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

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

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

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

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.

Evidence

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples available of evidence submitted in other naming disputes? --Rskp (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@RoslynSKP: I can think of four recent arbitration cases based in a naming dispute, but these cases may not bear much other similarity to this one:
Please bear in mind that lots of evidence may be submitted against you. Not all of it will relate to your conduct in the naming dispute. You will have to rebut this evidence in your own evidence section; remember to ask for an extension to your evidence word count and diff count limits, as and when needed. Hope this helps! AGK [•] 23:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this information does help a lot. Thanks very much. --Rskp (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to have somewhere to gather the diffs etc. and sort it out? --Rskp (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can create a Sandbox in your userspace for such a purpose and simply CSD it after the case has concluded. I don't think ArbCom will provide a "drafting area" for you, that I can see. Or do what I did – use a tabbed browser to switch between editing and histories, and preview your evidence carefully before submitting it, to check that your diffs are correctly formatted and organised. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 03:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Marcus says. AGK [•] 10:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't "fix" it, you simply need to replace your wording i.e. "see diff 28" etc. with actual diff. links, as each time anyone above you adds a fresh diff. all those after it will increment their number – diff 28 becomes 29, then 30 and so on. Don't rely on and refer to our diffs, in other words, hardcode the URLS within your section so that they're clickable. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 04:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Got it. --Rskp (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? Your "neutral language" section still reads, "... see diff 28 ... see diff 29". Those have long changed to diffs 48 and 49. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limits

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed the infobox at the top about how many words and diffs parties and others can add. I'm probably well over the limit for the diffs I've given and no clue on my word count. Regardless, I'm going to request to exceed the limits retroactively and in advance, should it become necessary to expand on my evidence further, which is probably likely though not by much more. Given that this is a two-fold case with conjoined content disputes and editor behaviour concerns to relate to, going back as much as 2 years, it probably isn't easy to stay within the standard meagre limits for everyone, though on the plus-side for those who have to review it all, there only seems to be half as many people giving evidence as I expected. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to rub it in, but you guys really need to learn to look before you leap - or in this case, to be more specific, read before you type. There is no shame in reading twice then editing once and getting it right the first time, although in you case the time length does raise a point for arbcom to consider vis-a-vis evidence. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I seldom get anything wrong, I'm simply saying I've gone over the diffs limit and need more space.. which isn't technically "wrong" just a show of over-enthusiasm. ;) Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exceeding the evidence length limits actually is technically wrong. This is my boilerplate comment on evidence length, which inevitably comes up at the start of cases:

    The easiest way to count the number of words is to paste the submission into Pages, Word, or an online word count tool. To count the diffs, subtract the identifying integer of the last diff from that of the first diff; or edit the section containing the submission, when the integer of the last diff will be equal to the diff count; or edit the section and use CTRL+F to count the number of instances of [http, [//, or [{{fullurl. Beware of discrepancy between these methods for submissions that mention any diff more than once.

    Evidence that exceeds the prescribed limits (1000 words and 100 diffs for named parties to the case, or 500 words and 50 diffs for non-parties) may be removed, docked, or refactored. I usually allow submissions with extra material that is ≤10% of the allowed limit, or requests for extensions to the evidence limits may be made on this page. Extension requests need to explain why you need to submit extra evidence. It is usually expected that the extra words or diffs will be used to illustrate a point not made in the existing submission; extensions are not to be used to go into excessive detail. Extension requests need to specify how much extra length you need; word count extensions (the most common) are usually given in increments of 250 words. AGK [•] 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious.. I need a maths degree and shearing scissors to get a word count extension! Anyway, I can only reiterate what I said before, I'm on about 570 words and 110 diffs. One cannot simply produce two years of evidence for a wide-spread matter in less and expect to be thorough or precise; not much you can refactor or dock from mine without reengineering and technically manipulating the evidence in another party's favour, that I can see. Please extend my limits to, oh let's say 750 words, 150 diffs. I think that should suffice, I only have one more Type A assertion in cover, I believe. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Make that 1000 words and 150 diffs, tavm. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 08:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From my (limited) experience with prior arbitration cases and observing other cases, ArbCom generally don't want editors to post commentary as evidence, and this is what they're getting at with the word limit. They generally look for simple statements of what the issue they need to consider is, with links to evidence which supports this. Various arbs have said that they do actually follow up on these links. The best evidence post I've ever seen is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence#Evidence presented by Kirill Lokshin - it's much, much more effective than the kind of post I'd made above it. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but it's always going to differ from case-to-case, depending on the circumstances, how much each piece of evidence needs substantiating. Not all cases are going to be as straight forward as "See X, Y and Z, proof speaks for itself". In this case, there is evidence being given for two things, often interspersed across various articles and talk pages, going back two years. Without some commentary, diffs can be meaningless. Also, you may notice, that there are 12 people giving evidence in the case you linked.. once a handful of people have already given evidence there is little need to repeat it unless you have an original point to make. Here there are just 3 of us who have bothered, thus far, against one, from at least twice as many editors who are known to have had or expressed their concerns about RoslynSKP from MilHist. I don't know if that's just pure laziness on some editor's parts, or what.. but it is a very disappointing turnout for MilHist and certainly shows why RoslynSKP has had to end up at ArbCom: what MilHist makes up in numbers, it lacks in compunction, i.e. all talk, no trousers come the showdown. These matters could have been settled long ago had one of two of the very long-term, highly experienced coords and sysops had the balls to act instead of turning a blind eye. Certainly not a team to rely on in a crisis. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be posting evidence on the weekend, and I imagine that others will as well - there's no need to post evidence at present, and it's common for people to draft this off-wiki or in their user space. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating request for extension as it seems to have gone unnoticed and I'm getting annoying bloody red-tape templates plastered all over the place. Request for 150 diffs and a 1200 word count. That should suffice, once again bearing in mind that this is a two-fold case. If clerks saw fit to make Type A/B then it would have also been prudent and logical to also provide more word/diff space to satisfy the need to provide evidence across both types also, instead of bureaucratic measures which make life more difficult. I've never known such a trying and ridiculous system... Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:23, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you simply needed to be a little more patient! AGK [•] 14:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, but living under a Tory government I've developed an intolerance for all things that resemble "legal" paperwork too.. bureaucracy is seldom fun when everything you've experienced lately is bad. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 15:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Table

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for me to assess, or answer the information contained in MarcusBritish's table or their claim that they do "not believe Jim Sweeney's behaviour was as much at fault for the same ownership issues and unwillingness to collaborate that RoslynSKP shows"? --Rskp (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PONY — Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible for a neutral editor to answer my question? --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The arbitration team can only assist in the administration of a case, they can't take sides and then be expected to handle matters impartially. If you want a serious answer, then it would be: find evidence contrary to my claim and present it; if you want the truth, I scrapped that table together in less than an hour without a clue as to how damning the totals would be in advance, nor did I have any idea that you had reverted Jim at least 239 times.. hence why I cited WP:PONY, to indicate that you can either take blame for some of your behaviour or attempt to deny it all, and potentially dig yourself a deeper hole. I may not be "neutral", as I also did not say that Jim was completely innocent only less to blame, but I will say this.. if you're going to sit there and deny every shred of evidence made against you, don't blame me for how that appears to the arbitrators. Humility is something we all need in life, I can only suggest you try it one day, and now might be a good place to start. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note here for you, re: "MarcusBritish's interpretation of the percentages" – I haven't made any textual interpretation, there is nothing above or below the table which even attempts to "interpret" those totals, I offer them "as is". You're welcome to question what I'm implying, but do so with care, I'm not the type of man who likes having words put into his mouth, especially if they're misguided. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok MarcusBritish. I wasn't aware my question was out of bounds. Thanks for letting me know. --Rskp (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerical error

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 23:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This case has a clerical error which I request be reviewed and amended forthwith. I was not detailed as a "party" by User:TomStar81 in the filing for this case, and it would now seem that this is having a detrimental effect on my ability to present evidence under this committee's somewhat draconian set of procedures. It should be noted that I was the editor who began the !vote at MilHist which plays a major role in this case, and is a highly contended point, and therefore I am a directly involved party to the proceedings. I should not have been unlisted and request that this oversight, due to TomStar81's mistake, be corrected. This will allow my evidence to come closer to the Party permitted diff/word count allowance and a reasonable expansion be granted. As it stand, at present, I am detailed as little more than a witness to the events, when I have actually been involved as much as TomStar81 in recent weeks. Given that this is the first time I, or TomStar81, have been involved in an ArbCom case, it is not unreasonable to assume that this issue could not be predicted in advance, so it only leaves me to appeal to reason that these details be corrected immediately. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 06:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, as I made very clear in my opening statement, the case was brought by me in the name of the Military history Project coordinators as a whole. As such, over the alleged two years or so that we've been dealing with this problem, you are part of the filing party by virtue of the fact that you were awarded a seat in the XII Military history Project Coordinator Tranche. Fairly speaking, as the party entrusted by the community to enforce administrative aspects of the project, it stands to reason that anyone in this circle who has discharged there duties as a coordinator from the tranche would have more to say then the members who have little to do with the project's administration beyond making use of our assessment and awards departments. It was for this reason that I put some thought into the manner by which I filed the request by choosing to act on behalf of all of us, to ensure that anyone in the coordinator tranches was named a filing party and therefore given full faith and credit to speak as a member of that filing party. I am sure when looked at from this perspective the arbcom members and clerks would agree with me to some greater or lesser extent, so I am therefore at a loss as to why you would call my filing request a "mistake". Did being included in this manner but not specifically/explicitly named bother you? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:41, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've trivialised that way too much by making it personal to me in the wrong context. Specific to Arbcom requirements, only a named party can post 1000 words/100 diffs as evidence, anyone else a meagre 500/50. ArbCom's clerks are clearly not treating all of MilHist as party to the full allocation, only as witnesses with half-amount. Unless I am a named party, my evidence is pretty much screwed up. Don't think for a moment I'm wasting a shitload of time to cut down that evidence by half.. it's going to be all or nothing. ArbCom clerks evidently do not agree with you, as they've counted my evidence as exceeding 500/50 not 1000/100 which I thought I was under. Hence why this is a clerical mistake.. I understand your reasoning that all MH coords should be considered party, but that's not specific enough for ArbCom – they need names it would seem, and you only gave them three. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Rschen7754 (talk · contribs) explained on your talk page, the clerk(s) are not the ones that need to agree with me; the one who needs to agree with me is AGK (talk · contribs), the filing Arbitrator. Until he officially takes a position on the matter, you have not won or lost you arguement. Be patient, and have a little faith in AGK to weight the matter over carefully. In watching him work and in reading his replies I can see that he is firm but fair, and I expect that he will listen to both sides of this position before reaching and explaining his decision on the matter. In the event that the ruling on the field stands I'd happy to post your evidence in my section so as to ensure that the "all" you seek is included for consideration in the case. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request

It appears at the moment that we will be in of a clarification request as it relates to the case. When I filed the request initially I had done so at the request of the military history project coordinators, in part because in a brief review of the immediate rules and guidelines adopted by the Arbitration Committee to govern both itself and the Arbitration process I found that there was no apparent guideline or ruling to prevent a person from filing a motion on behalf of or for a larger group of people and in part because I felt that the coordinators as a whole would be in a better position to present evidence in the case. In any given coordinator tranche there are usually 12-15 coordinators, of which on average 2-3 become particularly active in a given dispute between editors. It is part of coordinator's job description to help hammer out differences between members, and I felt that filing my request on behalf of all coordinators would afford each of us a position as a filing member. Apparently though this was not clearly conveyed, and now it appears that the clerks and a coordinator are at odds over how to interpret the filing request. I offer no excuse for this failure to clearly communicate my intention, but as we are currently engaged in the arbitration process it will fall to you to decide how best to proceed on this matter. From where I sit, there are five possible solutions to resolve this matter:

  • Do nothing, in which case the matter remains unresolved, but this places undo stress on the clerks, who must decide how to sort this out,
  • Endorse a party filing and allow anyone who can prove they were a coordinator during RSKP's alleged behavior and editing related issues to be granted filing party status, in which case the case evidence page could get long if other milhist coordinators elect to participate,
  • See if MarcusBritish will accept TomStar81's offer to post the former's evidence in the latter's free space, which will give MarcusBritish the extra rooms he is requesting and TomStar81 is willing to offer, but at the expense of requiring MarcusBritish to lean on TomStar81 for any needed change to the material,
  • Reject all of the above and rule that under current rules and guidelines the coordinators are not eligible to be considered a filing party, in which case TomStar81 draws the duty of adding, subtracting, and maintaining the evidence for the entire Military history Project coordinator department,
  • Independently reach a different conclusion than the four posted above.

Any of these will work, albeit some better than others, but we will need your input before the parties, the witness, and the clerks can move forward with the case. Again, I apologize for this oversight, as I should have thought to clarify it much sooner than this, but I was unaware that it would become an issue. In the interest of disclosure as it relates to bullet 2, those coordinators who would be considered filing party members are those listed in the table on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators, beginning with the VIII Coordinator Tranche (27 September 2009 – 28 March 2010). It is important to note that while the number of contributors listed as coordinators from then till now appears high, the actual number of coordinators from that table who actively participated in dispute resolution with RoslynSKP within the Military history Project is probably going to be small, so I would not expect more than 5-8 of the coordinators who would be eligible to participate in these proceedings to add to the page if option two was endorsed. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, other than TomStar81, myself, Anotherclown and AustralianRupert, few coords have been highly involved with RoslynSKP, to the same extend. Granting 1000/100 to all coords is probably the easiest "low risk" solution as hardly any are likely to need more than the 500/50 unless they have some history with RoslynSKP which I have not come across. I have doubts that more than 1 or 2 more people who were less involved will post any evidence in the next 2 days, as amongst the few of us who have provided thus far, we've managed to trawl pretty much all the main concerns of note.. there are perhaps only a few smaller details left over, which may arise. I have one such concern but am having trouble wording it in my head, so I don't know how it will result, it at all. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drafter's ruling

Ruling on evidence length and disputant status for MILHIST co-ordinators:

Thank you for thoughtfully and carefully framing these issues for me. I will allow Military history co-ordinators to individually enrol themselves as parties to this case, by adding their username to the involved parties list. They will then be entitled to a 1000/100 word/diff allowance for their evidence. Individual co-ordinators will have to decide for themselves whether they wish to become a party; we cannot add the entity of Military History project co-ordinators as a party to the case. Co-ordinators should only add themselves as parties if they have had actual involvement in the underlying dispute. I may revisit these directions at a later date, and any editor – party or not – can otherwise still ask for their evidence word and/or diff limits to be increased; such requests, where at all reasonable, will probably be granted.

I hope this clarifies the situation. Thank you, AGK [•] 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that practical ruling, AGK. As my original statement is currently archived in the "uninvolved editors" section with "do not modify" instructions, could a clerk or yourself please advise whether my statement there needs to moved to the main page under party statements, as the Involved parties section linked above does not yet exist, so I am unsure how to go about its creation without leaving my listed as both involved and uninvolved. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have officially added you as a party to the case. --Rschen7754 00:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; and now that's all sorted may I now impress upon AGK to please consider expanding my evidence limits to 1250/125 and then I can look to getting my last bit posted before we move on. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 00:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcusBritish: What theme will the next part of your evidence have? Giving me a preview as a pithy title like User X does Y, such as you have given in your submission sub-headers, will help me judge whether a larger submission from you will be helpful. Thanks, AGK [•] 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no title, only a rough idea at the moment which is hard to word. It relates to the fact that most of the Type A evidence thus far has looked at the underlying argument that "Ottoman" and "Turkish" are synonomous or that "Turkish" is heavily sourced, and therefore not unreasonable. I need to procure evidence from RoslynSKP's history that highlight that on a number of occasions RoslynSKP has specifically stated that "Turkish is a derogatory colloquial term", without ever substantiating this claim; I have requested that they prove this, several times, but have yet to receive a response other than some crap about "WP:Blue applies here, not sources", if I recall. My evidence would pertain to the title of this case, to highlight that the disputed naming convention is in fact a POV-matter on RoslynSKP's behalf which has never been proved. It's all well for them to state "Turkish is derogatory" and that the British sources are intentionally being anti-Ottoman, but without proof it is a meaningless position. I suppose that would make the title something like "RoslynSKP's 'Ottoman' claims are wp:fringe-like claims". And then we can determine whether the foundation of RoslynSKP's edit warring and behaviour in Type B has been based on theory all along, as this would be their final opportunity to present evidence supporting their claim, having ignored all my previous requests on talk pages. The ArbCom will then be able to make a more precise judgement of the naming matter, which does not relate to the subjective ratio of sources that use Ottoman:Turkish, nor the consensus with regards the Milhist !vote.. but whether RoslynSKP's claim was ever genuine in the first place or simply the spark which ignited this matter. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 01:21, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK, I have added my final section under my Type A heading, but have commented it out [1], as I have no idea when you'll respond to this or if I'll be around when you do – this at least means the evidence is "in place" before the deadline, and if you're able to accept it by allowing the limit increase, it can simply be uncommented by yourself or a clerk as permitted. The additional material is fairly brief, around 70 words and 11 diffs extra, but I believe it to be important to the "A" case. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 05:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extension given (and submission count template duly updated). Thanks, AGK [•] 13:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, just made some minor tweaks to my wording and grammar and diff formatting, to tidy things up a bit.. will need another word count, but shouldn't have made that much difference. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish{chat} 14:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Word extension

Closing resolved thread. AGK [•] 12:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the surprise word extension AGK. Can I have an time extension to make use of it? --Rskp (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to discuss in the extra evidence? The extension was to allow your extra words to be accepted into evidence, not for you to submit more evidence and therefore run over the word count again. AGK [•] 23:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In good faith I made a lot of cuts yesterday, while most of the diffs were checked, I'm not sure about all of them. I have done a ce this morning, adding a little detail. But my brain is about fried, so I haven't checked all the diffs, nor commented on AustralianRupert's evidence. --Rskp (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@RoslynSKP: I will allow until 00:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC) for you to rebut AustralianRupert's evidence. During this time, you are also free to amend the rest of your evidence as required. Afterwards, I cannot return to read new changes to the evidence, so further changes will not be allowed from the 10th. This is an extension for you personally, not for everybody. AGK [•] 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. --Rskp (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History, semantics, and possible options

The general Anatolia region has been referred to as "Turkey" for roughly 1,000 years now. In the 11th century, the Seljuq dynasty overthrew the Ghaznavids and subsequently ousted the Byzantines from Asia Minor (for more on that, check out our article on the Battle of Manzikert and branch off from there). It was here that military commander Suleiman ibn Qutulmish founded the Sultanate of Rum. Although the Byzantine–Seljuq wars raged on for a few centuries more, the Turks were firmly established in the land and the other native inhabitants — Greeks, Armenians, Slavs, etc. — were gradually assimilated into the Turkic culture from then on. By the time Rum was dissolved in the early 1300s, most of Anatolia was Turkish. Whether we're talking about the Sultanate of Rum, the partly concurrent Anatolian beyliks (i.e. principalities), the Ottoman Empire, or the present-day Turkish republic, every single one of them was colloquially referred to as "Turkey".

This boils down to semantics, and I don't think establishing some sort of standard practice would be convenient. I will say this, calling it the "Ottoman Turkish Empire" is a bit redundant; the regions under Ottoman rule were always seen as the "Turkish Empire", so it hardly needs that additional designation. Nevertheless, I generally prefer "Ottoman Empire" within a political context because it places specific emphasis on the rulers themselves. When we're talking about the Anatolian region prior to the creation of the modern Turkish state, or even the empire as a whole in some contexts, "Turkey" can certainly apply. I might alternate between the two terms myself when I'm dealing with text regarding some portion of Ottoman history (e.g. World War I).

The Arbitration Committee exclusively presides over matters of editorial conduct; content is beyond its remit. That doesn't mean they can't play an advisory role. Topic bans might be necessary in this case, but I feel as if we could take this opportunity to set off on the road towards accomplishing something else. The Arbitration Committee might want to consider recommending a community discussion regarding naming conventions for the Ottoman Empire. From what I've been able to gather, similar resolutions were passed in the tree shaping, abortion, TimidGuy, and infobox cases. I don't remember being involved in any of the subsequent discussions, but it doesn't seem as if they've procured bad results. Then again, I'll reiterate what I said above — I think "Turkey" and "the Ottoman Empire" can be used interchangeably in most contexts, although the latter would be preferable when dealing with matters of politics.

I might propose some of these ideas over at the workshop, assuming no one else has by the time I revisit this case. Kurtis (talk) 07:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already drafted several proposals, but may I suggest that this section be moved to the Workshop talk page, as we may need to discuss it there in relation to proposals rather than evidence, as such options bear more relevance to the future outcome of this case rather than evidence of past or ongoing disruptions. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 07:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Given that a clear consensus emerged after the discussion moved to a relevant central noticeboard (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute) I'm not sure if ArbCom really needs to recommend further discussion or the use of additional/changed/different processes. A reminder that people should seek wide input in this kind of matter may be in line though. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)We at the Military history Project concede all points you raised above, which is why we are not here to ask which version should be used. What we need is a declaration from the group that it is and will be consensus that determines which of the two terms will be used in and given article on the subject articles, and that the consensus agreed upon must not be overturned simply for "political correctness". That the two terms are considered synonymous in parts of the English speaking world does not give editor(s) the right to unilaterally revert any and all attempts to use the language interchangeably if that is what the consensus among the contributors to a page is to do, which is why we are here. Military history Project coordinators are currently review a proposal to amend our manual of style to tighten up this apparent loophole, so I'm hopeful that between a hammer and anvil approach there and here we will be able to address this type of issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! So a consensus already exists. Now I guess it's time for ArbCom to make a decision of some sort pertaining to the conduct of the parties. But wait, does this really require arbitration to accomplish? I'm confused. Kurtis (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to read through the main page case statements to realise that one of the parties is strongly opposed to the consensus plus maintains various other long-term disputes which need closing down by ArbCom. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 09:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Marcus sums up the issue nicely above, so all I'm going to add is that, in short, the problem here is one of demonstrating that the rules apply to everyone at all times, not just to most of the people some of the time. Accordingly, then, we need the arbitration committee to make a very firm, very enforceable ruling on the matter to demonstrate that those who refuse to listen to reason on this site will be made to listen to force, and that when made to listen to force the experience gets very unpleasant very quickly. For that, I was and remain willing to see this through no matter the cost. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcus: I was aware of that just by looking at the reversions; it's pretty obvious when you check out the evidence presented.

@Tom: Alright then, that makes sense. Here's hoping things can be resolved from here. This whole dispute seems silly to me. Kurtis (talk) 10:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems silly to us all, but someone has a high horse and thinks it is all of us and not them who are silly. Ma®©usBritish{chat} 10:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please not make comments like that? Thank you. AGK [•] 12:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Minor fix

Can you help me get a diff to my edit of 05:33 2 November in the archived Improper rollback application on the Administrators' noticeboard [2]? --Rskp (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is this one: [3]. AGK [•] 10:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ottoman_Empire–Turkey_naming_dispute/Evidence"