Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute/Evidence
This case is now closed and pages relating to it may no longer be watched
|
Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Rschen7754 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Evidence
[edit]
Are there any examples available of evidence submitted in other naming disputes? --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Limits
[edit]
I've just noticed the infobox at the top about how many words and diffs parties and others can add. I'm probably well over the limit for the diffs I've given and no clue on my word count. Regardless, I'm going to request to exceed the limits retroactively and in advance, should it become necessary to expand on my evidence further, which is probably likely though not by much more. Given that this is a two-fold case with conjoined content disputes and editor behaviour concerns to relate to, going back as much as 2 years, it probably isn't easy to stay within the standard meagre limits for everyone, though on the plus-side for those who have to review it all, there only seems to be half as many people giving evidence as I expected. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Repeating request for extension as it seems to have gone unnoticed and I'm getting annoying bloody red-tape templates plastered all over the place. Request for 150 diffs and a 1200 word count. That should suffice, once again bearing in mind that this is a two-fold case. If clerks saw fit to make Type A/B then it would have also been prudent and logical to also provide more word/diff space to satisfy the need to provide evidence across both types also, instead of bureaucratic measures which make life more difficult. I've never known such a trying and ridiculous system... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Table
[edit]
How is it possible for me to assess, or answer the information contained in MarcusBritish's table or their claim that they do "not believe Jim Sweeney's behaviour was as much at fault for the same ownership issues and unwillingness to collaborate that RoslynSKP shows"? --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Clerical error
[edit]
This case has a clerical error which I request be reviewed and amended forthwith. I was not detailed as a "party" by User:TomStar81 in the filing for this case, and it would now seem that this is having a detrimental effect on my ability to present evidence under this committee's somewhat draconian set of procedures. It should be noted that I was the editor who began the !vote at MilHist which plays a major role in this case, and is a highly contended point, and therefore I am a directly involved party to the proceedings. I should not have been unlisted and request that this oversight, due to TomStar81's mistake, be corrected. This will allow my evidence to come closer to the Party permitted diff/word count allowance and a reasonable expansion be granted. As it stand, at present, I am detailed as little more than a witness to the events, when I have actually been involved as much as TomStar81 in recent weeks. Given that this is the first time I, or TomStar81, have been involved in an ArbCom case, it is not unreasonable to assume that this issue could not be predicted in advance, so it only leaves me to appeal to reason that these details be corrected immediately. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Clarification request[edit]
It appears at the moment that we will be in of a clarification request as it relates to the case. When I filed the request initially I had done so at the request of the military history project coordinators, in part because in a brief review of the immediate rules and guidelines adopted by the Arbitration Committee to govern both itself and the Arbitration process I found that there was no apparent guideline or ruling to prevent a person from filing a motion on behalf of or for a larger group of people and in part because I felt that the coordinators as a whole would be in a better position to present evidence in the case. In any given coordinator tranche there are usually 12-15 coordinators, of which on average 2-3 become particularly active in a given dispute between editors. It is part of coordinator's job description to help hammer out differences between members, and I felt that filing my request on behalf of all coordinators would afford each of us a position as a filing member. Apparently though this was not clearly conveyed, and now it appears that the clerks and a coordinator are at odds over how to interpret the filing request. I offer no excuse for this failure to clearly communicate my intention, but as we are currently engaged in the arbitration process it will fall to you to decide how best to proceed on this matter. From where I sit, there are five possible solutions to resolve this matter:
Any of these will work, albeit some better than others, but we will need your input before the parties, the witness, and the clerks can move forward with the case. Again, I apologize for this oversight, as I should have thought to clarify it much sooner than this, but I was unaware that it would become an issue. In the interest of disclosure as it relates to bullet 2, those coordinators who would be considered filing party members are those listed in the table on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, beginning with the VIII Coordinator Tranche (27 September 2009 – 28 March 2010). It is important to note that while the number of contributors listed as coordinators from then till now appears high, the actual number of coordinators from that table who actively participated in dispute resolution with RoslynSKP within the Military history Project is probably going to be small, so I would not expect more than 5-8 of the coordinators who would be eligible to participate in these proceedings to add to the page if option two was endorsed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Drafter's ruling[edit]Ruling on evidence length and disputant status for MILHIST co-ordinators: Thank you for thoughtfully and carefully framing these issues for me. I will allow Military history co-ordinators to individually enrol themselves as parties to this case, by adding their username to the involved parties list. They will then be entitled to a 1000/100 word/diff allowance for their evidence. Individual co-ordinators will have to decide for themselves whether they wish to become a party; we cannot add the entity of Military History project co-ordinators as a party to the case. Co-ordinators should only add themselves as parties if they have had actual involvement in the underlying dispute. I may revisit these directions at a later date, and any editor – party or not – can otherwise still ask for their evidence word and/or diff limits to be increased; such requests, where at all reasonable, will probably be granted. I hope this clarifies the situation. Thank you, AGK [•] 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
@MarcusBritish: What theme will the next part of your evidence have? Giving me a preview as a pithy title like User X does Y, such as you have given in your submission sub-headers, will help me judge whether a larger submission from you will be helpful. Thanks, AGK [•] 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
|
Word extension
[edit]
Thanks for the surprise word extension AGK. Can I have an time extension to make use of it? --Rskp (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
|
History, semantics, and possible options
[edit]The general Anatolia region has been referred to as "Turkey" for roughly 1,000 years now. In the 11th century, the Seljuq dynasty overthrew the Ghaznavids and subsequently ousted the Byzantines from Asia Minor (for more on that, check out our article on the Battle of Manzikert and branch off from there). It was here that military commander Suleiman ibn Qutulmish founded the Sultanate of Rum. Although the Byzantine–Seljuq wars raged on for a few centuries more, the Turks were firmly established in the land and the other native inhabitants — Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, etc. — were gradually assimilated into the Turkic culture from then on. By the time Rum was dissolved in the early 1300s, most of Anatolia was Turkish. Whether we're talking about the Sultanate of Rum, the partly concurrent Anatolian beyliks (i.e. principalities), the Ottoman Empire, or the present-day Turkish republic, every single one of them was colloquially referred to as "Turkey".
This boils down to semantics, and I don't think establishing some sort of standard practice would be convenient. I will say this, calling it the "Ottoman Turkish Empire" is a bit redundant; the regions under Ottoman rule were always seen as the "Turkish Empire", so it hardly needs that additional designation. Nevertheless, I generally prefer "Ottoman Empire" within a political context because it places specific emphasis on the rulers themselves. When we're talking about the Anatolian region prior to the creation of the modern Turkish state, or even the empire as a whole in some contexts, "Turkey" can certainly apply. I might alternate between the two terms myself when I'm dealing with text regarding some portion of Ottoman history (e.g. World War I).
The Arbitration Committee exclusively presides over matters of editorial conduct; content is beyond its remit. That doesn't mean they can't play an advisory role. Topic bans might be necessary in this case, but I feel as if we could take this opportunity to set off on the road towards accomplishing something else. The Arbitration Committee might want to consider recommending a community discussion regarding naming conventions for the Ottoman Empire. From what I've been able to gather, similar resolutions were passed in the tree shaping, abortion, TimidGuy, and infobox cases. I don't remember being involved in any of the subsequent discussions, but it doesn't seem as if they've procured bad results. Then again, I'll reiterate what I said above — I think "Turkey" and "the Ottoman Empire" can be used interchangeably in most contexts, although the latter would be preferable when dealing with matters of politics.
I might propose some of these ideas over at the workshop, assuming no one else has by the time I revisit this case. Kurtis (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've already drafted several proposals, but may I suggest that this section be moved to the Workshop talk page, as we may need to discuss it there in relation to proposals rather than evidence, as such options bear more relevance to the future outcome of this case rather than evidence of past or ongoing disruptions. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Given that a clear consensus emerged after the discussion moved to a relevant central noticeboard (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute) I'm not sure if ArbCom really needs to recommend further discussion or the use of additional/changed/different processes. A reminder that people should seek wide input in this kind of matter may be in line though. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)We at the Military history Project concede all points you raised above, which is why we are not here to ask which version should be used. What we need is a declaration from the group that it is and will be consensus that determines which of the two terms will be used in and given article on the subject articles, and that the consensus agreed upon must not be overturned simply for "political correctness". That the two terms are considered synonymous in parts of the English speaking world does not give editor(s) the right to unilaterally revert any and all attempts to use the language interchangeably if that is what the consensus among the contributors to a page is to do, which is why we are here. Military history Project coordinators are currently review a proposal to amend our manual of style to tighten up this apparent loophole, so I'm hopeful that between a hammer and anvil approach there and here we will be able to address this type of issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent! So a consensus already exists. Now I guess it's time for ArbCom to make a decision of some sort pertaining to the conduct of the parties. But wait, does this really require arbitration to accomplish? I'm confused. Kurtis (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You'll need to read through the main page case statements to realise that one of the parties is strongly opposed to the consensus plus maintains various other long-term disputes which need closing down by ArbCom. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Marcus sums up the issue nicely above, so all I'm going to add is that, in short, the problem here is one of demonstrating that the rules apply to everyone at all times, not just to most of the people some of the time. Accordingly, then, we need the arbitration committee to make a very firm, very enforceable ruling on the matter to demonstrate that those who refuse to listen to reason on this site will be made to listen to force, and that when made to listen to force the experience gets very unpleasant very quickly. For that, I was and remain willing to see this through no matter the cost. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Marcus: I was aware of that just by looking at the reversions; it's pretty obvious when you check out the evidence presented.
@Tom: Alright then, that makes sense. Here's hoping things can be resolved from here. This whole dispute seems silly to me. Kurtis (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems silly to us all, but someone has a high horse and thinks it is all of us and not them who are silly. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Can you please not make comments like that? Thank you. AGK [•] 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems silly to us all, but someone has a high horse and thinks it is all of us and not them who are silly. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You'll need to read through the main page case statements to realise that one of the parties is strongly opposed to the consensus plus maintains various other long-term disputes which need closing down by ArbCom. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Excellent! So a consensus already exists. Now I guess it's time for ArbCom to make a decision of some sort pertaining to the conduct of the parties. But wait, does this really require arbitration to accomplish? I'm confused. Kurtis (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)We at the Military history Project concede all points you raised above, which is why we are not here to ask which version should be used. What we need is a declaration from the group that it is and will be consensus that determines which of the two terms will be used in and given article on the subject articles, and that the consensus agreed upon must not be overturned simply for "political correctness". That the two terms are considered synonymous in parts of the English speaking world does not give editor(s) the right to unilaterally revert any and all attempts to use the language interchangeably if that is what the consensus among the contributors to a page is to do, which is why we are here. Military history Project coordinators are currently review a proposal to amend our manual of style to tighten up this apparent loophole, so I'm hopeful that between a hammer and anvil approach there and here we will be able to address this type of issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Minor fix
[edit]Can you help me get a diff to my edit of 05:33 2 November in the archived Improper rollback application on the Administrators' noticeboard [2]? --Rskp (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- The diff is this one: [3]. AGK [•] 10:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)