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

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comment by GregJackP
I recommend that the committee decline the request. This is first and foremost a content dispute that has not availed itself of all possible solutions before coming here. ArbCom is a last resort, a final appeal for issues which cannot be solved in any other way, only here, the other methods have not be attempted yet (with the exception of ANI).

I'm not involved in any of the articles involved. GregJackP  Boomer!   16:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Peacemaker67
I disagree with GregJackP. This request is here because the disputation is like a running sore and the infection appears to be spreading to articles right across WWI in the Middle East, to the detriment of content creation, reviewing, the MILHIST project and WP as a whole. It is no mere content dispute, but an issue of highly disruptive editing, ownership, deafness, gaming and battlegrounding. ArbCom is here to sanction editors by way of giving them a disincentive for continuing widespread and disruptive behaviour. No other resolution seems at all likely to have the desired effect. ANI has been tried already, and there have been many discussions about this issue within the MILHIST project, both on article talk and the general MILHIST and coordinator MILHIST talk pages. Despite MILHIST consensus on an issue, Roslyn immediately starts up the same issue at another article, claims it is a different issue because it is a different article, thereby demonstrating she doesn't respect consensus, which is a critical aspect of WP. It is an intractable problem and needs attention from a group of experienced but uninvolved arbitrators who can properly examine the evidence, draw conclusions and wield a stick on behalf of the community. That is why it is here, and why I believe it is appropriate for ArbCom to accept it. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D
I agree with the comments made by Peacemaker67 above (I am also one of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, and made an unsuccessful attempt to resolve an earlier iteration of this dispute either last year or in 2011). This has been a long-running problem, and has escalated sharply in recent months. Attempts to resolve the issues through discussions on various article and project talk pages have not been successful, and discussions at ANI and AN have not lead to any admin being willing to step up and try to sort out the issue (possibly as it's seen as being too long-running for any single admin to handle, especially as the obvious solutions would involve topic and/or interaction bans which admins can't impose unilaterally).

While a RfC/U would be helpful in setting out the issues and judging the weight of opinion on RoslynSKP's conduct, I don't think that it would lead to a resolution as, based on their recent history, RoslynSKP isn't taking the opposition to their actions seriously and keeps re-opening the same tired debates and causing the same disruption. RoslynSKP's recent somewhat over-blown complaint about the use of rollback at AN (for which Jim was correctly warned by an admin) is particularly concerning as this appears to have been an attempt to "win" a content dispute they'd lost through use of administrative actions targeting their opponent rather than by building or accepting consensus. His or her statement above is also concerning as it indicates that they still haven't acknowledged that the concerns raised by other editors are over their conduct rather than content, or that they accept the results of previous discussions of the relevant content.

As such, I think that ArbCom is probably now the best placed organisation to handle this matter, though I don't think that it is particularly complex: IMO it boils down to RoslynSKP against the world, and I note that the editors he or she has been arguing with for months are among the most respected and civil around. If a very experienced admin wanted to wade into this and devote a lot of time to the matter they could possibly resolve it, but at this point what should be a straightforward Arbitration case is probably the most practical and fairest way forward. Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Anotherclown
I have had numerous interactions with RoslynSKP over the last few years and endorse a number of the other statements above, including those by Nick D, MarcusBritish and Jim Sweeney as accurate statements of some of the many issues here. This editor has been at the centre of numerous disputes with many different editors, all surrounding articles related to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, and has been the one constant in each of these disputes which must surely suggest a pattern. Due to the value of the articles this editor has contributed many editors have attempted to assist by copyediting her work, reviewing, making suggestions and adding / expanding to them. For many editors though this has proven a trying experience, particularly when correcting errors, as this has very often resulted in disputes, reversion without discussion, edit warring due, and other disruptive behaviour due to that editor’s issues with WP:OWN and failure to WP:AGF. This is not limited to the single issue of the Turkish / Ottoman wording dispute but has been wide ranging across numerous articles and issues for several years. At the heart of the problem seems to be difficulty accepting community consensus when she disagrees with the agreed posn. When finally confronted by a majority opinion she will usually claim to have been unaware of the policy (despite it having been linked to repeatedly in the discussion by other editors) or claim that it should only be applied to a single article. Some recent examples of disruptive behaviour include:


 * Breaching 3RR:
 * Charge at Huj b/n: 26-30 Nov 13
 * Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917) b/n: 26-27 Oct 13
 * Editing / redacting other people’s talk page comments, including changing “Turkish” to “Ottoman” here (in my talk cmts)
 * Repeatedly editing, removing or redacting other users talk cmts, including here:
 * Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) b/n: 24-29 Sep 13
 * Editing against community consensus to make a point:
 * 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade on 30 Nov 13
 * Talk:Harry Chauvel b/n 31 Oct and 01 Nov 13
 * Numerous examples of low level “niggle” and personal attacks against other editors, then aggressively removing any criticism she feels is a personal attack on herself (some of which admittedly probably have been).
 * Applying unsubstantiated POV, clarify / dubious and other tags on articles related to the Sinai and Palestine Campaign that have been worked on by other editors that she has had disputes / disagreements with:
 * 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade: on 12 Jan 13 (see also the GA review for this article)
 * 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia): b/n 24 Sep to 20 Oct 13
 * Desert Mounted Corps: b/n 24-30 Nov 13
 * ANZAC Mounted Division: b/n 10-22 Nov 13
 * Gallipoli Campaign: in Jul 13
 * Edit warring at Harry Chauvel b/n: 27-29 Oct 13 (and numerous other associated articles to change name against WP:COMMONNAME)
 * Edit warring at Desert Mounted Corps b/n Sep and Oct 13
 * Edit warring at 3rd Light Horse Brigade b/n 25-29 Oct 13
 * Adding information against consensus at Battle of Sharon b/n 18 Sep and 04 Oct 13
 * Disruptive move requests at ANZAC Mounted Division (four move requests and a move review).
 * Repeatedly moving posts from her user talk page to article talk pages, including 3 RR warnings (and deleting others altogether), e.g. b/n 27 Nov and 01 Dec 13.

These examples are only some of the most recent that I can recall, but there have been many other issues over the last few years. As an editor who has been involved in some of these disputes, and one who has not always managed to remain professional in these interactions, I accept my cmts will probably be easy to ignore, or perhaps I too may face sanction. Personally would be quite happy if this was to occur – ban the lot of us if that means that this issue is finally addressed and the project can move forward without wasting its time dealing with these problems. This behavior has gone on way too long and represents a failure of all involved. There is no victimization here. Indeed the community has gone above and beyond to attempt to assist this editor come to terms with our policies and to work with her to help improve her skills as an editor. Yet far too much bad behaviour on Roslyn’s part has been tolerated, no doubt due to her value as a content contributor, and potentially due to the fact that this seems to be seen as a case that is “too hard” to deal with. The community needs to resolve this because numerous individuals have tried without success. Anotherclown (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for amendment (January 2014)
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=589635035#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4 Archived discussion]


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by  NE Ent at 22:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Case affected :


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) suspended topic ban


 * List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
 * (initiator) not really, but it's in the form
 * AE admins (multiple)
 * AE admins (multiple)


 * Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RoslynSKP&diff=prev&oldid=588586948 RosylnSKP]
 * [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=588587344&oldid=588542375 AE]


 * Information about amendment request


 * [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute#RoslynSKP_suspended_topic_ban|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...]]
 * Either delete the "suspended" part (putting the ban into effect), or
 * Change to: "This topic ban is suspended and will be unsuspended if the consensus of administrators at arbitration enforcement is that it is appropriate to minimize continued disruption to the encyclopedia." (or equivalent).

Statement by NE Ent
The absolute binary nature of this remedy has put the AE community in the awkward position of either ignoring or imposing a severe remedy for what is arguably a minor, perhaps unintentional, infraction of the revert restriction remedy of the case. Please see applicable AE discussion. The committee should either just go ahead and impose the ban, or empower the admins at the AE to use their judgement as to whether the remedy is appropriate in a particular context. NE Ent 23:07, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Collect
A splendid example of the "law of unintended consequences." Fixable simply by changing will be to may be and adding after discussion at Arbitration Enforcement. Sorter wording and wording which well ought to be adopted by ArbCom in similar cases in future. Collect (talk) 23:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
I'm commenting here as an administrator who has also commented about the currently open enforcement request. I didn't follow the original case and have no opinion about whether the Committee's remedy that provides for an automatic topic ban of RosylnSKP in the event of a block is appropriate or not. That is for the Committee to determine, although I would find it surprising if the Committee were to change its mind so soon about a case it decided just a week ago.

Procedurally, I find this request by an editor who has no apparent reason to make it, because they are neither an administrator nor personally involved in the case, unhelpful. It adds an additional complication to processing the open enforcement request. This is not the first time that this forum has been used to preempt or influence an ongoing enforcement proceeding, which makes the enforcement process even more complicated and time-consuming. I recommend that the Committee considers under which if any circumstances it wants to accept amendment requests pertaining to decisions that are in the process of being enforced, and that it clarifies whether such requests mean that ongoing enforcement proceedings should be suspended (which, absent rules to that effect, I assume is not the case).  Sandstein  11:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


 * RosylnSKP has now resumed editing and has apparently chosen not to make a statement about this request. Instead she has continued to edit in a manner that violates the restrictions that apply to her pursuant to the decision. I have therefore closed the enforcement request with a block, which activates the topic ban. This is of course without prejudice to any changes the Committee may wish to make as a result of this request.  Sandstein   11:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Unlike HJ Mitchell, I don't have any particular objections to the structure of this remedy. If the Committee can topic-ban somebody, then a maiore ad minus they can make that ban contingent on a prior block. It is perhaps helpful to remember that in principle, arbitration enforcement is supposed to be a purely mechanical execution of a previous decision, for which the Committee and not the executing administrator is responsible. Administrators are not supposed to exercise any independent judgment except to the extent needed to determine if the conditions for the enforcement of the remedy are met, and perhaps how long a block should last. That's not a matter of "tying hands", it's because the authority to exercise any discretion lies with the Committee and not with administrators. In this sense, the enforcement of "ordinary" remedies like this one is much different from that of discretionary sanctions, where the Committee has explicitly delegated the authority to exercise discretion to administrators. Only in that context are administrators authorized (and required) to exercise their own judgment about such questions as which sanction would be appropriate for a specific infraction. Whether contingent sanctions such as this one are in principle a good idea is a different question, about which I don't really have an opinion. I suppose it depends on the case and the editors involved.  Sandstein   17:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Carcharoth
Commenting here not as an arbitrator (I recused on the case itself), but as someone who has a passing knowledge of the some of the history here: the underlying content matter looks to be extremely complex. As far as I can tell, the use of both the terms Ottoman and Turkish is valid in such articles, as long as those terms are used correctly. But to use them correctly requires a solid understanding of the politics and history of the region. One of the books I'm reading at the moment is A Peace to End All Peace - The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (Fromkin, 1989). That is by no means definitive, and there are obviously a multitude of sources that can be consulted, but the key point is that both terms can be used in the same article as long as you use them correctly (the fact that multiple academic sources use both terms depending on the context should make that clear). I think the idea that you have to use one term to the exclusion of the other on one article, or even use them interchangeably, is wrong, and that wasn't emphasised enough in the MILHIST discussions, and the arbitration case may have missed some of the more subtle points of this altogether. The key is to understand the sources and use the terms correctly. I understand that arbitration cases focus on conduct, but I'm making this statement in the hope that those editing such articles, and also those carrying out arbitration enforcement, don't draw the conclusion from the arbitration case that the underlying content matter is a simple one. Some editors do, or may, need to be excluded from the discussions, but more discussion of the content issues here will be needed at some point. Carcharoth (talk) 03:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been trying to work out where RoslynSKP goes from here. What I'm about to say is not intended to in any way excuse her conduct, but is aimed at trying to work out what the impact of this will be on the encylopedia and trying to minimise that.
 * (i) RoslynSKP may herself comment at some stage, but as this is her first ever block she may not be quite sure what to do next. If she does comment here or on her talk page, those responding may want to take this into account.
 * (ii) Looking at the case pages, as far as I can tell she is not allowed to appeal the topic ban until nine months have passed since the close of the case. IIRC, the topic ban covers most of the work she does on Wikipedia (see here for examples of articles she has drafted and moved from her userspace in this topic area). I agree that RoslynSKP needs to demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas (per Newyorkbrad), but would it not be possible to allow an appeal after a shorter period of time than nine months?
 * (iii) There appear to be two draft articles in her userspace: User:RoslynSKP/Gaza school of military strategy and User:RoslynSKP/Allenby's preparations for maneuver warfare. I presume she had plans for other such articles as well. Are these covered by the topic ban and will RoslynSKP be unable to work on these or similar drafts in her userspace for the next nine months?
 * Much depends on RoslynSKP's reaction to the block. If she does begin to recognise what she needs to do here, I hope ArbCom will be able to work out some way of helping her move forward and continue the positive aspects of her work here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Addendum - three follow-up points (A) Neotarf left this note on my talk page. I gave the following reply. Reading the entirety of RoslynSKP's talk page and user page may give more insight into what is going on here. (B) RoslynSKP has appealed her block on her user talk page. Despite the earlier notification of this amendment request, I am not sure she is aware of it - is it possible she missed some of the messages left on her talk page? (C) I had discussed some elements of this earlier with the blocking administrator (Sandstein), and on his user talk page he mentioned a possible need for clarification which he may bring here. Carcharoth (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Nick-D
Given that this edit (which triggered Sandstein's action) can only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1, activating the topic ban seems entirely sensible. Which is a shame as I previously supported only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Harry Mitchell
Sandstein's action—which seems reasonable to me, given the edit that triggered it and RoslynSKP's lack of response at AE (despite my best effort to avoid a block and automatic topic ban)—might make this moot. However, I'd just like to say that I'd prefer not to see admins' hands bound like that again. What we were faced with was a relatively minor breach of the applicable remedy. An indefinite topic ban for such a violation would normally be considered grossly disproportionate (and, if enacted unilaterally by an AE admin, would likely be reduced on appeal); a short block would be much more likely under ordinary circumstances. In this case, we were left with the choice of essentially letting RoslynSKP off, or triggering a disproportionate sanction that would not normally have been considered.

ArbCom: if it is your desire to remove somebody from a topic area, then, frankly, you are perfectly capable of doing that yourselves. If it is your desire to give an editor enough rope and hope they don't hang themselves with it, then please don't force AE admins to act as hangmen for a trivial misdemeanour. I endorse any proposed wording that gives admins just a little leeway. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Statement by RoslynSKP
I have been aware of this discussion, but had not taken part because I simply don't understand much of what is discussed. Now I can't as its also blocked. I am just an editor trying to get through this. Until this block there has never been any indication that other edits which did not change the appellations would also be violations. I did not set out to argue for one above the other, and still resist that interpretation, but to clearly state what the note only alludes to. Nick-D's characterisation that it could "only have been a deliberate decision to violate, or at least seriously test, restriction 1" is completely wrong, and needs to be appreciated in the light of every other comment this editor has made since first contact. If the words of the Arbitration decision can be taken at face value then restriction 1 has not been violated as the appellations were not changed. If a much broader interpretation was implied then some indication of this should have been given to me.

I was about to log off when I got the link to where I was relieved to find Carcharoth's attempt to put the complexities of the appellation question into some perspective, which MILHIST discussion completely failed to do. Mention must also be made of Neotarf's note in Carcharoth's link which claims articles were written by someone from a list of battle names, none of which were used in the three articles referred to and the lists of citations and references clearly demonstrate the error of claiming the articles were based on this one source. --Rskp (talk) 03:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: As RoslynSKP is blocked, I have copied this statement that they made on their talk page. --Rschen7754 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Free Advice from EdChem
I offered Roslyn some unsolicited free advice from an uninvolved editor here, which others may wish to be aware of. I share Carcharoth's surprise that a clean block log was not noted during the case, and also wonder whether it should not have been a factor considered by Sandstein in choosing the block length. Roslyn may not have the knowledge of blocks and sanctions that is typical of editors restricted by ArbCom. EdChem (talk)

Clerk notes

 * This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I opposed the remedy in question because it made the unsuspension of the topic ban the automatic consequence of any block; therefore, I'd certainly support this amendment.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't support the "automatic" nature here, I don't support it for the reason of tying hands. I would suggest that we rather enact standard discretionary sanctions for any disruption caused by RoslynSKP and leave the details to the AE admins based upon the specific incident. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the topic ban is now in force, and I don't see any reason to believe its imposition was invalid, I no longer see any need for any modification. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I supported the remedy in a "right, you've got one chance and one chance only". If RoslynSKP gets to the point that she should be blocked, she should be topic banned. As such, I don't see that it should be changed. Worm TT( talk ) 09:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Disinclined to grant this request, per WTT. AGK  [•] 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Noting that Roslyn is now blocked and if this is not amended the topic ban is now in force. My impression here is that this is a user who was testing the edges and seeing what they could get away with. That being the case I think we can just let this stand as written and consider the topic ban in force. This attempt at a "parole" structure for a sanction does not appear to have worked as intended. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite. We never envisaged that RoslynSKP would have just edited exactly how she did before, consequences be damned! AGK  [•] 21:22, 2 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think an amendment is necessary in light of the recent developments. T. Canens (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The recent developments simplify the matter, I don't see an amendment as being necessary. NativeForeigner Talk 06:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On the proposed decision page I expressed concern when we were voting that the "trigger" for the topic-ban needed tweaking, but when there wasn't much agreement with me I let it go. Perhaps I should have made a bigger issue of it at the time. I am not sure whether, by the time of the block, RoslynSKP had finally gotten the message that her editing methods needed to change, albeit at least a week, if not a year or more, later than she should have gotten it. In any event, at this point the topic-ban stands; she has the option of requesting that it be lifted at some point if she can demonstrate an ability to edit properly and without controversy in other areas. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why you'd begrudge us not taking up your concern about the topic ban trigger unless you think a ban shouldn't have been triggered by Sandstein in this case. Do you? AGK  [•] 02:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a point a couple of days ago when it appeared that RoslynSKP was likely to be topic-banned before I thought it was clearly needed. Had that happened I would have been troubled. When she pressed the envelope further, my concern was mitigated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd consider this moot now, but it is a useful data point if the time comes to consider this approach in another case. I would be inclined to make the change suggested if we decide to take this approach in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sactions

 * Moved from main page — ΛΧΣ  21  Call me Hahc21 00:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Although Sandstein claims the block was for misconduct relating to Turkish military history, JamesBWatson states "All the other stuff you have written (such as the stuff about changing "Turkish" to "Ottoman") is irrelevant, as that is not the reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)" in the declined request to unblock. Can you please clarify the reason for the continuing ban on editing Turkish military history in and predating World War 1? --Rskp (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)