Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0â1 | 5 |
2â3 | 4 |
4â5 | 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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussionâinvolving the wider community, if necessaryâand dispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
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.
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.
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 conductâincluding, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure to assume good faithâare all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette.
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.
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.
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.
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 patternsâwhich present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensusâare disruptive.
9) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
1) This dispute relates to use of the names "Turkish" and "Ottoman" in military history articles.
2) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP ( talk ¡ contribs) has edit warred in order to change âOttoman Turkish Empireâ to âOttoman Empireâ 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]).
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]).
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).
5) Jim Sweeney ( talk ¡ contribs) conducted edit wars with RoslynSKP across multiple articles, [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5) Jim Sweeney ( talk ¡ contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.
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.)
As it appears JS was enforcing a clearly valid consensus on naming conventions, I have not brought findings or remedies against him. AGK [â˘] 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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 decisionâat 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 â ÎΧΣ 21; the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
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.
Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
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.
Abstentions | Support votes needed for majority |
---|---|
0â1 | 5 |
2â3 | 4 |
4â5 | 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.
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.
1) {text of proposed motion}
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.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussionâinvolving the wider community, if necessaryâand dispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.
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.
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.
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 conductâincluding, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure to assume good faithâare all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette.
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.
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.
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.
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 patternsâwhich present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensusâare disruptive.
9) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
1) This dispute relates to use of the names "Turkish" and "Ottoman" in military history articles.
2) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP ( talk ¡ contribs) has edit warred in order to change âOttoman Turkish Empireâ to âOttoman Empireâ 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]).
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]).
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).
5) Jim Sweeney ( talk ¡ contribs) conducted edit wars with RoslynSKP across multiple articles, [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43].
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
5) Jim Sweeney ( talk ¡ contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.
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.)
As it appears JS was enforcing a clearly valid consensus on naming conventions, I have not brought findings or remedies against him. AGK [â˘] 20:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
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 decisionâat 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 â ÎΧΣ 21; the last edit to this page was on 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC) by User:MalnadachBot.
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.