Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Proposed decision

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

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Rschen7754 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK (Talk)

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

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

For this case there are 9 active arbitrators, not counting 3 recused. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

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

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

Under no circumstances may this page be edited, except by members of the Arbitration Committee or the case Clerks. Please submit comment on the proposed decision to the talk page.

Proposed motions[edit]

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion. Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

The editorial process[edit]

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Courcelles 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I find there's nothing in this principle that isn't in the expanded one that follows. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unnecessary, per Risker. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points from you both, but I thought it was best to start these principles off with the broadest possible statement of thinking (how Wikipedia entries are made), then talk about a slightly less broad statement (how disputes are resolved – through consensus), and then take an increasingly narrow view from there. But you're right that there is some duplication between P1 and P2. AGK [•] 09:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
I think #1 is good as stated. The best way to address Risker's point, if desired, would be to copyedit #2 to minimize the duplication with #1. I can do that, if AGK likes, or of course he can. My supports will stand in any event. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@NYB: Feel free to improve P2 (or indeed P1) as needed. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done (in #2). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Risker and Worm That Turned, please note the change. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus[edit]

2) In resolving disagreements, editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally, and being willing to compromise where appropriate. Editors must accept any reasonable decision arrived at by consensus, on all pages on Wikipedia but especially in relation to articles and article discussion pages.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Copyedited to minimize the duplication of #1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct and decorum[edit]

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Etiquette[edit]

4) Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors must adhere to. Editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Casting aspersions[edit]

5) An editor should not make accusations, such as that another group of editors is biased or habitually violate site policies or norms, without evidence. A persistent pattern of false or unsupported accusations is particularly damaging to the collaborative editing environment. Significant concerns, if they cannot be resolved directly with the other users concerned, should be addressed through the appropriate dispute resolution procedures.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Disruptive or tendentious editing[edit]

6) Contributors who engage in tendentious or disruptive editing of articles, such as by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing or editing against consensus, may be banned from the articles in question or from the site.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Problematic editing[edit]

7) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be prohibited from taking those actions in future, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Fait accompli[edit]

8) Editors who make many similar edits, contrary to clear advice that these edits are controversial or incorrect, must pursue discussion and dispute resolution. Repetitive or voluminous edit patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

9) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 19:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. WormTT(talk) 08:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Courcelles 16:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. T. Canens (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This dispute relates to use of the names "Turkish" and "Ottoman" in military history articles.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support on the basis that this has become a significant part of the dispute, although it does not represent the whole of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. That was the incident which prompted the case, so essentially it's true; though the background of RoslynSKP's tendentious editing and the inappropriate response to it by Jim Sweeney have been looked into and considered. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 17:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. This FoF is not exactly accurate, but this is a minor quibble. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

RoslynSKP: Edit warring[edit]

2) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkish Empire” to “Ottoman Empire” or "Turkish" to "Ottoman". (e.g. 01: [1], [2], [3], [4]. 02: [5], [6]. 03: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]) . On some occasions, these reversions were made with an inaccurate or incomplete edit summary (e.g. [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]).

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Copyedited by adding "or 'Ottoman' to 'Turkish'" and by adding "or incomplete". Any arbitrator may revert if undesired, in which case I will propose as an alternative. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy with that change. Thanks, AGK [•] 06:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There was other edit warring as well. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Corrected some details per comment on talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoslynSKP: Ignoring consensus[edit]

3) RoslynSKP has ignored the consensus view of their fellow editors. In an early November 2013 ANI thread, the disputants consented to honour the status quo for naming conventions until "an agreement was reached". Later in November 2013, a discussion and straw poll was closed with the agreement that troops should be called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman" on all related articles. RoslynSKP then began to edit war on other articles (e.g. [19]), citing the older ANI thread; RoslynSKP did not recognise or failed to accept that the discussion and straw poll constituted the "agreement" required by the ANI thread. RoslynSKP edit warred on the inaccurate grounds that the discussion and straw poll concerned only a single article and not the broader naming dispute (e.g. [20], [21], [22]).

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also not accepting consensus regarding the naming of ANZAC/Anzac: [23], [24], [25]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One evidence submitter refers to Rskp's actions as wikilawyering, and I think it's a pretty sterling example: trying to use the letter of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies to obstruct good-faith, legitimate consensus— the spirit of the thing and why we are here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've reviewed RoslynSKP's response to the proposed findings on the talkpage, and she is correct to the limited extent that a consensus on an issue reached on one page may not control the issue on other pages. But that is true only when there is a credible reason that the outcome should be different on the two different pages, and it ceases to be true when the same outcome is reached after multiple discussions. I appreciate RoslynSKP's dedication to the completeness and accuracy of content, but I am troubled that even as we near the end of an arbitration case, she does not appear to understand why her behavior was damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. And strongly agree with NYB's comments. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per NYB. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

RoslynSKP: Disruptive editing[edit]

4) RoslynSKP has changed "Turkey" to "Ottoman" in talk page threads and other editors' comments (e.g. [26], [27], [28], [29]). RoslynSKP has repeatedly tagged articles concerned in the naming dispute with {{POV}}, a tag which marks an article as being written non-neutrally, and edit warred in the process (e.g. [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]; see also evidence on abuse of maintenance tags).

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer "tendentious". SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Disruptive is better. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (See comment below re title). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per new title WormTT(talk) 10:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the new title. T. Canens (talk) 18:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the new title. Risker (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think that "tenacious" editing is what is being described here; I think this is tendentious editing. Particularly in view of the fact that the principles above don't suggest tenacious editing is a problem in principle, but tendentious editing is, I can't support this. I do think that RoslynSKP's editing has been tendentious and would consider a change in vote with a change in terminology. Risker (talk) 02:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Per below, tendentious is not as applicable here. AGK [•] 09:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Risker: Title has been changed, per discussion below. AGK [•] 10:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
Did we intend to use "tenacious" or "tendentious"? Both would be applicable in this context, I'm just checking. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I intended to use tenacious. It more accurately describes the conduct being documented, though tendentious work would too. AGK [•] 22:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Tenacious" has positive connotations that I don't believe we intend here. "Tendentious" would be a better fit, but better still might be simply "Disruptive". Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can't say I'm happy with "tenacious" either. "Tendentious" doesn't quite fit in my head, though it's closer than "tenacious". I would say "disruptive" would be the best. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tenacious: not readily relinquishing a position, principle, or course of action. Tendentious: expressing or intending to promote a particular point of view. RoslynSKP's problem is with tenacious editing (not accepting consensus), not tendentious editing (POV-pushing), because the choice in this dispute was not between points of view but naming conventions. AGK [•] 09:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we agree on "disruptive" or "problematic" so we can move past this? Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite. I've edited to use "disruptive", which hopefully will make sense to all. AGK [•] 10:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, AGK. Risker (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney edit warring[edit]

5) Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) conducted edit wars with RoslynSKP across multiple articles, [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].

Support:
  1. Proposed. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obvious instances of rollback misuse, too. T. Canens (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Being "right" does not allow one to ignore Wikipedia's policies either. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In a number of these cases, if Jim was correct then he ought to have reported RSKP for administrative action. Note that I asked him on the Workshop, under "Questions for the parties", why he did not do so. His answer was fairly weak. AGK [•] 07:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I see NYB's point, but edit warring is just not acceptable. Courcelles 03:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Jim Sweeney's reaction to this situation was certainly not optimal, but was clearly a product of exasperation more than anything else, and I see little likelihood of recurrence. Thus, while I understand why this has now been proposed, I don't see it as necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:


Proposed remedies[edit]

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

RoslynSKP prohibited[edit]

1) RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from changing 'Turkey' or 'Turkish' to 'Ottoman' on any article. This remedy will apply until successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee; the first appeal may be made no sooner than twelve months after this case closes.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 19:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I wouldn't mind if this was broadened to a general restriction on editing against consensus. However, hopefully RoslynSKP will pick up the message that she should in general work within consensus. I have great admiration for her work, and wish to see her continue to add quality content to the encyclopedia. I wouldn't like to see her back here again. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Like Silk, I am hopeful disengaging from this topic will allow Roslyn to focus on productive collaborative editing in other areas. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

RoslynSKP suspended topic ban[edit]

2) RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I.

This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended (and the prohibition will take effect) if any uninvolved administrator blocks RoslynSKP for misconduct relating to Turkish military history. If the block is reversed or repealed by any of the usual community channels of appeal, the topic ban will lapse back into suspension. This remedy will apply until successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee; the first appeal may be made no sooner than nine months after this case closes.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 20:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would prefer to focus on behaviour rather than topic; I feel it's just as easy/difficult for admins to assess if someone is editing problematically outside consensus as it is for them to assess if someone is editing within a topic area. However, as this is a suspended topic ban, RoslynSKP would be able to continue producing good content as long as she refrains from problematic behaviour - therefore as a solution it has the same end result, so I support it. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Willing to give this a try. Risker (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hopefully will work. Might need tweak per comments below. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. OK with giving this a try. T. Canens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I still have the reservation I mention below, and also share Salvio's concern, but I will go ahead and support this with the understanding that it can be tailored as appropriate at the enforcement stage (although I hope we don't get to an enforcement stage). Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. First of all, I'd favour a less broad topic ban. But, also, while I like the idea of a suspended topic ban, I don't think it should be automatic. Linking the unsuspension of this sanction to a block may lead admins not to block even when warranted, on the assumption that Roslyn's actions, while disruptive, are not so disruptive as to merit an indefinite topic ban. In my opinion, allowing the blocking admin to unsuspend the topic ban would be a good idea, but this should not be made the automatic consequence of a block. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I hate this remedy for two reasons; our unblock system is lousy - a short block often expires before any substantive review takes place (or a cowboy admin unblocks quickly); and I think the conduct here has been egregious enough that the topic ban should be imposed immediately. Courcelles 03:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why the ban will be unsuspended if it is "reversed or repealed". It is enough for any uninvolved administrator, with adequate grounds, to annul the law after the fact. AGK [•] 06:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I'm in general support of this approach, but the trigger for the topic-ban (a single block by any admin for any length) may need tweaking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, nine months seems an odd period to chose, is there a particular reason for it? Would prefer six or twelve. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, all the remedies are designed to be appealable after different times: 6, 9, and 12 months. The intention is to gradually but carefully reform RoslynSKP's editing habits, with the corollary being that if she fails to improve her editing habits the appeals will not be granted. AGK [•] 09:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Ok, happy with that. WormTT(talk) 09:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Newyorkbrad, the trigger isn't just any single block by any admin. It's a block that isn't later overturned, by an uninvolved admin, for misconduct in this topic area. My thinking is that if RSKP is still being blocked for misconduct in this dispute after we close this case, a topic ban will at that point be the only realistic solution. AGK [•] 09:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoslynSKP revert restriction[edit]

3) RoslynSKP is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 72-hour period. This restriction will apply until successfully appealed to the Arbitration Committee; the first appeal may be made no sooner than six months after this case closes.

This restriction does not apply to obvious vandalism or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. As described at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Exceptions to limited bans, an "obvious" case is where no reasonable person could disagree with the revert.

Support:
  1. Proposed. AGK [•] 20:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With a c/e to make clear that "obvious" qualifies BLP violations as well, which I assume is what is intended. Revert if disagree. T. Canens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
As with any revert restriction, I hope that editors will focus on the intent and substance of the remedy rather than arguing endlessly about technicalities of the revert rules. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoslynSKP tagging restriction[edit]

4) For a period of one year, RoslynSKP is prohibited from adding maintenance tags, such as {{POV}}, to any article or section of an article without first raising her concern on the talkpage and obtaining the agreement of at least one other editor that the tag is appropriate.

Support:
  1. Proposed. Overuse of maintenance tags without sufficient cause—such as constantly tagging articles or sections with the dreaded "POV" template where the main concern was about nomenclature—seriously and unnecessary aggravated this dispute. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. WormTT(talk) 08:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with restriction on article tagging. Would prefer that the appeal is lifted on appeal - preferably six months in line with the revert restriction. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel strongly either way about that, so if others agree, please feel free to modify accordingly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moving from abstain so we can finalise this proposal, though I still think it's redundant. AGK [•] 11:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. T. Canens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Courcelles 03:28, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
I don't think this is necessary (per the talk page), but I don't think it will be harmful either. AGK [•] 09:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
We might want to add a principle on this issue as well. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is probably covered under the "problematic editing" principle. Risker (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's covered under that umbrella as well, although we could add more particular diffs if you think it needs more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney reminded[edit]

5) Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

Support:
  1. SilkTork ✔Tea time 15:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. AGK [•] 07:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my comment on the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The finding is appropriate, but I think a formal arbitration remedy is too harsh here. Courcelles 03:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:


Proposed enforcement[edit]

Standard enforcement[edit]

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Appeals of blocks may be made to the imposing administrator, and thereafter to arbitration enforcement, or to the Arbitration Committee. All blocks shall be logged in the appropriate section of the main case page. (Default provision: adopted by motion on 4 June 2012.)

Comments:

Discussion by Arbitrators[edit]

On Jim Sweeney[edit]

As it appears JS was enforcing a clearly valid consensus on naming conventions, I have not brought findings or remedies against him. AGK [•] 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As he was conducting an ANZAC/Anzac edit war across multiple articles, [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], I think a reminder not to edit war is appropriate, otherwise ArbCom gives the impression that edit warning is acceptable where the parties feel they have consensus. If someone's editing is problematic, people are generally encouraged and advised to use appropriate dispute resolution rather than edit war. SilkTork ✔Tea time 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the onus was on RoslynSKP to get consensus for her changes, not on Jim to obtain more consensus for version preceding RSKP's changes. Although RSKP's position in this dispute was understandable, I think it's clear she should not have made the edits she did, and conversely that Jim clearly did have consensus for his edits. Warning him would be like shooting the messenger. AGK [•] 09:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are certain times when continually reverting is allowed. Disagreement over minor content is not one of them. Policy on appropriate procedures when in a disagreement over content is outlined at WP:AVOIDEDITWAR. Better for Jim to have asked for assistance. However, I would rather not propose a warning if there is no support for it; and nobody else has commented here, so I must be alone in my view. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When dealing with block appeals, administrators generally say that being right does not excuse edit warring. Now, Jim's edits were in keeping with consensus and that should be taken into consideration; so, I believe that a reminder is warranted and would support one. Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

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

These notes were last updated by — ΛΧΣ21; the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 The editorial process 7 0 2 PASSING -3
2 Consensus 9 0 0 PASSING -4
3 Conduct and decorum 9 0 0 PASSING -4
4 Etiquette 9 0 0 PASSING -4
5 Casting aspersions 9 0 0 PASSING -4
6 Disruptive or tendentious editing 9 0 0 PASSING -4
7 Problematic editing 9 0 0 PASSING -4
8 Fait accompli 9 0 0 PASSING -4
9 Role of the Arbitration Committee 9 0 0 PASSING -4
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Locus of dispute 8 0 1 PASSING -3
2 RoslynSKP: Edit warring 9 0 0 PASSING -4
3 RoslynSKP: Ignoring consensus 9 0 0 PASSING -4
4 RoslynSKP: Disruptive editing 9 0 0 PASSING -4
5 Jim Sweeney edit warring 6 1 0 PASSING -1
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 RoslynSKP prohibited 9 0 0 PASSING -4
2 RoslynSKP suspended topic ban 7 2 0 PASSING -2
3 RoslynSKP revert restriction 9 0 0 PASSING -4


4 RoslynSKP tagging restriction 9 0 0 PASSING -4
5 Jim Sweeney reminded 5 2 0 PASSING 0
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Standard enforcement 0 0 0 PASSING 5
Notes


Vote[edit]

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

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support
  1. Salvio Let's talk about it! 18:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. T. Canens (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AGK [•] 19:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute/Proposed_decision&oldid=1136115838"