under arbitration sanctions on similar themes; POV-pushing has been noted already. The whole subject is an Important Issue and should be treated as such here, and this has gone on for so long that my part in the dispute is likely to be considered a minor one in any case. GPinkerton (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GP, from a very brief glance at that RfC, this part of your comment: for just about anything touching Turkey's politics, its foreign relations, its wars, and its president would definitely be over the line. IMO simply participating in that discussion wouldn't; a Turkish news source arguably is not inherently part of the middle east. I'm sure you could find a way to comment without mentioning Turkey. But it might be seen at minimum as gaming the system. And the closer the source gets to the topic, the more likely simply participating would violate the tban. Obviously you shouldn't participate in discussion of the reliability of a book about Turkey. I'm not going to be hopping along behind you watching for you to put a foot over the line, but I'm guessing someone out there will. If they reported it to me, I'd likely give you a warning as long as I thought the violation was unintentional or you'd already reverted yourself. But not everyone gives warnings when they feel the person has already been adequately warned, including via discussions like this one. So, yes, topic bans stink. —valereee (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, could I push you to comment on the other examples please? I want to be sure what is included. GPinkerton (talk) 15:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GP, again this is a very brief glance. Paty was killed by an Islamist terrorist; my feeling is Islamist terrorists are part of Islam, but of course most Muslims don't claim them, so I guess it's possible others would argue it isn't. Diyarbarkir and other existing cities. Hm. I think as long as you stayed away from anything post 1453, you'd be okay there, but again others might interpret it differently. Any city that is in ruins IMO you're fine on, although of course if there's anything about Islam or post-1453, I'd stay away from the section. Hagia Sophia I'd say possibly, as long as you focussed solely on the architecture, pre-1453 history, etc., but again other people might disagree. The problem with tbans is that when you construe them broadly, which is typical, anything that comes anywhere near them can be argued to be covered, and any of these are close enough. Somebody who wants to cause you trouble could try to ding you for any article that even mentions Islam or the middle east. As EI_C points out, if you don't edit/discuss contentiously at those pages, most well-intentioned editors will welcome your help. If your appearance coincides with discussions there suddenly becoming contentious, it is very likely other editors will see you as the source of the contentiousness.
Maybe you could suggest that for articles that are anywhere close to the topic like these examples are, you can at least safely ask on your own talk for guidance about editing specific sections of specific articles, on a case-by-case basis, as long as if the answer is no you don't then try to argue the point? :D If you can show that you tried upfront to clarify with an admin, it'll go a long way to proving there was no ill-intent. —valereee (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, thanks very much for your advice! I'm especially interested in editing the Samuel Paty and Hagia Sophia articles; the authorship of both is pages is substantially mine and I have much more to do on both pages. GPinkerton (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, Levivich There's something very familiar about Talk:Rojava_conflict#Requested_move_10_December_2020 and this edit ... GPinkerton (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think El C was right about arbcom. Levivich harass/hound 20:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, and Ivanvector. Do you know your way around there? Because I don't. I can offer time, though. —valereee (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, GP, I think this probably violates could be interpreted as violating your tban...why don't you strike your post, and Levivich and I will discuss somewhere else, where you're welcome to read but probably shouldn't comment, at least until you ask probably either Guerillero or EI C for advice. And shit...does this make me involved at SK? Well, if it does, probably worth it now that CEek is willing to help out. —valereee (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, surely continuing a discussion about the subject of arbitration can't be a violation? GPinkerton (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, the problem is I just don't know how others will interpret it. FTR, IMO this is a good-faith request for advice, especially since it's on your own talk. But I would recommend you ask someone else also. —valereee (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

14 December[edit]

  • Guerillero, Valereee, El C, Ivanvector, originally I was partially blocked from Talk:Syrian Kurdistan for seven days on 2nd December by Valereee. Guerillero changed this to indefinite on 4th December. I think it's been established I am here to build the encyclopaedia and not to right great wrongs, the rationale for that decision. The original partial block would have ended on the 9th December. Can I be unblocked now? GPinkerton (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I'd like you to answer the following question directly and unambiguously first: are you good with Guerillero's (minimum 6-month) topic ban as pertaining to Islam and post-1453 CE middle east? El_C 18:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, yes. I think it's unnecessary, but yes, I am willing to abide by it. GPinkerton (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, you are good to go. Best of luck and happy editing! El_C 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, many thanks! I'd still like your advice on how else to proceed, but that need not be now. Thanks for all your time so far! GPinkerton (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, you are most welcome. Absolutely, we'll talk soon. Best wishes, El_C 02:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El C, can you please comment on this edit and whether refactoring another's comments on the false pretence that a topic ban had been violated is acceptable behaviour? Supreme Deliciousness is POV-pushing by editing my comments and falsely claiming they violated the topic ban in this section. Would you explain that Europe in 1453 is no part of post-1453 CE middle east? I think Supreme Deliciousness's edit on that page should be reverted. GPinkerton (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, sorry, I don't really have the stamina to look into this right now. Regards, El_C 05:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, that's OK, the RfC should run on. GPinkerton (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GPinkerton (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328 Regarding this edit I am going to point out that I asked specifically whether Hagia Sophia was included and an admin told me that that would be possible. Guerillero told me specifically that 1453, which would give you access to the whole Byzantine Empire was the scope, while another admin gave a definition of Middle East that (correctly) excludes any part of Europe or the Balkan Peninsula, where Hagia Sophia and the whole ancient city of Constantinople stood. Ealdgyth said keep it in the Middle East countries though - Hellespont and east of that. I'd lean post-1453 ....

The eventual wording appears to be informed by this, and I certainly did not fall into the trap of using Wikipedia's definition as evidence, especially not resorting to citing an article with few citations and labelled as such, and of which none verify that any part of Europe is in the Middle East; the talk page is replete with people asking for this unverified claim about partly in Southeast Europe to be removed from the lead. The article Balkans (by the same reasoning) only sparingly uses the term "Middle East" and only ever as a region different to Europe and the Balkans, which is where Constantinople was during the Byzantine Empire – the whole extent of which was specifically excluded from the extent of the topic ban by the blocking and ban-imposing admin. There has never been any suggestion I should be topic banned from editing any part of Roman history, and all my (recent) edits to that page concern Byzantine-period Constantinople, which is exclusively in Europe and exclusive of post-1453 CE Middle East.

Nil Einne is not right to say that I claim they weren't aware the topic ban was intended to cover at Hagia Sophia post-1453 when they were explicitly aware it was proposed partly in response to concerns over their editing of the topic. The exact opposite is the case; I am saying the topic ban was not formulated to exclude the Byzantine cathedral in the Roman period, which the RfC I began concerns. Discussion here proves that I asked for and got assurances from multiple administrators that editing within the scope of the empire was legitimate, that the empire's end marks the beginning of the topic ban, and that the definition of Middle East being discussed did not arbitrarily and unusually include parts of a European peninsula. I specifically stated several times that I wanted to continue working on Hagia Sophia, and that even though I have written most of its Ottoman-period history and its modern history, I wanted to continue to improve the pre-Ottoman parts of the article, and from what I was told, I understood that this was allowed.

Page tools shows that even after months of editing away from the article, no-one has come and removed any of the nearly half of the article that was written by me (the better half, I might add). As such, I think the RfC should be restored, and the reliably sourced information not kept out of the article for no reason. Look at how the equivalent matter is handled at Constantinople – is that "disruptive"? Isn't my version rather better than that POV stuff? GPinkerton (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responding here only because I was pinged. You wrote "Hagia Sophia is nowhere near the middle east" and that is false and misleading. Hagia Sophia is only a couple of kilometers from Anatolia also known as Asia Minor, clearly part of the Middle East. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, Asia Minor is only a part of the Middle East by some definitions, and a thing being near something else does not makes them the same topic.
Would it be false and misleading to say "New York is not part of Canada" just because New York is even closer to Canada than Hagia Sophia is to (Americans' definition of ) the Middle East? Surely not. Surely no topic ban from Canada would apply to any part of New York. GPinkerton (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you and I define "nowhere near" quite differently. If you were to claim, for example, that the Renaissance Center in my home town of Detroit is "nowhere near" Windsor, Ontario in Canada, then people familiar with those cities would look at you with stunned bewilderment. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, the topic ban was not stated or intended to cover any and every thing that some people might consider somewhere near. A topic ban from Canada would not preclude person editing General Motors just because Detroit is somewhere near Canada. Or would it, in your view? GPinkerton (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you will not try to defend your false and misleading use of "nowhere near". As for the intent of the topic ban, I originally proposed it and my intent, at least in part, was to stop you from editing regarding the events at Hagia Sophia in 1453 and the aftermath. All of this is wikilawyering, which doesn't work. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the usual definition, the Middle East is is to the east of the Near East. Anatolia is in the Near East. Cullen328, if you wanted me or anyone else to know that you or the imposing admin should have made that clear, and should have answered differently when I asked repeatedly whether Hagia Sophia was acceptable, and was answered in the affirmative. If events during the Byzantine period were included, why did you fail to object when the scope was specified as post-1453 CE, a scope which excludes by an reasonable understanding the events of early 1453 and their subsequent reception in Europe! GPinkerton (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I wrote a long reply. I'll post it if you want me to, be warned that I can't guarantee admins won't feel you continuing to argue over this is getting beyond the limits reasonably allowed for talk page usage while block. In the mean time, I have one simple question. Are you saying that you feel that Turkey is not part of the Middle East and therefore is not covered by the topic ban? Nil Einne (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, The question isn't logical; some parts of Turkey might be considered in the Middle East (Antakya, in ancient Syria, certainly is) but 15th-century Constantinople (and modern-day European Istanbul) is not and not covered by the topic ban. I'm saying that by no-one's definition is Roman-era Constantinople in the Middle East. "Turkey" (as in the post-1923 Republic of) is often labelled a Middle Eastern country in past few decades, but that doesn't mean every part of the republic's territory is is in the Middle East, and it doesn't mean anything at all in the context of the 15th century. (Is the African city of Ceuta in Europe just because Ceuta is in Spain and Spain is in Europe? Of course not!)
At least one admin has written that the Middle East is east of the Hellespont, a commonplace understanding that the modern Middle East excludes Europe. Asian Turkey might be in the modern Middle East, but European Turkey is in Europe, on the Balkan peninsula. In any case, before post-1453 CE the European city of Constantinople is not at all in the Middle East and, most would say Fatih is not in the modern Middle East either, remaining as it has in Europe.
The city might be considered part of the Near East, especially in an Ottoman context, but the idea that the recent American political expansion of the term "Middle East" to exceed its geographical boundaries to become some vague synonym for what are now Muslim-majority countries is not something that should be anachronistically retrojected into the remote past or into disciplines outside American foreign politics. This especially true when it has been specified that the Hellespont was the maximum western boundary of the Middle East in this context and that the existence of the Byzantine empire the terminus ante quem for the topic ban from the Middle East. Not only is European Turkey in Europe and not the Middle East, but 1453 is not covered by the post-1453 CE period.
In short, the edits I made to Talk:Hagia Sophia were outside the scope of the topic ban, referring as they do to Europe as well as European people. (Even Mehmed was himself from Europe, from the Ottoman then-capital in Thrace, Edirne.) It's important for me to say that there are a lot of false and retaliatory accusations being made, so I am going to defend myself against those I think are spurious or might have ulterior motives. GPinkerton (talk) 20:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's put aside the Hagia Sophia stuff completely for now. You said '"Turkey" (as in the post-1923 Republic of) is often labelled a Middle Eastern country in past few decades'. Do you accept the label of the post-1923 Republic of Turkey as a Middle Eastern country, at least when it comes to the topic ban? Nil Einne (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, is that important? I haven't made any edits referring to any events in Turkey post-1923. Am I to be accused of improperly mentioning Turkish delight, Turkish tobacco, Turkish Airlines, or Turkish people, even outwith Turkey? The purpose of the topic ban was to prevent an edit war in which I removed Turkish state propaganda regarding the Turkish invasion of Syrian Kurdistan after it was inserted by the same user that keeps accusing me of violations of various kinds while taking the opposing position in the Hagia Sophia dispute, the Turkish invasion dispute, and the fate of Turkish Jews in the Holocaust. GPinkerton (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC
The fate of Turkish Jews, and especially the reactions of the Turkish government concerns the politics and country of Turkey for most people. More to the point, effectively your asking us to reverse your topic ban because you feel you didn't violate it. Nearly or I think actually everyone disagrees. Your only real hope I see is that we accept the boundaries were insufficiently clear, and you made a mistake in getting too close to them. In that case, we need to be sure you understand the boundaries. Is there some reason you're so reluctant to give a simple yes or no answer to the question over whether post 1923 Turkey is a Middle Eastern country? It's surely something we need to agree on if you want to return to editing with the topic ban. Nil Einne (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, yes: you're asking leading questions. The boundaries, as I see it, were set specifically to exclude Hagia Sophia from the ban, as the relevant admin stated explicitly that whole history of the Byzantine Empire was open to me.
When you say nearly everyone, can you name specific editors that have stated that the original scope of the topic ban as imposed was wrong and should not be considered when I'm being falsely accused of breaking it by those who disagree with my edits for ideological reasons? GPinkerton (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again I don't care about Hagia Sophia at the moment, I only care about whether you accept post-1923 Turkey is part of the Middle East. Hagia Sophia is not the edits you made in violation of your topic ban, and it's clear you continue to defend your edits to the article titled Turkey and the Holocaust. I don't care about your defence for those at the moment either. I may get to all that but I'm waiting for you to answer then question over whether post-1923 Turkey is a Middle Eastern country so I can better understand how you understand the topic ban. (Again at the moment, I'm not interested in why you feel your edits to any article or talk page didn't violate it.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, I wouldn't refer to Turkey as whole as being entirely in the Middle East, and events partly involving Turkish people in far-flung countries are similarly not in the Middle East. Am I not to mention World War I simply because the Ottoman Empire was a major part of it. Were my recent edits to Diyarbakır, Nusaybin, and Tur Abdin improper? How about the Aqueduct of Valens? I should say absolutely not. GPinkerton (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever sophistry you try to use, it seems clear you disagree that Turkey is a Middle Eastern country. That's a major problem when it comes to the topic ban. As for the other stuff. It's perfectly possible to edit articles about WW 1 without editing anything about the Ottoman Empire. You could even edit about the ANZACs, provided you don't touch on the Gallipoli campaign. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nil Einne, are you saying Gallipoli is in the Middle East? Because I would say it's in Europe. Europe isn't the Middle East, and Europe is not covered by the topic ban. That's not sophistry, that's fact. At the time, you will not find anyone referring to Ottoman Turkey as the "Middle East", the Gallipoli campaign was firmly in the Near East, a term contiguous with the Ottoman Empire at its height. GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my modified earlier reply. (You can see my original in the sandbox if you really want, I wrote that before reading any of your follow up replies including to Cullen here, or replying myself.) Good on you for the previous improvements to the article, and I'm serious about that it's not sarcasm. However it doesn't excuse violations of your topic ban. If you think it does, that's probably part of the reason you have problems.

You were specifically told "pre-1453 history" in relation to Hagia Sophia. I'd put to you just like you put below that something that occurred in 1453 is explicitly not pre-1453 history. Yeah technically your topic ban did say post, but since you're making such a big deal of following what you were told, if you wanted to quibble at the edges of whether stuff occurring during 1453 was covered why didn't you do so when you were explicitly told it should be pre-1453 history for Hagia Sophia?

You also seem to be disputing that Hagia Sophia should be covered by a Middle East topic ban, yet your earlier questions and indeed the formulation of the topic ban itself proves that Hagia Sophia was explicitly intended to be covered. Putting aside the precise date, it's illogical to say that you asked and were told only stuff after and not including 1453 Hagia Sophia were covered, while simultaneously saying it wasn't covered anyway since it not part of the Middle East. If you had wanted to dispute whether Hagia Sophia was in the Middle East and so should have been covered, again the time to dispute it was when you were told it was at least for some time, rather than now 2 months later and after you decided to edit it despite having been told it was covered. My history on the area isn't anywhere as good as yours, but I'm fairly sure Hagia Sophia hasn't moved so that can't be the reason. Discounting stuff like shifting of the tectonic plates and the earth's rotation and orbit of the sun, and the sun's orbit of the Milky Way and (yes I can nit pick too).

And here we get to the crux of the matter. Yes I was asking leading questions, it was intentional as I said because I wanted to see how you understood the topic ban. You're now clearly disputing whether even post-1923 Turkey should be considered a Middle Eastern country when it comes to the topic ban. Here's the part I didn't mention until now. Earlier at 14:30, 12 December 2020 (UTC) on this very page, you said "It's not the Middle East but various Middle Eastern countries (especially Turkey) involved themselves". I'm native English speaker and I find no way to parse that other than an acknowledgment that Turkey is a Middle Eastern country. I was originally AGFing maybe I simply misunderstood your current position and was simply going to post with that assumption. But decided to check and it's clear I don't.

Maybe you've changed your mind. That's your right but here's the thing. When you did so, you should have queried which definition was meant to apply. Please don't tell me you forgot you once held that opinion. (You clearly forgot you expressed that opinion, that's not the point.) Yes this was in relation to Turkey in 2020 but please don't waste time coming up some explanation about how 2020 Turkey is a Middle Eastern country because of American foreign policy but post 1923-Turkey may not be, I doubt anyone is interested.

Even if you had always held the opinion that Turkey shouldn't simply be called a Middle Eastern country when it comes to the topic ban, you should have queried it anyway. Even if you never said that, there's no reasonable chance given the level of sophistry you're able to type out here that weren't aware until you were blocked yesterday that Turkey is often considered a Middle Eastern country.

Further you were told "this part of your comment:for just about anything touching Turkey's politics, its foreign relations, its wars, and its presidentwould definitely be over the line. IMO simply participating in that discussion wouldn't; a Turkish news source arguably is not inherently part of the middle east. I'm sure you could find a way to comment without mentioning Turkey. But it might be seen at minimum as gaming the system. And the closer the source gets to the topic, the more likely simply participating would violate the tban." For clarity the blue text is quoting you, and that discussion refers to an RfC Daily Sabah since you asked whether you could comment on it.

You are now are or were claiming that somehow from all that you understood you were allowed to edit an article titled Turkey and the Holocaust with text that mentioned Turkish citizenship and Jews born in Turkey, and their possible repatriation to Turkey, Turkish consuls and the Turkish ambassador in France etc under some reasoning that a lot of the specific activity occurred in France and you were just expanding an existing section which mentioned this stuff even though you introduced the Turkish Foreign Ministry and mentioned the Turkish ambassador to France several times in ways which were not present before. These are people intrinsically part of the Turkish government and politics and therefore the Turkish country. Please don't waste time with arguments they aren't. The Turkish Foreign Ministry was I'm sure largely based in Turkey and I'm fairly sure the people informed were. I guess can come up with some roundabout way of explaining how you just called them the ambassador or their name, and didn't mention Turkey and various other forms of sophistry. All I'll say is, I don't think anyone agrees.

Of course in many ways we're missing the forest from the trees here. You edited Syrian Kurdistan, article where the opening map at the time you edited had this caption 'Location of Kurdish-speaking communities in the Middle East' and with about 10+ sources with Middle East in the title or whatever, to add stuff like "Events in Iraqi Kurdistan and the discovery of oil in Syrian Kurdistan in the 1960s". And Arab Belt to add text like "an Arabization and ethnic cleansing policy in Syrian Kurdistan carried out by the" an article which has 2 refs with Middle East in the title, including one right in between some of your edited text. Again please don't waste time explaining why these edits didn't violate your topic ban because Syria and Iraq aren't in the Middle East. My understanding is edits to these sort of articles are even more of a reason why you were topic banned, so it's even more futile.

Here's the final point, like I think quite a few editors, I feel you contributions are sometimes beneficial. Some of these look like they were at least in part. If you had learnt to accept the limits of your topic ban, and interact better with others and improve your editing most of your edits are good ones, you may have made a fine editor. The main reason I'm here is because part of me is hoping you still can.

You coming up with pointless arguments over how your edits didn't violate your topic ban isn't helping anything. You can maybe tell from this response, I can argue a great deal too. From what I understand, it's one reason why you got in trouble both in the arbcom case and what lead up to the topic ban. Remember that while you're not required to accept the reasoning behind or correctness of the topic ban, you at a minimum have to abide by it. And really if you want to have any real hope of having it lifted, it's likely you'll have to come to some acceptance of why people felt it was necessary even if you still disagree with it. (Because unless you accept the consensus is that people feel that part of your editing was problematic, it's difficult to avoid repeating it.)

In other words, if we put aside the arbcom case, if you want to have any hope of continuing to edit here you need to have a long hard think about the limits of your topic ban. The GPinkerton of December 2020 seemed to have a far better understanding of them then the GPinkerton of February 2021. I don't know if they were quite far enough, but they were an okay start. Why was it you were able to trivially say in relation to your topic ban "various Middle Eastern countries (especially Turkey)" back then. But today instead you required so many words today to say no Turkey isn't a Middle Eastern country except maybe by the US, and maybe parts of it, and maybe..... and how this interacted with my topic ban well it's complicated but.......? How can you return to time when your thinking was at least starting down the right path instead of all this debating about stuff no one seems to be buying?

For the record, I'd also note that your topic ban also covered Islam and right in the RfC wording you wrote "Mehmed had tried to convert to Islam".

Nil Einne (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne, so you appear to agree with me that Hagia Sophia is not and has never been part of the middle east and events there before post-1453 are not included in the topic and ban and could only be construed as such by, as you say, sophistry? I have not changed my opinion and I am glad to see that you have.
Please don't put words into my mouth as you did with your comment explaining why these edits didn't violate your topic ban because Syria and Iraq aren't in the Middle East. To argue Iraq is not in the middle east would be at least as tendentious as suggesting any part of Europe is.
Don't confuse the edits I'm defending with those I'm not; that would assuming bad faith as well as assuming stupidity. If I am allowed to edit Diyarbakir (potentially included in the definition of "Middle East") on topics dating to the Roman period, then I am certainly able to edit Hagia Sophia (on the Balkan peninsula, in Europe) on topics relating to the self-same Roman period to which I was explicitly allowed to edit by the editor that both blocked me and suggested the topic ban. GPinkerton (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the Bosporus and Istanbul are a significant distance northEAST of the Hellespont, this is sophistry and only more wikilawyering. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, no, sophistry would be to try and suppose the Bosporus and the Hellespont were not part of that same body of water that divides the most modern definition of the Middle East from Europe, and that Constantinople is on the western bank relative to both, thereby excluding it from the Middle East even in its laziest and most expansive definition. Such a person would have to also argue that Canada is not "north of the 49th parallel" just because some of it and most of its people lie to the south of that line. Such reasoning would be sophistry indeed, I hope you'll agree! GPinkerton (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Hagia Sophia is about 200 km east of the Hellespont. Hellespont is 26-27° E, while Hagia Sophia is 29° E.VR talk 21:01, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vice regent, the Hagia Sophia is on the western side of the Bosporus, which like, the Hellespont, divides Europe in the west from Asia in the east. No part of the Middle East and it is casuistry to argue otherwise. When Hagia Sophia was first built in the 4th century, Constantinople was a town in the Roman province of "Europe", with its capital where Tekirdağ is now. GPinkerton (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should stay well away from their topic bans. That means editing about butterflies or asteroids or kangaroos or countless other unrelated topic areas, , not about the Hagia Sophia in 1453. Especially since the topic ban was imposed, in part, as a result of concerns about your editing of that article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328, it was imposed on the partially on the basis of your concerns, not on consideration of my actions or why opposition to my reliably sourced edits might be being made for ideological reasons, as ArbCom has recently found was the case? GPinkerton (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please admit that The disruption spans 15 centuries but much of it relates to Islam and the Middle East. is a baseless statement with no evidential basis whatever? GPinkerton (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

subsectioning stricken for ease of nav[edit]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jupiter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samuel Butler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your eyechart[edit]

You may like this one: [5]. And this one, if you haven't seen already: [6]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I'm glad someone did! I couldn't resist, it's too perfect. Those are both excellent and I had heard neither before, thanks so much! I was actually thinking of one of Johnny Cash's first records when I saw that for Belshazzar it was getting late. GPinkerton (talk) 18:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! More at Cultural depictions of Belshazzar. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

administrators noticeboard/kurds[edit]

GP, I think you need to stop. Special:Diff/997046884: User:عمرو بن كلثوم is taken aback at GPinkerton's refutation of his claim that the phrase "Syrian Kurdistan" does not appear in the book (it does and is explained), and suddenly changes his mind on "Martin Dr Martin" the erstwhile worthy academic in respectable Paris, whose PhD-thesis-turned book was published by the University of Utrecht Press, but who in Act 2 now appears a radically changed character, a mean scholar [he's actually a professor] whose book is now merely personal opinion and tainted by association with the Center for Kurdish Studies (sounds very neutral) [emphasis original] which, in the space of less than twenty-four hours, has now become unspeakably biased and unusable for reasons that remain unexplained. is too much. Stop now, we're going to need to discuss further. —valereee (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GP, (still thinking in Grand Prix), thank you very much, but yes, let't leave it for now. I'd prefer to also count on you also after the ban has ended than see you blocked.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, like I said, I'm just adding what has already been shown to ANI. There's no need to tell me to "stop", that's all there is for now. GPinkerton (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you that your exemption from your topic ban is rescinded until further notice. —valereee (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Join women in red?[edit]

Hi GPinkerton, seeing you are confronted with troublesome issues again, I try to lead you to calmer waters. I joined women in red and maybe you also find some pleasure in it. There you create content and help to lower the gender gap. Coloring the editing style? (Pink)erton and women in (red) seem to make a good picture. Isn't there some empress or queen that has no article yet?Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Look, you can't keep skirting your topic ban, not to mention violating it outright. I hovered over the block button for a while, but in the end decided to give you one final chance. Please understand that if at any time in the future I detect even an iota of a violation, my unblock is likely to be rescinded. I don't really care if what you have to say is valid or not. That isn't the point. We don't make allowances for that. That would be too much of a slippery slope. Your sanction has been logged. It is a done deal. If you wish to see it lifted, work on appealing it. Either this appeal will be granted or it will be declined. And that will be that. I'm at a bit of a disbelief that I even need to explain any of this, yet here we are. El_C 02:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

El C, how should I appeal it? GPinkerton (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing that my unblock was conditional on you accepting the topic ban proposed by the blocking admin, I suppose I could just re-block you, then you could re-appeal the original block by proposing any conditions be added or lifted as you see fit. And, of course, I'd make sure to note that the re-block wasn't due to any actual violation but only so you could appeal the original block anew. I mean, if you regret how that unblock went down, I have no problem with you trying your luck with another admin (who cares if I find it odd, it's totally up to you). El_C 05:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I'd prefer if it could be noted that the original block had nothing whatever to do with anything mentioned in the topic ban, but was rather for reporting malpractice insufficiently persuasively, and that the consensus on whether or not I was justified in making the ANI reports for which I was blocked has shifted. GPinkerton (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it would be appropriate for me to note anything beyond the re-block being about re-appealing. You can, of course, add anything you see fit to your new unblock request. El_C 05:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, the problem with that idea is that the block-unblock procedure is basically mediaeval in its predication on confession, contrition, and penitence. It's not suited to establishing always-protested (sort of) innocence in light of the behaviour of others or cleaving to the principle that slander isn't slander if it's true. GPinkerton (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'm not sure that's really germane to this specific case. Certainly, you're welcome to work toward changing WP:GAB so as to align it with those values in mind. El_C 05:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, why is not really germane? Surely you don't think that I am "here to right great wrongs"? GPinkerton (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I have nothing further to add at this time. Let me know what you want to do. El_C 06:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, I'd prefer to file an arbitration request, you said you'd advise on that. GPinkerton (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. As I already explained before, any restrictions would be temporarily waived when addressing the Committee. El_C 06:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, where do I begin? GPinkerton (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFAR. El_C 06:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, thanks, and what should I be asking for? Enforcement of the Civil War sanctions or something else? GPinkerton (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know what you should be asking for. Although a few days ago, I did express some general thoughts on the matter of a full arbitration request at RfAR versus a request for a motion at ARCA, at this time, I'm just not familiar enough with the dispute to advise further. El_C 07:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, OK I've drafted a RfAR and will file it soon. Do I understand that you're saying I can't discuss this request with other editors before it's filed? GPinkerton (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, nothing outside of notifying involved parties (if any) of the request. El_C 14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
El C, done GPinkerton (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Holocaust in Bulgaria[edit]

I am a bit late to this discussion, but I have to include that the facts support the case of a rescue more than that of mass suppression. There was plenty of the latter, but reliable sources do state that Bulgaria treated Jews exceptionally well as compared to other Nazi-allied and/or controlled countries. To deny that is to deny reality. Presenting Jews as equally unambigious victims in every country during WWII is a simplification and a dumbing down of the facts and details in each case. I can see that you very much beholden to writing out of strong emotion, which is understandable, but not helpful. I think that a renaming of the page back to Rescue of the Bulgarian Jews is needed, but the lede should include information detailing the deportation of the Jews in Thrace and Macedonia, which were not part of the Kingdom of Bulgaria. They were occupied by it, but, I repeat, they were not part of Bulgaria.

Looking forward to your response,

mezil (talk)

  • (talk page stalker) mezil , I don't agree with this rationale. What you are saying is that the Bulgarian state recognized the basic rights of its Jewish citizens not to be deported to their deaths (although they were discriminated against and lost other civil rights). That is not "rescue", that's the absolute minimum any citizen can expect from the legal authorities who are entrusted with protecting them. (t · c) buidhe 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that Bulgaria was exceptional in its treatment of Jews at the time and, contrary to almost all other countries, actually intervened and spared some 48,000 Jews from almost certain death. This should not just be ignored and to put Bulgaria's treatment of its Jews on an equal footing as Austria or most other European countries (Denmark being the obvious exception) is disingenuous. mezil (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yavorpenchev, 1.) Austria did not exist at the time and was under German occupation, so comparison with Bulgaria, which was self-governing and entered the alliance with Germany entirely of its own free will, is inappropriate. 2.) the Danes actually did "rescue" the Danish Jews, in the sense of "remove from danger". Nothing of this kind ever happened in Bulgaria. While Denmark was invaded, conquered, and occupied by Germany, and Danes had no part in organizing the Holocaust, Danes were still able to rescue most of the Jews of Denmark, and even after many were sent to ghettoes and camps elsewhere in Europe the Danes successfully lobbied the Germans on their behalf. By contrast, in Bulgaria, an entire government department was set up expressly for the purpose of organizing the Final Solution. Bulgarian officials planned, organized, and carried out the arrest and deportation of all Bulgaria's Jews, both in annexed Macedonia and Thrace and in Bulgaria proper. Bulgaria set up the concentration camps in at Dupnitsa and Blagoevgrad in which these Jews were imprisoned for weeks before being boarded onto the boats that Bulgaria hired to take them to Vienna. The fact that Bulgaria was "only" responsible for the deaths of 20% of the wartime Kingdom of Bulgaria's Jewish population is due only to the death of tsar and the consequent lack of anyone with sufficient authority to complete the genocide he had ordered; it is no kind of achievement. German authorities arrested more than 150 Bulgarian Jews in Paris and asked the Bulgarian government whether Bulgaria objected to their massacre; the Bulgarian government denied responsibility for any Jews and were concerned only that confiscated Jewish property be turned over to Bulgarians. 3.) Bulgaria alienated and persecuted Jews, confiscated of property from Jews, deported Jews from their homes to ghettos, and subjected the Jewish men to forced labour until September 1944. What is unusual about Bulgaria is that it participated in the Holocaust without ever being occupied, by or in any other coerced, by Germany. GPinkerton (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of Austria being part of Austria-Hungary at the time, I was talking in modern terms. Tsar Boris did die in 1943, that is true, which is when the Final Solution was beginning to be implemented. Patriarch Cyril, who was head of the Bulgarian church at the time, opposed the deportation vehemently and his, as well as the citizenry's resistance to the deportation, spared the faith of all the Jews that were in the Kingdom of Bulgaria (excluding Macedonia and Thrace, which were occupied by Bulgaria, but not part of its territory). Over 40 MPs, led by Dimitar Peshev, forced the Prime Minister to cancel the deportations. There was increasing pressure by the Germans to deport all of Bulgaria's 48,000 Jews. Instead, after unrelenting pressure from the clergy and the populace, the Jews were spared. They were indeed moved into forced labor as a way to appease the Germans. This also happened to non-Jews - all men were subject to conscription in Bulgaria until 2008. At the time of WWII, this lasted 2 to 3 years when men were essentially slaves to their commanders. My father has told me stories of the conditions while he served his 2 years in 1988-1990. You might want to check up on this part of history in Eastern Europe. It is a fact that the Prime Minister and the King did not care much about the Jews - they sought the easiest way out, which makes them no better than the rest. What is not true is that the Bulgarian populace stayed indifferent. In fact, they were instrumental in the sparing of the lives of almost 50,000 Jews from the lands of Bulgaria. The death of over 11,000 from Thrace and Macedonia was tragic and a crime in itself, but these territories were not accepted as part of Bulgaria as they had only been added in 1940. mezil (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yavorpenchev,
  1. Austria being part of Austria-Hungary at the time Austria-Hungary collapsed after the First World War and also did not exist at the time. Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1936.
  2. spared the faith of all the Jews that were in the Kingdom of Bulgaria (excluding Macedonia and Thrace, which were occupied by Bulgaria, but not part of its territory)}} Macedonia and Thrace were both annexed by the Kingdom of Bulgaria and Bulgaria deliberately refused to grant Jewish residents there Bulgarian citizenship (even though other residents were given citizenship)
  3. Over 40 MPs, led by Dimitar Peshev, forced the Prime Minister to cancel the deportations False. Nothing was ever cancelled. The prime minister was not in control, the tsar was. The tsar never cancelled the Bulgarians' deportations of Jews in the occupied parts of Yugoslavia and Greece. The tsar never cancelled Bulgarians' deportations of Jews from Sofia and the other cities, and all had their property seized (and never returned), all were deported to ghettos, and all were forced into slave labour. Dimitar Peshev was a key figure in supporting the notorious antisemitic legislation Bulgaria implemented with great public support.
  4. They were indeed moved into forced labor as a way to appease the Germans. This also happened to non-Jews - all men were subject to conscription in Bulgaria until 2008. Untrue. The forced labour Jews were made to do was harsher, lasted longer, had no upper age limit, was paid less (or not at all), and was more dangerous even than the forced labour Bulgaria made gypsies and Pomaks do. The work was deliberately made more difficult by denying Jews clothes or adequate tools. Others were made to clear explosives. The idea this was done to "save" Jews or "appease the Germans" has rightly been called Holocaust denial and antisemitism by Bulgaria and the world's Jewish organizations.
  5. these territories were not accepted as part of Bulgaria as they had only been added in 1940 The genocide of Jews in the newly-occupied and annexed territories was planned and carried out by the Bulgarian government in order to increase the percentage of Bulgarians in these territories so that Germany would recognize Bulgaria's annexation of these lands. This fact was quietly suppressed by the People's Republic as a way to cover-up Bulgaria's complicity in, and responsibility for, the Holocaust in Bulgaria and to seek to salvage Bulgaria's reputation for antisemitism and Nazi collaboration by promoting the ridiculous notion that inadequately organized Holocaust in the country was in some way equivalent to the Rescue of the Danish Jews, and was moreover a suitable communist narrative of the Victory of the Good Proletariat against the persecutory actions of the tsar and the antisemitic Bulgarian Church. History was also rewritten in the communist era such that Todor Zhivkov himself organized the mythical "successful resistance" of spring 1943. The fact that the forced labour continued until after the Russians crossed the Danube is simply ignored. GPinkerton (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
1. True - my mistake.
2. My point still stands - you did not refute it.
3. You saying false doesn't make it so. Read up. They were deported to ghettos, but not killed. There is a difference. There was no upper limit - that is true, so the treatment was worse.
4. Somewhat true - it was done to appease Germans, of course it was. Otherwise all 48,000 would have been deported as well. You ignore my admission that the Bulgarian authorities didn't care about the deaths of Jews and were no better than those of other countries. What is different is the outcome - Bulgarian Jews from the territory of Bulgaria pre-1940 were indeed spared almost certain death. Your belief that it wasn't to appease the Nazi regime may be somewhat true for the intentions of the tsar and the government, but not for MPs, the patriarch, many intellectuals and the general populace that stood with the Jews. If you choose to ignore that, then I believe that is an issue. mezil (talk) 10:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yavorpenchev, no-one forced Dimitar Peshev and the rest of the Sobranie to pass the Law for the Protection of the Nation in winter 1940/1. The opposition of the patriarch was mostly motivated by the fact that the governments classification of Jews was "racial" and not religious; the Church opposed the inclusion of Jews baptized into Christianity among the "Jewish" Jews to be "resettled". Many Bulgarian Jews died of deliberate maltreatment in the concentration camps in which they were imprisoned for forced labour throughout the war. Some were deployed to occupied Macedonia and Thrace to do slave work and were deported and exterminated along with the other Jews in those territories in spring 1943. GPinkerton (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think there is no point in continuing. I respect your opinion as it is obviously based on a good amount of research and study. I have also studied the topic, but, admittedly, am to some extent biased, being Bulgarian myself.
I don't see my reading of the issue changing significantly and I see that the article name won't be changed. What I would propose is that the lede include text that gives the actions of the citizenry and other people in the government more weight, as I think it should. I will do that and source it appropriately.
Thank you for responding and all the best.
mezil (talk) mezil (talk) 11:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yavorpenchev, the name of the article was only recently changed, so it would probably require new evidence to justify re-opening the discussion at this point. More well-sourced material on opposition to the government can definitely be added, but to be honest I think the best way to improve coverage of this area would be to improve (or create) biographies for those Bulgarians listed at List of Righteous Among the Nations by country, many of whom do not have articles at all. The contributions of these people should be documented in the encyclopaedia, and I think that's more important than the grand claims made in Bulgaria both under communism and capitalism about the collective responsibility of The Bulgarian People as a collective. I think the "Legacy" section deals with this fairly well with the various historiographical claims made about who "saved" the Jews and how, and why these claims were made, and by whom. GPinkerton (talk) 11:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The polkovnik Tsvetan Mumdzhiev was in charge of the forced labour of Jews for a year and actually did rescue some individual Jews who were under his command in the forced labour battalions, giving them useful paperwork. But he has no article, and the idea a whole ethnicity was subjected to ghettoization and forced labour as an elaborate ploy organized by the military to "save" the Jews is one that can only have been dreamt up in retrospect to excuse the Bulgarian responsibility for the Holocaust; it's not credited outside Bulgaria. There has been a lot of politics on this issue (communism, capitalism, the Church, royalism, antisemitism, foreign relations with the USSR, communist Yugoslavia, North Macedonia ...) and it seems that there are certain Bulgarian politicians and historians who, over many decades, have made very questionable conclusions for political or denominational reasons. GPinkerton (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tyvm[edit]

 Thanks for remembering me of all people, and thanks in turn for all your work on the encyclopedia! A good vicennalia to you too. Avilich (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vicennalia
Twenty years old today!

Kurds and Kurdistan case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 5, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GPinkerton, the case has opened, how do you plan to proceed? I have prepared some diffs, but I see users involved in the case can add up to 100 diffs in the evidence section. Then also what issues should be addressed by who? Maybe we can divide the case in issues to be addressed in order to save words and time.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, yes I'm still thinking about how to address the issue. GPinkerton (talk) 13:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GPinkerton, the evidence phase in this arbitration case closes today and I see that you you have not submitted any evidence yet. It would be a serious mistake for you to not participate in this process. You spent a lot of time at WP:ANI and WP:AN asking for help, where no admins were willing to listen. This arbitration case is your chance to present your side of the story in detail, and the evidence phase is the place to do that. You still have a few hours. Don't waste the opportunity. Nsk92 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nsk92, don't worry I have every intention of making the case; I just wanted to wait until last to avoid duplicating diffs and so on. Thanks very much for your concern, I much appreciate it. GPinkerton (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please note that as the instructions at the top of the evidence page indicate, your portion of the evidence page is limited to 1000 words and 100 diffs. Nsk92 (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GPinkerton, if your T-ban is lifted, I suggest we find a quick solution for your talk page language. To use the extensive vocabulary there exists in the English language might often be seen as appropriate, but for all editors this might mainly be the case in good faith communication. In disputes, it provides with many fronts for ANI reports and phrases like: My source says, this look at that or my source says something different like yours, are more effective in the long run. Your main space editing at least at Syrian Kurdistan, Nusaybin or Diyarbakir was just overwhelming and I guess welcomed by anyone who wants to expand and upgrade Wikipedia articles. And with the amount of content you bring in, you'll quite probably find a consensus also for disputed articles, maybe not within a day or two, but probably rather within a week than within days, just be patient. If you could moderate your talk page tone, but keep on with your work at the main space, this would be great. I hope you see this advice comes in good faith.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 10:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to what PC said. May I recommend the advice/analysis in WP:CAPITULATE if I haven't done so already, especially the first sentence about stability > justice. I hope you figure out a way to change how you communicate here so that they don't throw you off the site because you are a competent and helpful content contributor. But you've got to figure out how to get along better with other editors, one way or another. Levivich harass/hound 06:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I try to get you off the hook for the General Sanctions, but I must say, if you keep on editing in disputed areas, you won't make it for long. Don't engage in long discussions in disputes (specially at the Noticeboards) for some weeks and see how that feels. I wish you good luck in the other areas you are editing in. Please read the five pillars of Wikipedia and then adhere to them from the moment of this very edit. If you apply these, I see a bright future for you on Wikipedia.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I have limited time. I am not going to spend it trying to convince anyone that a decade-long project to use Wikipedia as the most widely-read, most widely disseminated source of genocide denial in the English-speaking world is bad thing for the encyclopaedia. If these ideologues are going to be allowed on Wikipedia, sanctioned and endorsed by the powers-that-be, then I'm afraid my being thrown off for indecorously mentioning this fact is going to be very far from the worst thing that will result; it would only be marginally worse than the status quo at, say, Arab Belt. I hope that doesn't happen, but at this point it feels fairly binary: either the denialists go, or I do. Apparently the latter is easier than just following Wikipedia's own reliable sourcing and neutral point of view policies, or enforcing them. GPinkerton (talk) 06:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do what you gotta do, but IMO the problem with "either they go or I go" is that sometimes the question isn't whether they'll go, it's whether you'll go with them. Levivich harass/hound 06:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, no, I doubt it: if comments like this are still possible in this universe - which is still the one in which I presented all that evidence - then there really isn't any hope for a reasonable outcome when they coexist with comments like: "I have to vote for the site ban". GPinkerton (talk) 06:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interactions with other parties to a case[edit]

Please avoid interactions with other parties such as you had at [7]; it is not your place to chide other parties to the case. There are clerks and arbitrators to handle decorum, appropriateness of posts, etc., during a case. Maxim(talk) 19:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I'm pointing it out because in fact nothing was done when that and other users decided to hugely exceed their word limits in the prior stage and nothing was done about it and one wouldn't want that. GPinkerton (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Over length evidence[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations for parties be kept to around 1000 words and 100 diffs. Your presentation is over 3300 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. In this case, the arbitrators have agreed to a firm 2000 word limit, so you will need to reduce your evidence submission to under this limit. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:50, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are also over on your diff limit of 100 diffs. You will need to ensure that you are below this limit. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, I'm sorry, all the evidence is relevant. I have already made such a request. NB that nothing was done about the massive over-runs of word limits made by the reported editors at the request stage. GPinkerton (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, you will need to reduce the length of your evidence submission, or it may be reduced to length for you by a clerk or arbitrator. This notification is so that you can do so yourself, and thus be able to choose what is most important. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz, I await an answer on the extension. All this evidence has been ignored before so has built up over many months. No-one reduced the tediously over-long contributions before, so I'll just assume no-one would unfairly disadvantage a party by doing so this time. GPinkerton (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, your extension, as Dreamy Jazz noted, is to 2000 words, so please edit your submission accordingly. You will also need to trim the submission to 100 diffs; no further extension is given for diffs. For the evidence submissions, all the parties are being asked to keep evidence within the prescribed limits. Maxim(talk) 00:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, I'm sorry, I have tried to remove some but I think the diffs are necessary to establish the long-term pattern of problematic behaviour. Otherwise the process is in danger of falling into the same problem faced at ANI; that the scale of the problem was off-putting so it was easier to silence me by blocking and topic ban than to examine the evidence I supplied. Many of the diffs require only cursory examination to substantiate that this pattern exists. GPinkerton (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still below a thousand words and a hundred diffs. I would transfer the expanded amount of words and diffs which I do not use to GPinkerton if it is of help.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paradise Chronicle, if you would like to copy the part of my submission dealing with, say, Thepharoah17's edits and as much of the simple place-name eradication by the others as you can I will have no objection. GPinkerton (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do that. For the rest, try to include just one diff per article and include the other diffs in the workshop/section analysis of evidence in detail.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK GPinkerton (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adapting to the developments to the case, I'll remove some diffs. to provide a better oversight over the case. The diffs I remove are ones which I don't see as relevant, like if they are secondary or tertiary diffs for the same article. I guess we made it clear, that there is an issue with editors who remove Kurdish mentions.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also diffs showing removal of categories I'll remove. ThePharoah17 is anyway good covered with their denialist statement at the ArbCom Case.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your evidence is still over length. The phase will likely close soon, so if you want to be selective about what to remove, I suggest doing so soon. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

"No canvassing has been involved, as عمرو بن كلثوم has once again wrongly claimed in the desperate hope of defending his own inexcusable behaviour." and similar language will see sanctions if it recurs. While tensions at ArbCom are often high, it is unnecessary to impute bad faith to others' concerns, and especially to ascribe specific negative motives to them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 08:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My participation in the ArbCom case[edit]

Dear GPinkerton,

It did feel a bit awkward to start commenting seemingly out of nowhere on the ArbCom case. It's just that I deeply sympathize with your efforts to combat the global spread of misinformation through Wikipedia (which also is one of the primary reasons why I am active here, see my user page), and that I believe we should be far stricter in (topic-)banning those who are here only to push their own point of view (a principal source of misinformation), whether this is intentional on their part or not.

However, as will have become clear, I strongly disagree with your approach to this. When it comes to WP:AGF, you would do well to apply Hanlon's razor more often. But even then you should take into consideration that the best way to point out ignorance is to civilly show it, rather than to bluntly tell. Civil composure should actually take somewhat exaggerated forms ('wikilove') around here, given the fact that the anonymity and the lack of nonverbal communication in digital environments strongly enhances conflict. Finally, your tendency to turn the process of editing in a WP:BATTLE (which is not limited to the sharp remarks, but also includes the never-ending bludgeoning) is seriously damaging, because it is exhausting for other editors, and as such also constitutes one of the major reasons why experts and other knowledgeable people tend to stay away from Wikipedia.

These are my concerns, and I sincerely hope that you will try to take heed of them in the future. I highly enjoy editing with you, and I certainly wish for you to stay. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you you for getting involved, Apaugasma, and thanks for explaining your concerns. I lost patience with assuming a civil solution could be arrived at in November, at which time it became clear to me that while stupidity was certainly involved, it was not sufficient cause to explain the problems; it was obvious to me what was going on and I've been shocked at how difficult it's been to persuade anyone to pay attention. I fully agree with what is written on your user page, especially about the deadline being ever-now and the fact that all the problems I reported for arbitration have been going for years, since long before I started editing, makes it doubly egregious that such an important topic should be so distorted for so long. How many people's opinions have been influenced by this slanted presentation? It makes me recoil, but not resile! GPinkerton (talk) 17:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 16[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Britannia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Pitt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Basilicas in the Catholic Church → Titles of Mary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed decision posted at the open Kurds and Kurdistan case[edit]

In the open Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case, a number of remedies and finding of facts have been proposed, some of which relate to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamy Jazz, I am aware. GPinkerton (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration[edit]

Hi G, your latest edit on this talk page looks like it's an answer to me, but I your edit summary indicates that it's an answer to Hob Gadling. May I suggest that you slightly change the indentation in order to make that "graphically" clear? I would have done it myself but I just wanted to check directly with you that this was indeed your intention.--JBchrch (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation[edit]

Isn't this edit a violation of your topic ban on Islam and post-1453 Middle East? Your edit relates to Middle Eastern countries funding Islamic organizations in France.VR talk 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, no, why would it be? I'm not prohibited from mentioning Islamist organizations in France or money from Middle Eastern countries. GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think your recent edits to Turkey and the Holocaust are a violation of your topic ban? Turkey is definitely a part of the Middle East and the Holocaust happened post-1453.VR talk 06:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Vice regent, Turkey is only a part of the Middle East by some maximalist definitions, so it is certainly wrong to claim it is definitely a part of the Middle East, and even by that lazy definition not all of Turkey is even in Asia, let alone the Middle East. But that is irrelevant, since no part of the Holocaust happened in the Middle East, to my knowledge, and the edits I made concern events in occupied and Vichy France, and I have never heard of anyone claiming that Western Europe is anywhere near the Middle East. GPinkerton (talk) 06:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Middle East includes Turkey. Your edits concern actions of the government of Republic of Turkey and the repatriation of Turkish Jews back to Turkey. On the talk page you comment on the reliability of Shaw in a discussion that questions his assertion that 100,000 Jews transmitted through Turkey. Maybe El_C can clarify whether this TBAN applies in this case or not?VR talk 06:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, none of my edits mention any Jews that were repatriated. Indeed, examination of them will prove none of the relevant people were repatriated. It is false to attach my comments to the randomly-selected phrase 100,000 Jews transmitted through Turkey which are not my words are not discussed anywhere by my comments. Why are you asking? GPinkerton (talk) 06:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, Near East includes Turkey and excludes it from the Middle East. It is therefore incorrect to repeat the claim Middle East includes Turkey as though repetition amplified its veracity or universalizability. GPinkerton (talk) 06:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit you moved around the statement A few hundred Jews were repatriated to Turkey from France, you added content concerning Turkish-born Jews and their potential to be repatriated to Turkey. You also describe the actions of the Republic of Turkey and the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs based in Ankara.VR talk 06:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vice regent, that is incorrect. I nowhere refer to any events in Ankara. It is furthermore incorrect to try to link the statement here is only one known case of an offer of Turkish diplomatic protection to denaturalized Jews born in Turkey to me, since it was not me that added it to the article. GPinkerton (talk) 06:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[8] You can see that this information already existed in the article. Do you dispute this fact? GPinkerton (talk) 06:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've also improved the wording somewhat. GPinkerton (talk) 07:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear GPinkerton, of course Turkey forms part of the Middle East, by any common account. Our Near East article fully confirms rather than contravenes this. It would be awfully helpful to all of us, but not the least to yourself, if you would some day learn to clearly recognize it when you're wrong. Or even better, to recognize that you do not by any divine nature know the truth of all things in the first place. I've seen this happen very often, and it is quite frankly exhausting, making it very difficult for other editors to keep on engaging in a constructive dialogue with you. Sincerely, Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 12:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apaugasma I don't agree with your assessment. I am never going to admit that Lyon is in anyone's definition of the Middle East. I recognize when I'm wrong and when others are. GPinkerton (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye[edit]

As it looks pretty likely that you will be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia as a result of the Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case (5 support with zero opposes as I write this), I just thought I'd say that I have enjoyed our brief interactions on Wikipedia, and I respect your editing on Roman related topics. I hope you take the standard offer and write a thorough, contrite response that addresses concerns about your behaviour. Enjoy what are probably your last few days of editing, at least for a while. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hemiauchenia. I would have welcomed your input during the case; apparently not everyone is as intolerant of genocide denial as I am. This saddens me and makes me fear for the project that such a disproportionate sanctions regime is being considered. The reliable sourcing for the Arab Belt policy will have to wait until the denialist demographics are excised by someone. Until then I have to wait for someone to see sense and rescind the topic ban. GPinkerton (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GPinkerton, I understand that you think that you were justified in your actions, but answer me this. Why would uninvolved administrators think that the most reasonable solution was to permanently ban you from the encyclopedia, while all the other editors merely got topic bans? You need to take a hard look at your own actions and reflect on them, rather than simply deflect the blame to other editors who have already been found to at fault. Just because other editors have also behaved badly (and as such are likely to justly be topic banned) doesn't excuse your own behaviour. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:08, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, I'm not saying it does. GPinkerton (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think your issues with collaborative editing can be resolved? Are you truly willing to change? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, yes, for sure. GPinkerton (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one that needs to hear this. If I were you I would go to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds_and_Kurdistan/Proposed_decision and make a contrite post apologizing for your actions, acknowledging your behavioural issues and state how you intend to change for future interactions. I am happy to help you draft this if you feel you need assistance. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, yeah, I know what you mean but I think that would probably be read as both craven and insincere. So much is alleged, and so much of that falsely, that it's difficult to know what'd be expected to confess to. E pur si muove and the apocryphal "here I stand, I can do no other" feel more appropriate from my perspective but I'm open to suggestions of how to rescue things! GPinkerton (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You say that an apology would be read as both craven and insincere, from my uninvolved perpsective it depends on how you word it. There's no harm in trying to avert your execution at the eleventh hour. Your audience is the arbitration commitee, not the editors you have come into conflict with. It's not about specific claims, but about your conduct, paticularly your habits of edit warring and "personalising disputes" (in the proposed decisions words). If you really don't feel like doing it, might be just worth waiting for the standard offer in sixth months, by which point the Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case will have been long blown over, and you'll probably feel less angry about it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the ban is all but confirmed with 8 to 1. I was wrong about the standard offer as arbitration blocks cannot be appealed for a year. Adios amigo. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, if that is the case, maybe you can watchlist Arab Belt and Syrian Kurdistan. This POV demographic bullshit has been added all over the place and it's promoting denialism of the ethnic cleansing that went on there from the 1960s on. GPinkerton (talk) 20:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know enough about the topic in question to really make an informed judgement, but I hope you reconsider and appeal your indefinite block to the arbitration committee in a years tine. Farewell, friend. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, the sort of edits just now made to both pages are the kind of thing to look out for. GPinkerton (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty clear that you need a break from this particular topic. A year away will do you some good. See you on the other side. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hemiauchenia, if you're not yourself arbitrarily banned for uncovering blockable behaviour, that is. GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this will mean much to you, or that it will likely make much of a difference, but about two hours ago I was seriously on the fence and considering opposing the site ban proposal. Primarily, it was due to this discussion here and your indication that you might actually be willing to change things. Since there hasn't been a motion to close yet, and still at least one Arb who I know still wants to weigh in, there is still the possibility that the site ban proposal will fail. However, it looks like you're intending on instead annoying as many people as possible and "going out in a blaze of glory" as they say before this is all said and done.
Without going into a novel worth of text, could you please let me know why I should still consider changing my decision at the case (and more-or-less overlook your editing over the last few hours)? Primefac (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look Primefac, I'm not proud of how the past four months have transpired, and I'm far from willing to repeat the process. I'm upset that my point has not really been taken and especially concerned that the sanction proposed for me is greater than for any of the editors who caused the case to be necessary. I realize that I'm not blameless in this, but I still think any disruption I caused is of minor import compared with the megalithic POV and behavioural problem that the disruption revealed, and, I fear, failed to impress on the ArbCom the importance of dealing sternly with it. I'm not intending to annoy anyone; I just added the text I proposed to the articles since they've been waiting on the talk page for months. I think if my concerns about a POV-push to conceal the information or boggle it with fictitious demography have been vindicated, and the only opposition comes from editors who have been opposing it and arguing tendentiously, and if I am to be removed from the project, the least I can do is put the information and sources in the page history for someone else to argue over.
I'm not happy with my own approach to any of this, and I look forward to it all being over, however that may be. I'm not trying to create problems, but I do think it is important that the issue be properly fixed, and that will require some action against the other parties of the case. If a repeat ArbCom case isn't the solution, a different one needs to be found.
I wasn't aware one could change one's vote, and I'm not going to ask for you to do so; if the merits of my position and the evidence persuade you to do so, I will not query it. I would ask that you look at the content of recent edits; they go a long way towards explaining what the problem has been all along (as does the blind revert and the initial opposition to the information by the tendentious editors, now in the archives of Talk:Syrian Kurdistan). I'm sorry for how much work this has been for everyone, I simply wanted to make sure the point got across and set that far above my own access to privileges. (It's been years since I had a word limit under 100,000 words ...) GPinkerton (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Primefac, [9] surely the kind of lying personal attacks in the edit summary and grossly improper refactoring my comments should earn far more than a mere topic ban! Nothing has been more frustrating than the endorsement of these kinds of edits by opposing a site ban for these incurable POV-pushers and vindictive ideologues? GPinkerton (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry to see this[edit]

I'm sorry, GPinkerton. I hope you'll be interested in appealing next year, as do think you've got much to offer. —valereee (talk) 20:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I hardly see the point. If the project's arbitrators prefer to ban me and for Wikipedia to push a nationalist, denialist agenda without banning those responsible, what's the point? If decorum is more important than verifiability, then that is just unacceptable. GPinkerton (talk) 20:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree there's no point, but I respect that's how it feels to you right now. Best to you. Email me if you'd like to discuss further. —valereee (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, If there's no point trying to convince ArbCom that neutrality and verifiability are more important than evidence or decorum towards POV-pushers I'm afraid there is something wrong with the process. How can they just ignore two parties to the case? It's insane. GPinkerton (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't ignored them. They've t-banned them from one of their areas of primary interest for a year, and IMO it's quite likely they'll eventually end up t-banned from related topics. The reason you ended up banned is not because you were incorrect. It's because you were relentless long after you needed to be. It served WP well until you got people's attention, but after that you just didn't stop, even when people asked you to stop, told you to, topic-banned you. In the ArbCom case you just wouldn't stop, even when people said you were going way too far. It's not that what you were saying was incorrect, or that WP doesn't appreciate what you did. It's that you just wouldn't stop. Seriously, that is the reason you ended up banned. If you hadn't posted to the Proposed Decision talk, I think you'd be topic banned right now and that's it. —valereee (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Topic banning me is as bad as not site-banning the others. ArbCom did ignore other users going over their word limits, but penalized me. I did the minimum I could to respond to all the angry personal attacks, and the false accusations and rudeness of that was ignored. The behaviour of the other two parties was ignored. ArbCom failed to acknowledge the misuse of sources by others, and responded to a decade of misbehaviour with a semi-punishment one tenth as long. I am unhappy but unsurprised; I tried all I could to show the harm all this was doing, and I failed to make an impression or make this point at all to administrators or arbitrators. ArbCom should never have been needed; the behaviour was obviously bad enough for an admin to block indefinitely on sight. Instead I alone, the one who did not anywhere edit tendentiously, am the one blocked. Indecorous behaviour by other parties is not condemned and thereby endorsed. I tried all I could and nothing was achieved. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help, anyway, but no thanks for blocking me, which has no contributed to the result! I appreciate your concern. GPinkerton (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no clue about the whole situation with ArbCom, and frankly have had to deal with other wiki-drama myself. A word of wiseness (if too little too late), though: User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris/A pocket guide to Arbitration. Shame that dealing with POV pushers can get so infuriating, but well that's life I guess. All the best, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that RandomCanadian, I fear it does come too late to be of much help ... GPinkerton (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed some of your other contributions that seemed good for the project and only learned now of what happened. Considering the circumstances I'd also likely support your return eventually (but at the condition that the topic ban remains, it'd be up to you to be very careful). Farewell for now, —PaleoNeonate – 10:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Violation of TBAN by GPinkerton. Thank you. SQLQuery me! 00:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 1 month from the article and talk namespaces due to your topic ban violations. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, what violation? Can you be specific about which edit you're taking issue with? GPinkerton (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[10][11][12][13] -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, can you explain what events in Lyon in 1943 and 1944 have to do with the middle east or Islam? GPinkerton (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Turkey is a middle eastern country by most definitions. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, none of those edits mention Turkey and concern events in France. GPinkerton (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
born in Turkey, repatriated to Turkey, Turkish ambassador in France, had up to now been Turkish citizens, etc. Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, all these phrases were there before that edit. No-one ever suggested admins could decide mentioning Turkish people was 1.) mentioning the middle east and 2.) forbidden. By contrast, it was stressed at the time that the topic ban applied to the middle east, which is in Asia, and not to anywhere further west. GPinkerton (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That latest improper refactoring of my talk page comments and lying edit summary by Supreme Deliciousness also require administrator attention; they must be reverted and reprimanded, since you will surely agree that no part of Europe is in the middle east and no part of 1453 is after 1453. GPinkerton (talk) 02:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Asia Minor is in Asia. We are hair splitting about one of the four diffs. Your comment in #Chipmunkdavis is a further violation of your topic ban. I have site blocked you and removed your talk page access. If you would like to chat with ArbCom about the case that you are a party to, email them at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 02:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I haven't mentioned Asia Minor. GPinkerton (talk) 02:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After chatting with some other admins. The best thing would be to let you comment on the case at ArbCom. Your full block has been paired back to blocking everything but the Wikipedia Talk namespace. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Guerillero, I am already aware, thank you. GPinkerton (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case ‎Attar-Aram syria, Shadow4Dark, عمرو بن كلثوم[edit]

Hi GPinkerton, I wanted to notify you that the case you filed has been removed per the arbitration committee. 01:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC) SQLQuery me! 01:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SQL, thank you for informing me. GPinkerton (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Chipmunkdavis Please look in the page history; you'll find a wealth of detail that has been omitted by nationalistic edit warriors. GPinkerton (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming this refers to Arab Belt, I suppose that comes with the topic. Reading the above, while I am not familiar with your case or the merits thereof, some above seem to feel you have much to contribute, so I would like to offer that I have also been discouraged by POV issues and a lack of oversight in the past, and have seen good editors give up due to being overwhelmed without support. A good lesson is that no editor can be responsible for maintaining NPOV over a huge area. There is a need to pick your battles, so to speak. Wikipedia has great difficulty handling fraught ethnonationalist disputes, but this has always been the case and there isn't an easy solution. If you feel you hit a wall, best not to keep banging your head on it. If you're looking to continue editing here, my advise is to simply completely cease mentioning the actions of any other editors, no matter how egregious you may feel they are. Don't ask admins to look at the conduct of others. Perhaps yourself don't look at the conduct of others either. Focus solely on yourself and your contributions, and trust things will slowly work out in a generally positive direction. CMD (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, I generally do trust things will work out, but it was when I discovered the decades-long problems with that page that I instantly lost faith in that idea; I found a huge area I had no previous intrest in was, and until now has been, very POV throughout the project's history. I suspect it is one of the worst instances of this in Wikipedia's history, up there with the fake Warsaw concentration camp hoax. I realized months ago I was going to get a lot of "blowback", as they say, but this stonewalling is too big not to demolish it, even if I get hurt when it collapses. GPinkerton (talk) 05:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no ability to judge the severity of this particular case, but it does not sound unique. If the issue is as serious as you say, I hope you come around on your views about the appropriate actions to take are. I don't know how productive your actions so far may have been, but if you're indefinitely blocked you won't be able to demolish much of anything. Again, my uninvolved advice is to stop talking about the actions of other editors, even if there are decades-long issues, and focus solely on your actions, however arbitrary that may feel. Lots of good advice above too. Best, CMD (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, it's OK, much has been demolished already actually: new sanctions are to be issued for the whole topic area and three of the five editors topic-banned. GPinkerton (talk) 05:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it turned out this way[edit]

GPinkerton you probably don't like me very much right now. I get it, we clashed on many content disputes. But I didn't intend for things to be this way (and you probably didn't either). I was the first person to oppose your indef block in December. I also offered you an olive branch back in August. I know I have accused you of wrongdoing in the past, but I'm sure I've wrong too. For that I apologize. Feel free to point out my mistakes or offer any parting advice.VR talk 21:47, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed[edit]

An arbitration case regarding Kurds and Kurdistan has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Paradise Chronicle is warned to avoid casting aspersions and repeating similar uncollegial conduct in the future.

For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan closed
  • I'm sorry, but not surprised, to see this. I hope you'll return eventually, but you'll need to be less combative everywhere. Anyway, thanks for a lot of constructive work. Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per Johnbod. Please take care! Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 15:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best wishes, GPinkerton. I, too, hope you are able to return as a contributor one day. El_C 18:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A motion at A/R/M has been proposed which relates to you[edit]

A motion to modify the wording of your topic ban has been proposed at the public arbitrator motions page. The modification is to clarify that the topic bans apply not just in article space. As you are site banned, you are unable to comment at the motion, but this is to inform you that the wording of your topic ban is likely to change. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan[edit]

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

The phrase "articles related to" in the topic bans for GPinkerton, Thepharoah17, عمرو بن كلثوم, and Supreme Deliciousness are struck, to clarify that the bans are not limited to article-space.

For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Arbitration motion regarding Kurds and Kurdistan

Your draft article, Draft:Gothic churches[edit]

Hello, GPinkerton. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gothic churches".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ΣΕ*ΕΡΟΣ, *ΑΛΕΡΙΑΝΟΣ, etc.[edit]

See my answer on the Greek Wikipedia. As far as I can tell, Β and ΟΥ started being interchangeable as renderings of Latin V as early as the 2nd c BCE. I'm afraid I don't have a modern Greek encyclopedia that I can check, though (I think it's in boxes in the basement...). --Macrakis (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heraclius III[edit]

I can see that you're indefinitely blocked and won't be able to reply here but I'm just writing to let you know that I saw that you wikipedia e-mailed me concerning "Heraclius III", but when I open my e-mail I can't see the e-mail you sent (don't know why), so I can only see the first few words you wrote. I'm aware that there was a co-emperor by the name Heraclius, who could be considered Heraclius III if Heraklonas is considered Heraclius II, but Mango places "Heraclius III" in the co-regency with Heraklonas and Constantine III, whereas the later co-emperor Heraclius ruled with Constans II and Constantine IV. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:14 regions of Constantinople[edit]

Information icon Hello, GPinkerton. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:14 regions of Constantinople, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could have been worse[edit]

Could have said The aircraft which experienced the incident. EEng 11:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:State and official visits to the United Kingdom by Donald Trump[edit]

Information icon Hello, GPinkerton. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:State and official visits to the United Kingdom by Donald Trump, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The 14 regions of Constantinople has been accepted[edit]

The 14 regions of Constantinople, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 11:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Wreaths and crowns in antiquity[edit]

Information icon Hello, GPinkerton. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Wreaths and crowns in antiquity, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Gothic churches[edit]

Hello, GPinkerton. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Gothic churches".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 00:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GPinkerton

Leave a Reply