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

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Hahc21 (Talk) & Rschen7754 (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: AGK (Talk)

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Guidance to format

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 23:18, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does this work? Should motions be separate; i.e. let's say I were to propose a 1RR, an interaction ban, and a topic ban, for example, would I cover them all under one heading or should they be given as separate motions with independent reasons so that each can be queried or discussed apart from each other by arbitrators and parties? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 08:56, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They should be separate motions. You may want to look at past proposed decision pages (i.e. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes/Proposed decision) for the sort of things that arbitrators propose. --Rs chen 7754 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, will do. If I balls it up, can a clerk please let me know. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(FAO MarcusBritish) I would like to direct at this point that no workshop proposals be made until the evidence phase has ended. As this has not been communicated until now, I will put a notice to this effect on the page. Thanks, AGK [•] 09:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries. I'll save what I was in the middle of proposing for that date. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for inconveniencing you! AGK [•] 09:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals

Could someone please provide a detailed explanation as to how the four headings, i.e. Proposed principles, Proposed findings of fact, Proposed remedies, and Proposed enforcement, differ from one another, as this format appears to be a little over-whelming. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 05:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although the names are self-explanatory to some degree, the difference between principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions can be best understood by looking at any arbitration final decision. AGK [•] 12:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not self-explanatory enough, some of us don't deal with legal terms day-to-day to be intimately familiar with them. Regardless, let me see if I've got this right?

Principles – relate to the Wikipedia's core policies which need to be accounted for in closing this case, e.g. NPOV, RS, NPA, etc. which may have been ignored by parties previously.
Finding of fact – relate to the actual disputes and what actual behaviours have been exhibited by involved parties. (Not sure whether this also relates to the content being disputed and which facts matter or does that go in Remedies?)
Remedies – ways in which the dispute can be concluded without strict measures, such as topic bans, etc.
Enforcement – strict measures such as topic bans, interaction bans, etc which should be applied to deal with specific issues.

The link you gave contains many examples which are specific to those cases, I just want a generic idea of what each heading is for. In one of the past cases, a finding of fact states "X and Y have been feuding for years" – one could equally state that "RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney have been feuding for years" – that's a statement to me, what is it supposed to be proposing, and for what purpose? To me a proposal would be a statement plus a solution, not just stating the obvious.. hence why this is not exactly straight-forward. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The headings simply reflect the logical components of a ruling for a dispute:

Principles: The general truisms relating to disputes of the nature in question, and more specific ideas the committee has borne in mind when reaching its decision.
Findings of fact: Statements by the committee of how the dispute came to be, what has went wrong in a dispute, and what conduct (with examples) people have engaged in that they should not have.
Remedies: Binding rulings that something must or ought to happen, and that certain people must not do this or that (e.g. "edit articles relating to X" in the future).
Enforcement: Authorises administrators to enforce the remedies, where they need enforcing.

Your hypothetical statement would be a finding of fact. The finding would then have an associated remedy, like "Users A and B are banned from interacting with each other". Arbitration simply splits the statement of the problem and the committee's solution to that problem into two parts, and names them (respectively) a finding and a remedy. AGK [•] 14:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that the parties and anyone else unfamiliar with how we format our decisions not spend too much time worrying about the format. The arbitrators are experienced and can categorize any proposal into the right section as needed. Focus more on making useful suggestions for the decision and providing sound reasoning to support them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but I notice AGK changed the format quite a bit when he prepared it for workshop – do I now put my drafted suggestions under motions or workshop proposals? Not sure what the difference is between the motions and proposals sections either. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still to put your proposals under Workshopping. AGK [•] 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what does the "motions and requests by the parties" section allow? None of the historic cases appear to use this section.. seems redundant. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 15:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That section doesn't really have a role in this case. Just skip over it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of where it would be used could be to request page protection for a disputed page for the duration of the case (if, perhaps sockpuppets not belonging to a named party was an issue). Request for an injunction from editing during the case, if the parties just can't stop edit warring. Or a request for private evidence be made public or deleted rev's be restored for viewing as evidence. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wondered if it was to make requests for something to be applied with immediate effect rather than upon the ruling, such as the examples you gave. As NYBrad says, probably not needed here, but thanks for confirming that. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 20:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the parties

I am preparing several questions for the disputants which I shall post tomorrow morning. I would be grateful if the persons these questions are addressed to could respond succinctly and clearly. The questions will be divided into questions to RoslynSKP in one section and questions to MILHIST co-ordinators in another section. I will {{ping}} the people in question when I post the questions; the answers should simply be provided underneath the questions, following the format I'll provide. Thank you, AGK [•] 22:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:AGK – could you please clarify in your question to MilHist coords whether the question only applies to current standing coords, or anyone who was ever a coord and responded to any of the issues covered by this case involving RoslynSKP, as that would include the last few tranches and various editors who have since stood down but may have an interest in this case. Thanks, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcusBritish: Thanks for pointing out that ambiguity. I meant anybody who is part of this dispute, in any capacity, and has also served/is serving as a co-ordinator. The question relates to the co-ordinators' self-perception in this dispute, so I don't imagine co-ordinators who have had nothing to do with the dispute at any stage will need to weigh in. AGK [•] 16:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been reading the answers given to your questions, and did a little digging which revealed some "unspoken truths" behind one of the answers, because I feel there is a smoke-screen being put up that clouds some unobvious facts, allowing the editor to present their POV in a manner that potentially misrepresents MilHist and alleviates the editor's need to take responsibility through very deceitful rhetoric. May I offer a comment on the matter, to present an alternative perspective to the arbitrators, and if so, where? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 07:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even with AGF I have a concern over one of the comments by RoslynSKP, how/where can I respond to it?Jim Sweeney (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Can we be directed to an appropriate section to place our concerns regarding the Q&A responses, please? Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 14:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please rebut the other parties' Q&A answers in a new section on this (the workshop talk) page. Keep rebuttals brief. AGK [•] 14:55, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to RoslynSKP's Q&A (no. 4)

RoslynSKP states that "Proof of all these positive collaborations and my improving editing style can also be found on the MILHIST monthly contest, which I have entered for some considerable time, gaining 2nd place last month." Looking at the table at Wikipedia:MILCON#Log "for the scoring period ending 30 November", we can see three articles which RoslynSKP submitted as entries for the contest in November. By looking at the "contributor stats" on toolserver.org and history of each we can determine the following:

Southern Palestine Offensive [1]

RoslynSKP made 839 edits of 846 revisions (99%) – 0 edits by Jim Sweeney (0%)

Reverts between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney: None

First Battle of Gaza [2]

RoslynSKP made 707 edits of 1040 revisions (68%) – 103 edits by Jim Sweeney (10%)

Reverts between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney: by RoslynSKP [3] – by RoslynSKP [4] – by Jim Sweeney [5] – by RoslynSKP [6]

Battle of Beersheba (1917) [7]

RoslynSKP made 591 edits of 1157 revisions (51%) – 105 edits by Jim Sweeney (9%)

Reverts between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney: by RoslynSKP [8] – by RoslynSKP [9]

It is evident from the first of those 3 articles submitted that RoslynSKP worked alone, i.e. was not collaborating, therefore no disruptions. On the other articles where RoslynSKP and other editors, particularly Jim Sweeney, were aiming to develop the same content, there is evidence of disagreements, reverts, snappy edit summaries, war edits and/or talk page disputes.

A contest cannot be considered a "collaborative" effort given that, a) RoslynSKP enters based upon her own merits, not a group effort; and b) most reviews don't involve collaboration in terms of developing the article with someone closely with the same topic interests, rather an uninvolved editor looks it over, may give feedback which the nominee can choose to apply, and it's approved.

I believe the answer given by RoslynSKP is not truthful as it implies that the MilHist award gave credit which recognised her collaborative efforts, which is not the case; a coord issued it solely based on "a score of 14 points". The scoring system does not take into account how articles are developed, only that they were improved; the ends not the means. Highlighting the award makes for a useful smokescreen to mask the patterns found in the history of many articles besides these 3 which indicate that RoslynSKP does not work as well with others as she believes. RoslynSKP is not a bad "content editor", but she certainly does not understand the true meaning of a "collaborative project" such as MilHist, as her behaviour appears to be territorial.

I'd also note that RoslynSKP's conduct in regards to the Battle of Abu Tellul/Affair of Abu Tellul article two years ago is highly similar to that in the recent disputes. I think that the discussions at what is now Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul illustrates the point. While RoslynSKP deserves credit for developing 14 articles to GA status, in regards to their history of collaborative editing in this sphere it is notable that, according to the automated tracking at WP:GAN, they have not reviewed any other editors' GA nominations (see their current nominations at WP:GAN#Warfare). While there's no requirement to review other GA nominations, it's generally regarded as good form for established participants in the GA process to review roughly as many articles as they nominate. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal of RoslynSKP comments

Quote 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.

RoslynSKP was still disputing this last month. See Talk:Battle of Ayun Kara#Creation of this article two comments at 19 and 21 November 2013.

Then in relation to answer 2 - there was also the disruption to the FA Class article Harry Chauvel when the article name was moved without any discussion [10] and then in the related discussion on the talk page Talk:Harry Chauvel#Move to Henry G. Chauvel opposed when RoslynSKP would not accept WP:POLICY until it was pretty clear where it was going.Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Will there be any analysis of the evidence? Will only the very one sided proposals so far submitted, be voted on by the Arbitrators? --Rskp (talk) 01:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The actual proposed decision will be posted soon and will be more complete. The drafting arbitrator appears to have posted a few items from the proposed decision for comment. However, other arbitrators may propose other elements of the decision if they see matters differently. --Rs chen 7754 01:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far it does seem very one sided, without any analysis of the evidence. --Rskp (talk) 01:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would you propose the evidence be "analysed" given that everyone has had equal time and opportunity to post evidence, rebuttals, proposals and answers to questions? In fact, you were granted 24-hours longer to finalise your evidence.. nothing one-sided about that. There was also nothing to stop you posting proposals.. you choose not to, for whatever reasons, I don't think you have a legitimate cause to complain or preach about "one-sidedness" – this isn't another ANI thread where you can complain endlessly about "victimisation" and attempt to make the Arbitrators feel guilty about taking action against you. Everyone was invited to comment, offering no defence doesn't make it a one-sided case. Let ArbCom do their job without making blatant attempts to manipulate their emotional distance from the case. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 04:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our aim is to resolve this dispute. What matters is that our decision do so, fairly and effectively. If you think the proposals presented on the Workshop (or, soon, on the Proposed Decision page) are not fair or will be ineffective, please explain in the appropriate comments section. Thank you, AGK [•] 17:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are expecting a public review of the evidence in the form of "this was correct, this was thrown out, this was spin, etc. etc", you won't get it. Though it has many trapping of a court, it is not a court. Each arb reviews the evidence on their own and discusses it amungst themselves to come to a conclusion. That conclusion will consist of the policies they consider germane to the issue (principles) the events they feel are relevant and true (finding of facts) and what to do to solve the issue (remedies). Arbs usually sprinkle in a personal statement and illustrative (but not definitive) diffs to justify the vote but they are not obligated to. They don't normally deal in negatives, so don't expect them to say things like "x was not edit warring" or "y did nothing wrong" or "evidence did not show z". If they don't think something is true, they just don't mention it. Unfortunately, they will similarly ignore things that are true but not worth mentioning, with no distinction between them. It's up to you to figure out which is which. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom does not usually indicate the reasoning or logic behind its findings, if any. One or more Arbs might post something, but the others will not indicate whether they concur. The Arbs may or may not read the evidence. ArbCom can create its own facts, and findings have been known to fly in the face of the evidence. On occasion, the ruling will come completely out of the blue. The most important factor is always the impact on their re-election chances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Conciderimg three quit before their term was up and another four of the nine didn't bother to seek re-election one can only conclude re-election was at the forefront of all their decisions. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And making unjust, arbitrary decisions is the best guarantee of being re-elected. AGK [•] 20:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. What's your explanation for them? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]