Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:15, 19 December 2013

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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 or clerk, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behaviour during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Proposed Remedy #2 incidentally rules on content

This remedy incidentally touches on content by using "Turkish" instead of "Turkish or Ottoman" referring to a time before the foundation of the Turkish Republic: "2) RoslynSKP is indefinitely prohibited from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I." The wording should be adjusted to avoid making an implicit content ruling. Jd2718 (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think it does rule on content. I use British English in my draft proposals, but by adopting them that doesn't mean the committee is ruling on content or saying EN-GB should be used by everybody. AGK 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Inaccurate findings of fact

Moved from the main page, since only arbitrators are entitled to comment there. — ΛΧΣ 01:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring

The "extended period" begins on 24 November with diff 1 an edit which does not change Ottoman/Turkey. All the rest of the first 13 diffs are to do with edits which took place between 26 and 30 November 2013, hardly an extended period.

01:Charge at Huj starts on 24.11.13 with diff 1 which does not show any change to Ottoman/Turkey. Diff 2 on 26.11.13 before MILHIST consensus reverts Jim Sweeney's changing a direct link to a redirect link, diff 3 also before MILHIST consensus diff 4 undoing Jim Sweeney's changing Ottoman to Turkey on limited consensus on 27.11.13 at 00:34 before the MILHIST consensus. In between these edits Jim Sweeney was equally edit warring. The two edits in 02 were trying to argue per the Administrators' noticeboard "status quo".

Of the seven diffs in 03 three are edits by Jim Sweeney. These are diffs 7, 8, and 13 and one is an edit by Anotherclown, diff 11, while diffs 9 and 10 are to the same edit by me. So only two diffs in this section relate to supposed edit waring by me.

The next series of diffs which claim "inaccurate or inadequate" descriptions of these previous diffs, have nothing to do with the previous diffs. Diff 14 is an extensive edit on 6.11.13 when two dubious tags were added, syntax corrected, a place was identified as a village, added the full name of light horse units, and links. All this work is described as "Clean up." Diff 15 "fix link" undid redirect link back to a direct link on 26.11.13 is an accurate description of the edit. Diff 16 undid a link to a redirect claiming "fix link the discussion regarding the colloquial form of Ottoman related only to one article" on 27.11.13 00:34 before MILHIST consensus. Diff 17 inserted full names of light horse units, fixed syntax and name of place, was described as "Clean up" on 6.11.13. Diff 18 added full names of light horse and mounted rifles units, fixed syntax, expanded article, was also adequately described as Expanding article Clean up on 6.11.13 --Rskp (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

These diffs do not support the allegation of edit warring. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Remember that the diffs are representative of your wider participation in the dispute. The 'misleading edit summaries' batch highlights that you have not correctly labelled your edits. AGK 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus

The MILHIST consensus says "continuing use of "Turkish" where context is clearly in favor of the term." It does not say Turkish should be used "in all articles" when describing the Ottoman troops, as claimed.

Diff 19 edit is described by me as "reinstate POV which relates to the reliance on one source when many are available and to the confusing names of Australian and New Zealand army units)" This does not cite the older ANI thread. Diff 20 links to a edit made at 00:46 on 26.11.13 before the MILHIST consensus, as does diff 21 an edit made at 00:34 on 27.11.13. ONLY diff 22 at 03:33 30.11.13 (Undid revision 583858477 by Anotherclown (talk)the consensus ONLY mentions the Anzac Mounted Division there is no remit to apply that odd agreement to any other articles) 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade sort to limit the use of "Turkey" when it was in fact the Ottoman Empire at the time. Rskp (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Most of these diffs do not support the allegation of ignoring consensus. Only one tries to keep to the MILHIST consensus which clearly does not extend to all articles to do with the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the consensus does extend to all relevant articles, which means the diffs do constitute "ignoring consensus". AGK 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenacious editing

Only diff 23 relates to changing Turkey to Ottoman on the talk page of the Battle of Beersheba, the rest relate to personal attacks, which I should have ignored and will most certainly ignore in the future.

Diff 24 collapsed a personal attack, diff 25 reinstated a personal attack tag, while diff 26 replaced "The claim is rubbish" with an rpa tag.

Diff diff 27 added a dubious tag "dubious|Six centuries of the Ottoman Empire, from 1299 to 1923 is not synonymous with the Republic of Turkey" on 16 November well before the MILHIST consensus.

Both the Anzac Mounted Division and the Desert Mounted Corps service histories rely on one 1921 source published before all the official histories. This gives both these articles a very narrow unbalanced account of the units' campaigns as it fails to use the scholarship which has been published since 1921. Diff 29 on 26.11.13 Anzac MD Over reliance on Preston makes article unbalanced see Talk page described "(Undid revision 583064022 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag one source is not NPOV which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all views ...)." Diff 30 26.11.13 "(Undid revision 583313537 by Jim Sweeney (talk)reinstate POV tag as reliance on one source not NPOV)" and diff 31 Desert Mounted Corps over reliance on Preston see Talk page. Jim Sweeney could equally be accused of "tenacious editing" here. --Rskp (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree or find anything compelling in that rebuttal. AGK 07:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Locus of dispute too narrowly defined

I think that the current finding on the locus of dispute is too narrow: the issues with RoslynSKP's editing have run across multiple topics associated with the fighting between the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire in World War I (principally the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of this war), and isn't really specific to the most recent dispute. The main result of the excessively narrow focus is that proposed remedy 2 isn't well calibrated: it would be better to institute a suspended topic ban on the British Empire-Ottoman Empire conflict during World War I (broadly construed if need be) than on all of Turkish military history prior to 1919 (which is a huge field given that Turkish military history dates back to before the birth of the Ottoman Empire in the medieval era). The proposed remedy 3 is appropriate though. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)