Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
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 Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 22:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Case closed on 22:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

• TomStar81 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• RoslynSKP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarcusBritish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), added on 08 December 2013

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive256#Improper_use_of_rollback

• On an unrelated note here, I've never started one of these, so if I screwed something up please feel free to fix it, or drop me a line and I'll get to it myself.

At the request of the Coordinators of the Military history Project, we filing for an arbitration request concerning two of our editors (User:RoslynSKP, or rskp for short, and User:Jim Sweeney) who have been engaged in a long and barely contained cold war across multiple articles on or related to the military history of the Ottoman Empire / Turkey. This comes as a last resort for us, but it has reached a point where the coordinators - and particularly those within the coordinator circle who hold admin rights - are of the mind that sanctions need to be imposed on the editor(s) or articles in question so that we can bring the full force of our admin tools to bear against the problematic editors for the sake of peaceful editing for the rest of the members of the project. You will here more form the parties involved and the two editors in question in the coming hours, I'm sure, but for now a brief finding of fact as it relates to the articles will uncover the following information pertain to this request:

1)This has been an ongoing problem for months (maybe even years, as the earliest edits from RoslynSKP date to June 2010) and in each case the rskp seems to find consensus building difficult. Attempts to engage this editor in discussion geared toward finding consensus have been largely unsuccessful do to an apparent narcissistic personality from rskp that steers a discussion into a 'playing the victim' type talk whereby rskp appears to be uninterested in having their errors pointed out but more interested in seeing parties privvy to the discussion punished/censored/sanctioned for all manner of different things. I'll note for the record that after a 3rd party left a comment on the ANI thread this position relaxed somewhat, allowing us to reach a white peace, but if this is to be a repeat of the ANI thread from last month then I expect the behavior will likely return.

2)The edits and reverts in the articles in question have a tendency to go up to, but not over, 3rr limits, which frustrates admins and milhist coordinators attempting to protect the material. Short of fully protecting the articles involved in this ongoing editorial cold war, the lack of justifiable grounds for admin intervention leaves these two editors free to have at each other and anyone else unfortunate to involve themselves in the articles in question. As both an admin and a coordinator, I can attest to the fact that it is frustrating not to be able to do anything to stop such an endless cold war. If nothing else, we would like the committee to take the case so as to impose sanctions (such as topic bans or a 1rr ruling) that we can enforce to preserve the peace of the articles in question.

3)Long term attempts to solve the problems through other avenues have proven to have largely fruitless, due to the fact rskp appears to cherry pick bits and pieces from policy and guidelines pages to defend or justify actions taken in the articles and shrugs off efforts to find and implement consensus.

This request is being filed in the aftermath of the most recent appearance of both Jim Sweeney and rskp at WP:ANI, where I managed to hammer out a white peace between the two for a limited amount of time while the project sorted through the issue of the usage of the terms Ottoman Empire and Turkey (see the ANI thread above for that discussion). In the aftermath of the ANI thread we gained consensus for interchangeability in one article, which we can use to justify an either/or approach across the greater whole of the articles, but in order to better implement that the Military history Project coordinators and administrators must - repeat MUST - have some level of stricter sanctions for the articles or editors (or both) in question so this implementation go forward with the established consensus with more than simply bluff and guile such as it were. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I am a recent addition to this train, so I am not in the best position to bring out additional evidence - short of going through a lot of archived talk page material. I can say for a fact though that the ANI thread I posted above contains multiple links to articles and comments from editors more familiar with this than I, and if you like I could go through those to see if any could be used as evidence. In addition, as this is a fairly recent post, there is a chance that additional editors and the involved parties will bring more evidence to the table. If nothing of this nature happens in 24 hours I will look for the requested material, but I would need a little understanding from the arbitration committee and the clerks since finding more material when I have been involved for so long could take some time. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I first became aware of RoslynSKP, in November 2011, after a post at WPMILHIST asked for more opinions over a dispute at Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul. Reading that talk page is a good example of the problems ever since. Refusing to accept a community decision/consensus, tagging articles, where a decision had gone against their own opinion. They have what can only be described as severe ownership problems with any article associated with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, even those created and edited by others. See Talk:Raid on Nekhl#Wikipedia: Disruptive Editing where adding a couple of words and a Wikilink is called disruptive. See Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Arbitrary_break where a consensus to use Turkish over Ottoman was reached. RoslynSKP then almost immediately started changing Turkish to Ottoman in other articles, see Talk:Charge at Huj, Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade for examples. With the edit summery the consensus ONLY mentions the Anzac Mounted Division there is no remit to apply that odd agreement to any other articles [1] In other words if we want to use Turkish in other articles we have to get a consensus for each. Another example of their failure to accept consensus over several articles but the discussion was centralised at Talk:Battle of Sharon see sections Talk:Battle of Sharon#Populations living on the battlefields, Talk:Battle of Sharon#Consensus, Talk:Battle of Sharon#Populations living on the battlefields redux, Talk:Battle of Sharon#"Populations living on the battlefield". Unfortunately RoslynSKP has chosen to edit in an area where they have very little knowledge outside of a few select books. The vast majority of those being almost 100 years old use old or out of date terms and they are unwilling to accept that other editors/authors may have different views on a subject. So any attempt by myself (in the main) or others to change names/terms is met with obstruction. I always remember a comment RoslynSKP made re their conduct, I believe it was at WPMILHIST, was that best form of [their] defence is attack and that in a nutshell is RoslynSKP WP:BATTLEGROUND approach to any dispute. Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing the Sinai and Palestine Campaign articles in June 2010. On 2 November 2010 Takabeg edited the Battle of Romani changing Turkey to Ottoman Empire here [2]. I told Takabeg about this dispute here [3]. At the time I had no idea that it was indeed the Ottoman Empire which had been the adversary to the British Empire. From that time I have tried to consistently apply Ottoman Empire instead of Turkey for two reasons. Firstly, because it was indeed the Ottoman Empire, albeit the last years, which fought in WWI. And secondly, I think it was Erickson in 2001 or 2007, who notes the Ottoman Army was made up of units from the different provinces of the Ottoman Empire. Available english language sources have not so far, identified where the particular units came from, and as "Turkish" does not encompass these provinces, Ottoman Empire does.

There has been a long running discussion regarding the use of the term "Turkey" in articles about World War I at Talk:Anzac Mounted Division which has spilled over into the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history here [4] and to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators here [5].

This dispute arose after 28 October 2013, when AustralianRupert suggested a note which claims the "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" are synonymous. It is this note that has been employed to justify changing "Ottoman Empire" to "Turkey." [6] So far this note has been used in three articles to change "Ottoman Empire" to "Turkey." They are, Anzac Mounted Division which was operational between 1916 and 1919, the Charge at Huj article, and in the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade despite my protests and an edit war. The efficacy of this note has been questioned here [7].

I have argued that, while a MILHIST consensus agreed to the use of "Turkey" based on its common usage in english language publications, that consensus only related to the Anzac Mounted Division article, and should not be applied to any other articles. (That it relates to only one article is confirmed by TomStar81 in his statement. I have not heard of the either/or approach. Anyway POV tags have been added in the hope that they might raise editors' awareness, to the non-neutral point of view that imposing "Turkey," (which was only part of the Ottoman Empire), arguing that it would be like changing the British Empire to England, but so far no one appears to appreciate the logic of this argument. --Rskp (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this is not a long running dispute. It began on 28 October 2013 with AustralianRupert's suggestion for the note. MarcusBritish has added a series of unrelated links to a diverse group of disputes, many of which date back to my early days on Wikipedia, when I was still learning the ropes. --Rskp (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be another side to MarcusBritish' interest in this dispute. [8] --Rskp (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me some time to learn the complexities of editing, and had no idea for a very long time about MILHIST, the competition and other aspects of Wikipedia. I really can't understand why TomStar81, who said on 30 October 2013 during the rollback discussion, "I've never had the misfortune of dealing with Rskp," has taken such a negative view of my work and my personality on Wikipedia. --Rskp (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 June 2013 I made an appeal to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the Stalemate in Southern Palestine article. This article had been moved out of my userspace on 4 May. A request for a Guild copyedit was made on 25 May but deleted on 4 June when it was tag bombed, for merge, too long, copy edit, more links needed and grammar tag. None of the numerous diffs linked to what I thought was disruptive editing were investigated. [9] --Rskp (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback report, Edit War etc.

On 29 October 2013 I reported an Improper use of rollback to Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard here [10] archived here [11] which resulted in snarking then a wrap over the knuckles, followed by impinging my reputation on 30.10.13 here [12]

The number of articles which have been improved to B-class and GA which I have been associated with prove that I can and do collaborate with Wikipedia editors, all the time. So, I can't understand the attitude of the editors who have impugned me.

Then User:RoslynSKP reported by User:Jim Sweeney (Result: ) on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring here [13] was linked back by Anotherclown to the rollback. ‬

The edit war occurred when Jim Sweeney fought me for the citations to the first para of the intro begun when I added sources to substantiate Anzac Mounted Division form of the name of the division here [14]. This continued while full citations were fought over including here [15] and here [16] for all the variations of the name were removed here [17] The Edit warring shows a result that it was transferred to ‪Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‬ on 6.11.13 but it never made it.

The slippery slope ...

1. Terminology problem here [18] brought to
2. MILHIST discussion here [19]
3. "They voted to remove the POV dispute tag from ANZAC Mounted Division as MILHIST discussion favoured colloquial term [20]
4. despite the POV issue of the 5th Mounted Brigade being consistently in full while the light horse and mounted rifles units are inconsistently abbreviated. [21] not being addressed. --Rskp (talk) 04:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone please explain the process here. Is it just about the Ottoman Empire/Turkey issue? What happens next? --Rskp (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What we have here is a historical set of long-term disputes, regularly instigated by User:RoslynSKP against members of WP:Military History, often involving User:Jim Sweeney, over inter-related articles, many within the past two years. Although these examples appear old, they are relevant because the issue has never gone away, there is always something being disputed within the WWI topic, usually regarding ANZAC or Ottoman issues, and so this is not an isolated incident that can be written-off as stale. NB: I have not gone beyond 2-years although RoslynSKP has been a member since May 2009 and there are likely to be further similar cases of note. I have linked to examples of disputes, but you may find more better examples of poor conduct via the edit summaries of the articles.

In addition to the current dispute regarding "Turkish" vs "Ottoman" usage, I should like to present a timeline of example disputes pulled directly from MilHist archives, and the relating articles involved. I should like you to direct yourself not only towards the context of the disputes, as they all generally related to WWI articles, but to the attitudes and responses shown by RoslynSKP. You will find sufficient evidence here of WP:SOUP, WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:GAMING, WP:EDITWAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:OWN, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:DIVA and so forth to highlight the major disruptions to contend here, most of which are WP:POINTY and show a refusal to WP:DROPTHESTICK even towards a consensus. The editor habitually raises concerns over articles with a one-track closed-mind, is unable to accept other editors' views, is quick to judge and accuse others of having POV-issues, and chastises MilHist members for "taking sides" with others. It is this prevalent set of attitudes which persists to this day, and the current issue is plagued with the same tiresome attitudes which serve only to exhaust everyone involved to the point the dispute simply fizzles out, allowing RoslynSKP to continue to make the edits they wanted all along – I believe this is by design and WP:CPUSH may apply when this occurs. Lately, we have witnessed a great number of reverts placed by RoslynSKP and I had to issue a number of WP:3RR notices, as this behaviour is now no longer isolated to one article every so often, but several at one. The current situation involves Charge at Huj, 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, ANZAC Mounted Division and Desert Mounted Corps, with RoslynSKP disputing the same matters simultaneously across all these pages, applying up to three reverts per day on some, and rejecting the recent consensus at MilHist by instead choosing to apply what appears to have been a temporary agreement made at ANI between two parties, but not an over-whelming community consensus. Cherry-picking of dispute outcomes is also in RoslynSKP's nature, often favouring and interpreting the one which best suits their means, similar to WP:Stonewalling tactics.

I cannot help but feel that when you account for all the reverts, tagging and manipulative discussions, RoslynSKP simply take articles "hostage" in an attempt to force an outcome in their favour before they will unlock their grip on the page. RoslynSKP usually claims that anything contrary to their opinion is a "POV issue" regardless of other editors advising otherwise, this has lead to disruptive edit warring just over the placement of "POV" tags and refusal to remove them unless the articles meet RoslynSKP's personal expectations, regardless of what sources are presented that oppose them. This amounts to nothing more than abuse of the maintenance tag system in order to game the system and influence other editors' to concede. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated and must be reprimanded and prevented; over 2 years evidence of these subtle abuses can be provided – I consider it out of ANI's reach and a serious matter for ArbCom to neutralise, because the bigger picture is more serious than first meets the eye.

The recent ANI matter was a perfect example of WP:SOUP, and how quickly RoslynSKP attempts to whittle down opposition through pretentious chastising remarks, dubious accusations, and other forms of self-interest such as "playing the victim" via long-winded circular arguments. We have witnessed this behaviour on the MilHist talk page so often it has become frustrating; no one wants to get involved in the same confrontation every few weeks, because it seldom reaches a mutually agreeable solution, or when it does it's short-lived.

I did recommend a RFC/U, but it's a weak system for someone like RoslynSKP on the grounds that a) they may choose to ignore the RFC and by not partaking it becomes a one-sided set of accusations which biases any outcome and prevents it from reaching a fair conclusion; b) RFC/U is non-binding and CANNOT "impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures" – which may only result in yet another lengthy dispute with RoslynSKP and no formal sanctions. At this stage we really do need a 1RR/0RR limitation applied, requirement to respect MilHist consensus', non-use of maintenance tags, as well any other restrictions on page moves, interactions, etc necessary to maintain the peace. Given the number of guidelines and policies being swept aside here, with possible violations of the WP:5P, we need more formal scrutiny of the situation. MilHist is proving powerless to prevent these ongoing disruptions, its coords are accused of bias or favouritism, its admins feel too "involved" to block the editor. In general, RoslynSKP makes a simple smack on the hand feel like a trip to the moon, and is unwilling to accept any fault in their behaviour, views or disruptions. Their lack of respect for community and consensus shows a lack of WP:COMPETENCE as a team-player, as there are far too many ownership issues involved to make this matter easy for ANI or RFC to handle without also being subject to detrimental rebukes. As ArbCom is more immune to being influenced by gaming due to strict procedures placed to keep matters such as this from going off on a tangent and disappearing into the archives to be forgotten. MilHist desperately needs ArbCom to review this case and draw the line, so that these matters can be finally closed, with a strict set of restrictions placed on the editor/s in question, as this would make it easier for blocks to be imposed without having to sit through the long tedium of bitter exchanges as seen in these examples. If an editor with this history cannot demonstrate good faith willingly they either need banning for a year with restrictions on their return, or encouraging via strict sanctions on their editing for as long as necessary until they prove themselves capable of functioning more sociably.

Non-exhaustive examples of historic and ongoing disputes

• MilHist talk dispute (September 2013)
  • Related article dispute

• MilHist talk dispute (December 2012)

• MilHist talk dispute (February 2012)
  • Related template dispute 1
  • Related template dispute 2
  • Taken to Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

• MilHist talk dispute (December 2011)
  • Related article dispute 1
  • Related article dispute 2
  • Related article dispute 3
    • Note: "Where there has been substance or value in their edits I have welcomed their contributions. But where there is no substance or value, I have not and will not." – Rskp (talk) 00:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) — a self-confessed WP:OWNERSHIP attitude still present in RoslynSKP's editing and worsened by a complete lack of admin intervention over the years. Complacency has allowed this editor to spiral out of control and consider themselves above everyone else, only a higher authority can knock them off that high horse because they appear to show disdain for coords, admins and anyone not willing to share their views.
  • Taken to ANB/3RR User:RoslynSKP reported – Result: article fully protected
  • Related article dispute 4
  • Related article dispute 5
  • Related article dispute 6
  • Related article dispute 7

• Article dispute (January 2012)

• MilHist talk dispute (November 2011)
  • Related article dispute 1
  • Related article dispute 2
  • Related article dispute 3
  • Related article dispute 4

Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to reiterate that RoslynSKP registered in May 2009, made their first edit in June 2010, and that my earliest example dates from November 2011. It does not take over 17 months (June 2010 – November 2011) to "learn the ropes". As evidence, I should like to point to WikiChecker for RoslynSKP which shows that by November 2011 RoslynSKP had made as many as 5,800+ edits, and to date has 23,000+ edits, a total of ~8,000 more than my own 15,400+ since my first edit in February 2011. I'm sure that if I can "learn the ropes" in almost 3-years, RoslynSKP can certainly learn them in almost 4-years. This is not a feasible excuse, it is just an example of RoslynSKP's attempts to garner sympathy through "pity me" and "I was new" victim-styled remarks. If RoslynSKP was "only new" when they were arguing about "POV" issues and placing maintenance tags back in 2011, I should like to know what their excuse is now, 2 years later, because they are employing the exact same tactics and arguing over the exact same issues in most cases! RoslynSKP either has a low learning curve or is simply unwilling to conform to Wiki policy and understand when consensus is against them. Resorting to excuses like this is what causes ANI and other DRN mediation to fail, ArbCom should be more objective and prepared to overlook such excuses and look at the evidence available, not be harassed with sob-stories. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Would RoslynSKP care to explain what my "interest" is then, instead of making ambiguous statements which contain no facts pertaining to the case against them? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Just another excellent Wiki-tool here which compares edits made by MarcusBritish and RoslynSKP and proves that I don't actually edit WWI articles often, and the very few matching articles I have made edits to are normally copy-edits or on their talk page single WWI article I also edited only involved copy edits. The others are talk page contribs, usually in response to these ongoing disputes as a third-party. As it appears to me that RoslynSKP's last comment was a subtle but typical attempt to suggest I have an "ulterior motive", I shall pre-emptively respond to that with evidence that I have no interest in your ANZACs or your Ottomans whatsoever. My "interest" purely relates to settling this matter, and freeing up MilHist from your disruptions once and for all. If you want to dig through all 15,400+ of my edits, feel free, you won't find many of WWI relevance. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• RoslynSKP is once again spouting rhetoric about their reputation – another example of an egotistic nature which puts them first, Wikipedia second, the concerns here last. What needs to be considered is that RoslynSKP took Jim Sweeney to ANI recently claiming that he "illegally used rollback". Once the extent of their war editing became evident and it was clear that it would WP:BOOMERANG, so RoslynSKP tried to inject a heightened state of self-importance into a new sub-section, titled "Call for sanctions for impugning reputation". Throughout the ANI discussion, Roslyn denies all culpability of bad conduct by accusing MilHist members of "snarking". Further claiming they were "being impugned" with a tone that evidently disregards ANI's conclusions as unworthy. TomStar81 aptly summarises the matter with "more concerned about your reputation than the editorial issues presented", and the misfortune of having to deal with RoslynSKP in any matter. Their inability to take blame for anything recognised by many, whilst continuing to throw out fresh allegations, especially against Jim Sweeney, can only suggest that RoslynSKP wants Jim "out of the way" (noting the specific demand for "sanctions"), because he is the only editor who is bold enough to stand in RoslynSKP's way 100% of the time, he presents broader sources and clearer arguments, and receives more backing from MilHist. I can only surmise that RoslynSKP no longer has a "reputation" of note, MilHist members having growing weary of the same disputes being argued ad mortem and no longer have time nor patience to support someone who turns on them at the first sign of opposition. We can safely assume that RoslynSKP's "reputation" is of no concern to MilHist, ArbCom or this case, as it will not be their "reputation" which harms the integrity of the MilHist project should they be allowed to persist, but rather their vanity and lust for recognition. These comments highlight RoslynSKP's show of feeling superior in making edits but not allowing others to then change them; Ownership present in 2011, still present in 2013 and escalating. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• Thanks to AGK's vote, the net four clock starts. The case will open on 20:14, 2 December 2013 unless the net four becomes invalid. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Awaiting statements from the two primary disputants. @TomStar81: this request is perfectly formatted so, in answer to your opening line, you needn't think you messed anything up in that respect.. However, I expect there are many more links to be provided under "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried". Could you compile a sample of links to prior discussions between the two primary disputants that illustrates the problem? We need these links in order to review the background to the dispute, and to ascertain that the last resort of arbitration is actually necessary. AGK [•] 11:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• On SilkTork's point, I would never have us pass a motion on a long-running dispute like this one. Motions are really only used to resolve isolated incidents (or amend previous cases). AGK [•] 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It is unlikely the community could resolve this long-running dispute without investing an undue amount of uninvolved editors' time. AGK [•] 20:14, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. Kirill ^[talk] 12:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not clear on why in this discussion it is decided not to go ahead with the suggested RfC/U, and to "Skip ANI". If there is clear consensus that RoslynSKP's behaviour is inappropriate then the community can and should be dealing with this - the community can impose a mutual interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney, and to impose 1RR on either or both editors. Given the good content work both editors do, I don't think anything stronger than that would be beneficial to the project, nor appropriate for the low level (even if tiresome) disruption. Perhaps a restriction on move requests as well. Anyway, unless there is a convincing reason why community procedures should be avoided, and the matter should come straight to ArbCom, I would be inclined to decline. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:54, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the facts of the case are clear, and if it is felt that the community cannot resolve this, can we do this by motion? It appears that an interaction ban between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney would be helpful, along with a 1RR and Move restriction imposed on RoslynSKP. At this stage I think anything more would be excessive, but if problems still occur, then either the community of the Committee can be asked to look into a topic ban. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 17:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Also awaiting statements from the main parties, but on my initial skim I see a longstanding set of disputes with no end in sight, so absent some other suggestion for how this gets resolved sooner rather than later, am leaning toward accepting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept As a long-running dispute with no other real resolution on the horizon. Courcelles 01:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra SilkTork, I think a motion would be a truly lousy way to proceed with this matter. Courcelles 04:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept tentatively. While I see SilkTork's point about the opportunity for community action, the reality is that RFC/Us have never been shown to have any real impact when the behaviour is entrenched liked this. This situation seems to be well-suited to some form of very abbreviated case, with short deadlines, e.g., one week for evidence, one week interregnum, posted decision. Risker (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse - not due to any prior involvement, but due to editing in the general WWI topic area and the potential to edit on the Ottoman Empire topic in the future. Past experience has shown me that it can be awkward to edit in certain topic areas after arbitrating disputes in those areas. Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse: I've edited in the topic area.  Roger Davies ^talk 17:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd prefer other options to be pursued prior to Arbcom, and there is a chance that they may work, however it's quite clear that there is some deep entrenchment and solutions have been rejected, so Accept. Worm^TT(talk) 12:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

1) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 7 to 0, with 2 abstentions at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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 conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, and failure to assume good faith—are all incompatible with Wikipedia's standards of etiquette.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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 patterns—which present opponents with a fait accompli and exhaust their ability to contest the change, or defy a reasonable decision arrived at by consensus—are disruptive.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

9) It is not the Arbitration Committee's role to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

1) This dispute relates to use of the names "Turkish" and "Ottoman" in military history articles.

Passed 8 to 0, with 1 abstention at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

2) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkish Empire” to “Ottoman Empire” or "Turkish" to "Ottoman". (e.g. 01: [22], [23], [24], [25]. 02: [26], [27]. 03: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]) . On some occasions, these reversions were made with an inaccurate or incomplete edit summary (e.g. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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. [40]), 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. [41], [42], [43]).

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

4) RoslynSKP has changed "Turkey" to "Ottoman" in talk page threads and other editors' comments (e.g. [44], [45], [46], [47]). 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. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]; see also evidence on abuse of maintenance tags).

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

5) Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) conducted edit wars with RoslynSKP across multiple articles, [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61].

Passed 6 to 1 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

All remedies that refer to a period of time (for example, 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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 2 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

Passed 9 to 0 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

5) Jim Sweeney (talk · contribs) is reminded to avoid edit warring, and to use dispute resolution to assist in resolving disputes.

Passed 5 to 2 at 22:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

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.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged in this section. Please specify the enforcing administrator, date and time, nature of sanction, and basis or context. Unless otherwise specified, the standardised enforcement provision applies to this case. Notifications given pursuant to a remedy (most commonly, discretionary sanctions) should be logged below; the required information is the user who was notified, the date they were notified, and a diff of the notification. Sanction log entries should be followed by your signature, but do not append your signature when logging a notification..

• RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) is blocked for two weeks for violating the editing restrictions imposed in this case, as discussed at WP:AE. Because the block is for misconduct relating to Turkish military history, it activates RoslynSKP's ban from editing any article relating to Turkish military history in and predating World War I, as provided for in the Committee's decision, and RoslynSKP has been notified of this.  Sandstein  11:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]