Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
@ RoslynSKP: Evidence has been presented demonstrating misconduct on your part. Do you think this evidence demonstrates you are not able to constructively contribute to:
Plenty of “Type B†has also been presented, and demonstrates a deep inability on your part to collaborate with other contributors (on any topic area). Unfortunately, such an inability cannot be remedied through narrow sanctions like an editing restriction or topic ban.
Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, disagreements with Jim Sweeney regarding their cutting longer articles to create new articles e.g. Battle of Ayun Kara from Battle of Mughar Ridge, were entirely based on my misunderstanding of how articles are linked/nested on Wikipedia. I am now very grateful for this knowledge, as it made possible the development of the many battle articles which make up the Battle of Sharon, eight of the ten are now at GA. Thank you. Rskp ( talk) 02:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Several co-ordinators have mentioned that this dispute falls ‘within the purview’ of the co-ordinators, and reference is made in several workshop proposals to the co-ordinators as a user group (similar to site administrators). However, the WikiProject front page defines co-ordinators as “the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project […] responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes†and says they do not […] have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.â€
Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::;Response by [[User:Example]] ::#X ::#Y ::#Z ::Comments and/or signature. ~~~~
@ Jim Sweeney: The evidence demonstrates that you have edit warred with RoslynSKP on multiple occasions.
Thank you. AGK [•] 12:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfil the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesised claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point-of-view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
4) Because wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a point to avoid further inflaming the issues.
1) Various WWI articles, including but not limited to: 1st Light Horse Brigade, 2nd Light Horse Brigade, 3rd Light Horse Brigade, 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, ANZAC Mounted Division, Australian Light Horse, Battle of Beersheba (1917), Battle of Hareira and Sheria, Battle of Romani, Battle of Sharon, Capture of Damascus (1918), Capture of Jenin, Charge at Huj, Chaytor's Force Australian Mounted Division, Desert Mounted Corps, Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby, Gallipoli Campaign, Harry Chauvel, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Raid on Nekhl, Stalemate in Southern Palestine, Third Transjordan attack, Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine and Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine, have been subject to edit warring, aggressive point-of-view editing, or generally uncivil behaviour over the past 2 years. This has frequently spilled out onto talk pages and resulted in long-term unresolved disputes.
2) RoslynSKP has engaged in battleground behaviour, failed to assume good faith, breached the three-revert rule whilst edit warring and exhibited gaming tactics in order to avoid scrutiny or show respect for consensus, across many of the articles mentioned in " Disruption to WWI articles" above, as well as at WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Some cases of uncivil behaviour have also been shown towards fellow-editors, as well as an attempt to canvass a partisan editor. Such behaviours have persisted for approx. 2 years.
3) RoslynSKP disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point at WP:ANI; she failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence, and rejected scrutiny of her own behaviour, whilst continuing to assert that sanctions on another editor were required.
4) TomStar81 is an uninvolved admin and MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes. MarcusBritish was an uninvolved MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes, continuing to do so after stepping down as coord. No conflict of interest exists for either party in resolving the matter.
5) Between 20–30 September 2013 [10], the Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) became a war ground over the {{ rpa}} template between RoslynSKP, Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown. The alleged attack being "don't waste your time trying to satisfy the fevered ravings of some old woman" from an anonymous proxy-IP which was reiterated by Anotherclown. Whilst WP:RPA remains vague regarding removal of text, and WP:TALKO discourages modifying other editor's posts, the alleged personal attack hardly warrants 10 days of reverting each other a dozen times for an attack which does not violate WP:WIAPA in any great fashion, and was at best "uncivil". Given this history RoslynSKP is far too "trigger happy" in her use of tags and revert against other editors, potentially baiting other editors into further arguments by "making a mountain out of a mole hill" and pretentiously claiming a moral high ground where none exists.
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) Although the term "Turkish" may not have been officially adopted by Turkey until 1923, the c. 4th-century Medieval Latin word Turchia for "Land of the Turks" likely pre-dates the word "Ottoman" relating to Osman I, a 13th-century ruler, "Turkey" itself being 14th-century derived from the Latin. Turkey#Etymology provides some background, worth considering.
RoslynSKP has been unable to provide any definitive sources which can conclusively prove that "Ottoman" should take precedence over "Turkish", nor that "Turkish" is a term that is used in a colloquial or derogatory fashion which should not be applied in a liberal manner. The source noted by AustralianRupert, Gallipoli: The Turkish Story, does not support RoslynSKP's claim either, advising that "Turk" and "Turkish" was adopted by the Young Turks movement themselves as nationalistic symbols – a far cry from being "derogatory".
2) Due to extensive reverts across many articles, all within a short space of time, and often between User:Jim Sweeney and User:RoslynSKP with many bordering and possibly breaching WP:3RR, which is generally disruptive and creates an unstable collaborative environment:
3) Due to extensive use of maintenance tagging, often leading to edit warring over their – often dubious – placement, it is proposed that RoslynSKP not be permitted to apply header or inline tags. RoslynSKP should restrict themselves to discussing content concerns on the talk page without ridiculing articles with sanctimonious "POV" tags, as they generally do not achieve anything other than to fuel disputes, where time could be better spent discussing the content concerned. RoslynSKP's aggressive use of the "RPA" tag on various talk pages is also fuelling more arguments than it is solving, and is considered to violate WP:TALKO guidelines by many editors. Under this restriction:
4) RoslynSKP has stated in their evidence that, "While I have respected the MILHIST consensus I have tried to and will try in the future, to limit the use of 'Turkey' where it replaces the Ottoman Empire in WW1 articles." It is clear from the evidence provided by several other MilHist members that RoslynSKP has not respected consensus and has made various attempts to reject it, having openly called it "wrong". Whilst WP:CCC does suggest that "consensus can change", it also states that "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive". In order to avoid needless disruptions and prevent future exploits of Wikipedia's collaborative system:
5) For considerable battleground behaviour over a lengthy period and across a large number of articles, for calling for sanctions, and for ignoring collaborative processes RoslynSKP is admonished.
6) For considerable disruptive behaviour unbecoming of an experienced editor, including a misjudged use of rollback, Jim Sweeney is generally warned.
7) All involved editors in the WWI topic area, a very important area of military history, are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.
8) Given concerns over 3RR restrictions or topic bans having detrimental effect, and sanctions being prone to wiki-lawyering or damaging to MilHist scope development, a third-party to act indefinitely as mediator may prove beneficial to all concerned. It is proposed that RoslynSKP be given mentorship support for a minimum period of 6 months, during which time she may continue to edit as normal, but with a total 1RR restriction on all articles/talkpages and 0RR interaction with Jim Sweeney. During this term RoslynSKP should discuss any concerns regarding content with their mentor rather than become involved in war editing; this mentor will serve to review any disputes impartially, with RoslynSKP agreeing to refrain or withdraw from disputes should the mentor believe the matter exhausted or a consensus clear. This would free MilHist of resources, give RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney a "buffer" to prevent arguments but without a strict interaction ban and allow continued editing in an important historical military topic. The mentor would be required to determine when RoslynSKP is capable of consistently working collaboratively, and release her from mentor supervision to work independently once again. A contract with the mentor would determine the terms of RoslynSKP's parole, should RoslynSKP attempt to deviate from cooperating with a mentor in good faith, she may be subject to a complete topic and interaction ban.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) In order to effect a timely halt to ongoing editorial conflicts and encourage parties to discuss and agree upon a course of action to implement in a given article I would propose that all articles involved in this debate be required to carry an edit notice and a talk page FAQ similar to the ones currently used at the page ANZAC Mounted Division (see Template:Editnotices/Page/ANZAC Mounted Division and Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division/FAQ for example). This was part of the solution to the WP:ANI thread concerning ANZAC Mounted Division article, and it appears to be working on the page by explaining why things have been worded or phrased the way they are. Similar edit notices and talk page FAQs have been employed on articles with the scope of the military history project before to help preemptively prevent long term editorial disagreements (examples include but are not limited to the pages Death of Osama bin Laden, General of the Armies, and Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)), and the presence of such templates serve to both encourage discussion on the subject matter before editing an article's page to add questionable material. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkey empire†to “Ottoman empireâ€. (01: [12], [13], [14], [15]. 02: [16], [17]. 03: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) . On some occasions, these reversions were made with an inaccurate edit summary ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).
2) 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 ( [30]), 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 ( [31], [32], [33]).
3) RoslynSKP has changed "Turkey" to "Ottoman" in talk page threads and other editors' comments ( [34], [35], [36], [37]). 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 ( [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]; evidence on abuse of maintenance tags).
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) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
Case clerks: Hahc21 ( Talk) & Rschen7754 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.
Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.
@ RoslynSKP: Evidence has been presented demonstrating misconduct on your part. Do you think this evidence demonstrates you are not able to constructively contribute to:
Plenty of “Type B†has also been presented, and demonstrates a deep inability on your part to collaborate with other contributors (on any topic area). Unfortunately, such an inability cannot be remedied through narrow sanctions like an editing restriction or topic ban.
Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Nevertheless, disagreements with Jim Sweeney regarding their cutting longer articles to create new articles e.g. Battle of Ayun Kara from Battle of Mughar Ridge, were entirely based on my misunderstanding of how articles are linked/nested on Wikipedia. I am now very grateful for this knowledge, as it made possible the development of the many battle articles which make up the Battle of Sharon, eight of the ten are now at GA. Thank you. Rskp ( talk) 02:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
@ WP:MILHIST coordinators: Several co-ordinators have mentioned that this dispute falls ‘within the purview’ of the co-ordinators, and reference is made in several workshop proposals to the co-ordinators as a user group (similar to site administrators). However, the WikiProject front page defines co-ordinators as “the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project […] responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes†and says they do not […] have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.â€
Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
::;Response by [[User:Example]] ::#X ::#Y ::#Z ::Comments and/or signature. ~~~~
@ Jim Sweeney: The evidence demonstrates that you have edit warred with RoslynSKP on multiple occasions.
Thank you. AGK [•] 12:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Jim Sweeney ( talk) 18:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.
2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfil the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesised claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point-of-view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.
3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.
4) Because wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a point to avoid further inflaming the issues.
1) Various WWI articles, including but not limited to: 1st Light Horse Brigade, 2nd Light Horse Brigade, 3rd Light Horse Brigade, 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, ANZAC Mounted Division, Australian Light Horse, Battle of Beersheba (1917), Battle of Hareira and Sheria, Battle of Romani, Battle of Sharon, Capture of Damascus (1918), Capture of Jenin, Charge at Huj, Chaytor's Force Australian Mounted Division, Desert Mounted Corps, Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby, Gallipoli Campaign, Harry Chauvel, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Raid on Nekhl, Stalemate in Southern Palestine, Third Transjordan attack, Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine and Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine, have been subject to edit warring, aggressive point-of-view editing, or generally uncivil behaviour over the past 2 years. This has frequently spilled out onto talk pages and resulted in long-term unresolved disputes.
2) RoslynSKP has engaged in battleground behaviour, failed to assume good faith, breached the three-revert rule whilst edit warring and exhibited gaming tactics in order to avoid scrutiny or show respect for consensus, across many of the articles mentioned in " Disruption to WWI articles" above, as well as at WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Some cases of uncivil behaviour have also been shown towards fellow-editors, as well as an attempt to canvass a partisan editor. Such behaviours have persisted for approx. 2 years.
3) RoslynSKP disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point at WP:ANI; she failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence, and rejected scrutiny of her own behaviour, whilst continuing to assert that sanctions on another editor were required.
4) TomStar81 is an uninvolved admin and MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes. MarcusBritish was an uninvolved MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes, continuing to do so after stepping down as coord. No conflict of interest exists for either party in resolving the matter.
5) Between 20–30 September 2013 [10], the Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) became a war ground over the {{ rpa}} template between RoslynSKP, Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown. The alleged attack being "don't waste your time trying to satisfy the fevered ravings of some old woman" from an anonymous proxy-IP which was reiterated by Anotherclown. Whilst WP:RPA remains vague regarding removal of text, and WP:TALKO discourages modifying other editor's posts, the alleged personal attack hardly warrants 10 days of reverting each other a dozen times for an attack which does not violate WP:WIAPA in any great fashion, and was at best "uncivil". Given this history RoslynSKP is far too "trigger happy" in her use of tags and revert against other editors, potentially baiting other editors into further arguments by "making a mountain out of a mole hill" and pretentiously claiming a moral high ground where none exists.
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) Although the term "Turkish" may not have been officially adopted by Turkey until 1923, the c. 4th-century Medieval Latin word Turchia for "Land of the Turks" likely pre-dates the word "Ottoman" relating to Osman I, a 13th-century ruler, "Turkey" itself being 14th-century derived from the Latin. Turkey#Etymology provides some background, worth considering.
RoslynSKP has been unable to provide any definitive sources which can conclusively prove that "Ottoman" should take precedence over "Turkish", nor that "Turkish" is a term that is used in a colloquial or derogatory fashion which should not be applied in a liberal manner. The source noted by AustralianRupert, Gallipoli: The Turkish Story, does not support RoslynSKP's claim either, advising that "Turk" and "Turkish" was adopted by the Young Turks movement themselves as nationalistic symbols – a far cry from being "derogatory".
2) Due to extensive reverts across many articles, all within a short space of time, and often between User:Jim Sweeney and User:RoslynSKP with many bordering and possibly breaching WP:3RR, which is generally disruptive and creates an unstable collaborative environment:
3) Due to extensive use of maintenance tagging, often leading to edit warring over their – often dubious – placement, it is proposed that RoslynSKP not be permitted to apply header or inline tags. RoslynSKP should restrict themselves to discussing content concerns on the talk page without ridiculing articles with sanctimonious "POV" tags, as they generally do not achieve anything other than to fuel disputes, where time could be better spent discussing the content concerned. RoslynSKP's aggressive use of the "RPA" tag on various talk pages is also fuelling more arguments than it is solving, and is considered to violate WP:TALKO guidelines by many editors. Under this restriction:
4) RoslynSKP has stated in their evidence that, "While I have respected the MILHIST consensus I have tried to and will try in the future, to limit the use of 'Turkey' where it replaces the Ottoman Empire in WW1 articles." It is clear from the evidence provided by several other MilHist members that RoslynSKP has not respected consensus and has made various attempts to reject it, having openly called it "wrong". Whilst WP:CCC does suggest that "consensus can change", it also states that "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive". In order to avoid needless disruptions and prevent future exploits of Wikipedia's collaborative system:
5) For considerable battleground behaviour over a lengthy period and across a large number of articles, for calling for sanctions, and for ignoring collaborative processes RoslynSKP is admonished.
6) For considerable disruptive behaviour unbecoming of an experienced editor, including a misjudged use of rollback, Jim Sweeney is generally warned.
7) All involved editors in the WWI topic area, a very important area of military history, are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.
8) Given concerns over 3RR restrictions or topic bans having detrimental effect, and sanctions being prone to wiki-lawyering or damaging to MilHist scope development, a third-party to act indefinitely as mediator may prove beneficial to all concerned. It is proposed that RoslynSKP be given mentorship support for a minimum period of 6 months, during which time she may continue to edit as normal, but with a total 1RR restriction on all articles/talkpages and 0RR interaction with Jim Sweeney. During this term RoslynSKP should discuss any concerns regarding content with their mentor rather than become involved in war editing; this mentor will serve to review any disputes impartially, with RoslynSKP agreeing to refrain or withdraw from disputes should the mentor believe the matter exhausted or a consensus clear. This would free MilHist of resources, give RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney a "buffer" to prevent arguments but without a strict interaction ban and allow continued editing in an important historical military topic. The mentor would be required to determine when RoslynSKP is capable of consistently working collaboratively, and release her from mentor supervision to work independently once again. A contract with the mentor would determine the terms of RoslynSKP's parole, should RoslynSKP attempt to deviate from cooperating with a mentor in good faith, she may be subject to a complete topic and interaction ban.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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) In order to effect a timely halt to ongoing editorial conflicts and encourage parties to discuss and agree upon a course of action to implement in a given article I would propose that all articles involved in this debate be required to carry an edit notice and a talk page FAQ similar to the ones currently used at the page ANZAC Mounted Division (see Template:Editnotices/Page/ANZAC Mounted Division and Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division/FAQ for example). This was part of the solution to the WP:ANI thread concerning ANZAC Mounted Division article, and it appears to be working on the page by explaining why things have been worded or phrased the way they are. Similar edit notices and talk page FAQs have been employed on articles with the scope of the military history project before to help preemptively prevent long term editorial disagreements (examples include but are not limited to the pages Death of Osama bin Laden, General of the Armies, and Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)), and the presence of such templates serve to both encourage discussion on the subject matter before editing an article's page to add questionable material. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP ( talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkey empire†to “Ottoman empireâ€. (01: [12], [13], [14], [15]. 02: [16], [17]. 03: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) . On some occasions, these reversions were made with an inaccurate edit summary ( [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).
2) 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 ( [30]), 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 ( [31], [32], [33]).
3) RoslynSKP has changed "Turkey" to "Ottoman" in talk page threads and other editors' comments ( [34], [35], [36], [37]). 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 ( [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]; evidence on abuse of maintenance tags).
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) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}