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

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

User X has revert warred or failed to seek consensus. '''A:''' [diff 1] [diff 2] [diff 3] '''B:''' [diff 4] [diff 5].

== Evidence presented by User:Example ==
=== Type A ===
==== User X has failed to Foo ====
==== User X has failed to Bar ====
=== Type B ===
==== User X has failed to Foo ====
==== User X has failed to Bar ====

Current word length: 235; diff count: 47.

Type A[edit]

Administrators are unable to track all edits between parties to enforce Wikipedia policies and guidelines[edit]

On multiple confirmed occasion during the ongoing WP:EDITWAR over the a WP:REVERT war between rskp and Jim Sweeney resulted in a WP:3RR violations over a 24 hour period that went unnoticed and unacted on by admins due to the never ending nature of these disputes.

• Charge at Huj: (R [1], J [2], R [3], J [4], R [5], J [6], R [7], J [8])
  • Additional revisions between the two over naming the matter in this article ([9], [10], [11],^[1] [12], [13], [14], [15])
• Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917): ([16], [17], [18], [19]).
• Battle of Romani: (difs here [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], and [26])

Type B[edit]

RoslynSKP uses Weasel Words in naming headers and making posts[edit]

To increase the drama and flare of the point being made, rskp makes use of weasel words like "Illegal" when attempting to gain outside support for actions against other editors. ([27] [28] [29]). Despite being here for nearly four years, when called for the use of such terms, the reply is something along the line of "oops, m'bad" ([30])

RoslynSKP has no sense of responsibility, ergo AGF and CONSENSUS approaches will not work[edit]

Efforts to address problems with a community based approach end up derails due to RoslynSKP's apparent concern for their reputation, which almost always results in the editor adopting a playing the victim type approach to any advice made or offer to help, which has also lead the editor to blame others for their mistakes. ([31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]

Current word length: 1038; diff count: 125.

Type A[edit]

RoslynSKP rejects consensus and continues to war edit[edit]

Although the MilHist consensus closed on 27 November 2013 in favour of the continued use of "Turkish" to describe Ottoman troops [48] RoslynSKP has continued to revert the application of "Turkish" with WP:WIKILAWYER or WP:GAMETYPE behaviour, in some cases by favouring a temporary ANI agreement aimed to maintain the status quo to prevent edit warring but which did not determine content criteria; that was brought to the community for wider discussion, not for 3 people to decide privately on ANI. [49][50][51][52][53][54]

RoslynSKP then took the matter to Talk:Ottoman Empire and continued to proclaim that MILHIST's outcome was wrong. [55] This may be a form of WP:FORUMSHOP and RoslynSKP did also WP:CANVAS an editor with a non-neutral message to join the discussion, and admitted knowing that they favoured the term "Ottoman", so were partisan to her views. [56]

MilHist consensus

• Ran 22 November [57] – 27 November [58] 2013

The !vote was opened by myself to break the long-term dispute between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney, as I had taken a look at the matter following Jim's latest post, but 12 days later I noticed that no agreement was in sight. [59]

Part of the opening wording said, "b) continue the use of 'Turkish' over 'Ottoman' where context is clearly in favour of this term" – unlike part 'a' which stated a single article under dispute, part 'b' did not stipulate that the continued use of "Turkish" was specific to, nor that "context" related to, any one article.

The closing of the !vote, by an uninvolved coord, stated, "Additionally, a supermajority of supports exist towards a consensus that reliable English-language sources regularly use the term 'Turkish' to refer to soldiers from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War, and thus the term should continue." The closer did not impart any limitations to how the consensus applied across articles.

RoslynSKP insists on quoting my opening words only and then trying to interpret "context" in their own way ([60][61] – see edit summaries), so as to ignore or circumvent the aim of the consensus. When I opened it my intent was to determine if "Turkish" should be allowed where there is context to do so – "context" meaning any article that is of historical relevance and relates to the Ottoman Empire and its Turkish troops. It is RoslynSKP who decided to misinterpret the consensus as pertaining to only one article (of her choice), to only mean WWI's Ottoman forces, and only in relation to what her personal idea of what "context" means. It is clear that everyone else who choose to partake in the !vote understood the broader scope and aim of the consensus, and has only resulted in RoslynSKP choosing to narrow it down to suit her own views, thus allowing continued disruptions over the matter, as evidenced.

RoslynSKP makes unsubstantiated claims[edit]

• RoslynSKP claims that "Turkish" is a derogatory or colloquial term (technically a POV) without supporting this claim with any proof: [62][63][64]
• RoslynSKP claims that referring to Ottoman troops as "Ottoman" is a matter of WP:BLUE and does not need reasoning, even if multiple reliable sources use "Turkish", as a reason to reject consensus: [65][66][67][68]
• RoslynSKP ignores requests for proof that "Turkish" is or was a derogatory term: [69][70] (i.e. these requests for proof went unanswered).

Type B[edit]

RoslynSKP abuses maintenance tags[edit]

The maintenance tags system is designed to add articles to cleanup categories so that they can be identified and improved by uninvolved editors without invitation. Whenever RoslynSKP is unable to get the upper-hand or garner consensus on an article's talkpage, they tag the article with maintenance/POV tags, the extend of edit warring over the placement. It is as though RoslynSKP intends to hold the article "hostage" until her specific demands are met to apply her edits only. This use of tagging is gaming in bad faith, is disruptive, and represents a serious concern with regards the editor's refusal to collaborate effectively whilst POV-pushing.[71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80]

RoslynSKP maintains grudges against editors[edit]

Since 1 September 2013, RosylnSKP has reverted a disproportionate number of contribs across a large number of articles and article talk pages, compared with previously.‡ The vast majority of these are those of Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown. The following examples cover the dates 1 September – 30 November 2013, approximately 3 full months. Certain dates contain "runs" of reverts in very short periods. These have times added to highlight two points: a) these reverts are not being placed with due consideration, but hastily, which suggests an aggressive attitude towards the editor; b) It highlights the hypocrisy of RosylnSKP creating an ANI thread titled "Illegal use of rollback" [81] on 29 October 2013 given that i) "Rollback" is little more than a faster reverting function; ii) WP:STONEWALL describes the ANI behaviour as "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction."

Over the period a approximately 90 days, including reverts of contribs made by other editors, RoslynSKP has made in excess of 100 reverts to a handful of WWI-related articles. They were not made in the manner of someone tackling vandalism or disruptive behaviour, but of someone with detrimental WP:OWNERSHIP tendencies. I shall make proposals in /Workshop with regards to cutting RoslynSKP's 3RR and interaction rights on Wiki and with Jim Sweeney, set apart from this evidence.

Anotherclown

[82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92]

Jim Sweeney

[93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]

29 October 2013 – 01:57 [99], 00:56 [100], 00:55 [101], 00:53 [102], 00:52 [103], 00:52 [104], 00:50 [105], 00:49 [106], 00:47 [107]

28 October 2013 – 06:17 [108], 06:16 [109], 06:15 [110], 04:33 [111], 04:29 [112], 04:27 [113], 04:25 [114], 04:21 [115]

27 October 2013 – 04:23 [116], 02:14 [117], 02:00 [118], 01:59 [119], 01:58 [120], 01:57 [121], 01:55 [122], 01:52 [123]

26 October 2013 – 08:29 [124], 06:45 [125], 06:09 [126], 04:35 [127], 04:34 [128], 04:34 [129], 04:33 [130], 04:33 [131], 04:32 [132], 04:32 [133], 04:31 [134], 04:22 [135]

25 October 2013 – 05:47 [136], 05:13 [137], 05:12 [138], 05:01 [139], 05:00 [140], 04:57 [141], 04:56 [142], 04:52 [143], 04:09 [144]

[145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]

‡ Determined using word count analysis of RoslynSKP's full contribution history:

Bearing in mind that Jim Sweeney's statement for this case opens with, "I first became aware of RoslynSKP, in November 2011", I believe the first time she reverted him was on 28 November 2011 [172], around the same time. Since their introduction, there is irrefutable evidence that content disputes have escalated and there has been a maintained conflict over the 2-years period. A similar analysis of Jim Sweeney's contribs may show a similar pattern, but I do not believe that he is as much at fault for the same ownership issues and unwillingness to collaborate that RoslynSKP shows, often causing provocation, so I have not reviewed his history in depth.

Current word length: 1617; diff count: 96.

Type A[edit]

MILHIST 03:11 27.11.13 "Consensus appears to support ... the continuing use of "Turkish" where context is clearly in favor of the term. Given the abundance of reliable sources supporting the use of this term, and also given the explanatory footnote clarifying usage in the particular article ..." that is the ANZAC Mounted Division. Abundance relies on WP:COMMONNAME in the guide to article titles and AustralianRupert's footnote posted on 28.10.13 [173] which appears to suggest Turkey and the Ottoman Empire (1299 to 1923) were synonymous. This footnote remains dubious as there are no direct quotes nor context supplied. AustralianRupert has supplied a direct quote in their evidence "... The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings" which does not suggest replacing Ottoman Empire with Turkey. Nevertheless AustralianRupert's original paraphrase was enough for MILHIST to change the name of an empire in a Wikipedia article, ignoring "the sky is blue" status of the empire's name.

I agree that English language sources dealing with WW1, refer to the Ottoman Empire/Ottoman Army, as Turkey/Turkish soldiers/Turks. Jim Sweeney has broken the consistent use of "Ottoman Empire" in all the Sinai and Palestine campaign articles, when rewriting ANZAC Mounted Division. Confusingly, they have referred to both, although predominantly Turkey, which today covers a very small area in comparison to the vast regions which made up the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of WW1. The use of Turkey overlooks all these provinces and peoples. It was conscripts which served in their different theatre provinces, many of whom were Arabian, according to Erickson who was probably the first historian to look closely at the Ottoman side of the war in his 2001 and 2007 publications. The provinces he referred to can now be identified as Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Israel, and Palestine.

To end the confusion created by the MILHIST consensus, another compromise could mention the wide use of Turkey, etc. in the sources, but that it was the Ottoman Empire and use the empire name consistently throughout the articles. While I have respected the MILHIST consensus I have tried to and will try in the future, to limit the use of "Turkey" where it replaces the Ottoman Empire in WW1 articles.

Rebuttals

Rebut "lock step trio" did not refer to a consensus, but to AustralianRupert, Anotherclown and Jim Sweeney's collaborative agreement regarding the footnote, which was so influential in the MILHIST consensus [174].

Rebut claims I broke consensus, based on a facetious remark of 5.11.13 [175], in edits of Charge at Huj on 24.11.13 before MILHIST consensus [176], on 26.11.13 before MILHIST consensus [177], at 00:34 on 27.11.13 before MILHIST consensus [178], after MILHIST consensus claiming status quo ante bellum [179], in accordance with status quo ante bellum imposed on Administrators' noticeboard by TomStar81 on 15.11.13. [180] Ante bellum was claimed because when Jim Sweeney created the article on 15.2.12 they referred to the Ottoman Empire not Turkey.

Rebut consensus contravened at 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade on 30.11.13 [181] claiming there was no remit to apply consensus to other articles.

Rebut claims of non-neutral language in my post to Talk:Ottoman Empire. [182]

Rebut MarcusBritish's accusation of canvassing [183] was refuted. Made personal attack stuck-up know it all [184] which was tagged [185] then they wrote an extremely offensive post. [186]

Type B[edit]

Jim Sweeney WP:OWN after expansion of the Desert Mounted Corps Formation subsection to include how and when DMC was formed on 18.9.13 [187]. Then Jim Sweeney conducted an edit war cutting the information [188] cut [189] cut [190] The how and when of Formation reinserted [191] cut [192] cut [193] misunderstanding that Desert Column became Desert Mounted Corps a few weeks later, cut [194] cut [195] cut [196] cut [197] cut [198] cut [199] cut [200] cut [201] cut [202] reinstate how and when of Formation [203] Jim Sweeney finally made a slight cut on 21.10.13 [204] leaving most of the Formation as first edited by me, but changing mentions of 'Anzac Mounted Division' to 'ANZAC Mounted Division,' and to 'ANZ MTD DIV' on 25.10.13 [205]. This division's name had been more or less stable since 2011 when two MILHIST discussions agreed to Anzac Mounted Division [206], [207]

Charge at Haritan gained B-class on 27.10.12 [208]. Jim Sweeney reduced it on 23.11.12 to C-class. [209] when they insisted on a 1920 brigade history's version of events, rather than a variety of reliable sources including official histories which had won B-class. Jim Sweeney responded to criticism with a consensus. [210] The article continues C-class with problems of coverage and accuracy.

Capture of Damascus (1918) IP 84 claimed copyright violations at 10:42 26.9.13 on the Talk page [211]. Deletions had already started at 10:20, [212] Then the IP 84 effectively deleted the article with a Copyvio tag at 10:47 26.9.13 [213]. The article remained off air during the 95th anniversary of the Capture on 1.10.13, when none of the steps required by the tag were taken and the Talk page discussion did not progress. I undid the tag on 4.10.13 citing "possible vandalism" [214] IP 196 and IP 197 reinstated Copyvio tag [215], [216]. Then Jim Sweeney reinstated the Copyvio tag [217], [218], [219] On 29.9.13 in the hope of getting the article back on line I offered to work on it. [220] which was ignored by all. On 16 October I made a series of edits to quotations and the Copyvio tag has been replaced by an Overquotation tag which allows the article to be read. I contributed politely and fully to the discussion on the talk page [221]. I still can't believe nobody thought it was ok not to follow the Copyvio process and that it was not vandalism, to blank the whole article on its 95th anniversary.

Rebuttals

Rebut non collaboration. I have collaborated extensively and productively with many many editors, in writing and rewriting almost all the articles to do with the Sinai and Palestine. This work has resulted in most articles now being B-class the last one gained on 4 December [222], with a growing number of GA, currently three awaiting GAR. See also copyedit work fixing names, questioning information not contained in sources, improving syntax etc. [223], [224], [225].

Rebut lack of discussion on Talk pages, see [226], [227],[228]. See also Talk:Stalemate in Southern Palestine Notability [229] Infobox [230] Disruptive editing [231] Issues [232] Merge proposal [233] Question of language [234] But when Jim Sweeney asked for more information than the source provided I couldn't help [235].

Rebut lodging improper report regarding disruptive editing of the Stalemate in Southern Palestine - with Administrators' noticeboard [236]. The WP:DE from 31.5 to 2.6.13 made it impossible to contribute or understand why the huge cuts were being made. The disruption began when IP 190 cut night bombing report [237] troop rotation at Tel el Marakeb [238] and tag bombed the article [239]. Then IP 202 cut the Khamsin section [240], cut troop rotation at Abasan el Kebir [241] and at Tel el Marakeb [242], and cut conditions and combat training [243] Jim Sweeney cut the infobox [244], and added a tag [245]. Anotherclown also cut the inbox twice [246] [247] Jim Sweeney cut memorial info from memorial photo caption [248], cut living conditions [249] [250] on 2 June ending the disruption. Since IP 200 cut mail, rest camp and leave in July [251] the article with the military conflict infobox has been stable. The Administrators' noticeboard was not interested in the disruptive editing; the tag bombing, the large cuts, and the cutting of the infobox. They concentrated on the article's length, which I have readily acknowledged was too long. Nick-D claims in evidence this was a content dispute.

Rebut criticism of lodging another inappropriate application with Administrators' noticeboard regarding Jim Sweeney's improper rollback made on 29.10.13 [252] has more to do with WP:OWN than frustration. This rollback cut from the introduction; citations to reliable sources for the division's several name, cited changes the ANZAC Mounted Division's structure, cut links to places, and to the Sinai and Palestine campaign. Nick-D in evidence characterised the rollback as an edit war over terminology.

Rebut Nick-D's and TomStar81's issues with the term "illegal," [253] including claims of it being a weasel word. Illegal is not ambiguous, nor can it be interpreted as canvassing, nor is it WP:BATTLEGROUND as Nick-D claimed 07:38, 30 October. [254]

Rebut "play the victim" regarding the Improper rollback application to the Administrators' noticeboard [255].After the rollback was done and dusted, Administrators' noticeboard indulged in a series of unsubstantiated personal attacks, creative writings, character assessments.[256] On 2 November I strongly defending myself. [Can't get specific diffs as article archived.] Rebut TomStar81's issues with reporting an earlier rollback also improperly performed by Jim Sweeney [257] I still don't understand why all these editors reacted in such a fashion as nothing specific was raised and many of them had never had any dealings with me.

Rebut incorrect use of POV tag [258] which I added to Desert Mounted Corps after one, useful but limited 1921 source, (available on the web [259]) published before all the official histories, was relied on by Jim Sweeney for the whole of the Corps' service history.

Rebut abuse of tags when I replaced fevered ravings of some old woman with tags. Anotherclown reinstated the personal attack twice [260] and [261] When an IP added typical lazy hack job [262] I added a tag [263] but Jim Sweeney reinstated the personal attack [264]

Rebut accusing Jim Sweeney of vandalism [265] after they radically changed about 35 infoboxes. Clearly MILHIST discussion did not think there was a problem with all these edits, so I asked Jim Sweeney why they was not vandalism. I was hoping for an explanation but got a serve from Nick-D instead [266]. Rebut the associated claim of tag abuse employed to draw attention to the misunderstanding and misrepresentation by Nick-D of my post.[267]

Rebut Jim Sweeney's claim that I have WP:OWN issues when I reverted a bot [268] and a file name. Clearly they were mistakes not ownership problems.

Current word length: 829; diff count: 59.

Type A[edit]

The latest dispute started at the ANZAC Mounted Division and the use of Turkish to identify one side of the conflict. The first acknowledgement by RoslynSKP of a consensus for Turkish over Ottoman came on that articles talk page @ 01:49, 5 November 2013 [269] they then edited against that consensus three times the next day [270] [271] [272]. RoslynSKP in evidence above states "My reference to a consensus on 5 November was obviously in the light of the ongoing discussion on MILHIST a facetious remark." [273] However that discussion did not start for another five days on 10 November.[274]

Then by 23 November in the related discussion at WPMILHIST there was an consensus to use Turkish ten for to one against. When the last vote was cast and the comment immediately underneath by TomStar81. [275]

RosylnSKP then changed Turkish to Ottoman on a second article Charge at Huj starting 24 November, [276], [277], Then stated consensus for use of colloquial term for Ottoman Empire does not extend to other articles [278] and again saying the discussion regarding the colloquial form of Ottoman related only to one article [279] then saying per status quo ante bellum agreed on Administrators' noticeboard [280] finally saying reinstate status quo ante bellum [281] Despite what RoslynSKP says in evidence the status quo ante bellum would have been to leave Turkish in place as that was the term first used in the article was started on 15 February 2012.[282]

Same situation at a third article the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade article starting 30 November saying reinstate status quo ante bellum. The status quo ante bellum would have been to leave Turkish in place as that was the term first used in the article. [283] and again saying Undid revision 583857966 by Anotherclown Reverting unexplained content removal when the previous edit summery was clear [284] and again Undid revision 583858477 by Anotherclown (talk)the consensus ONLY mentions the Anzac Mounted Division there is no remit to apply that odd agreement to any other articles[285] RoslynSKP claims in evidence above that the change was moot, however as can be seen when the article was expanded, in November 2012, from a stub to GA Turkish was used not Ottoman. The stub article did not mention Turkish or Ottoman [286]

Type B[edit]

RosylnSKP has a difficulty collaborating with other editors, and has some WP:OWN problems. Even to the extent of reverting edits by bots [287] and where image names have been changed and the new name and link added to the article. Calling them disruptive edits. [288]

Other examples of a refusal to accept consensus are dismissed by attacking those involved "The lock step trio are at it again" [289] Also the ANZAC Mounted Division article since January 2012 to date there were several attempts to change the article name. Four requested moves, three this year in September and October 2013, [290] [291] [292] [293] and a move review in October 2013. [294]

After consensus, on 2 January 2013, that a source used was reliable and not dubious on one article. [295] they moved to a different article on 10 January 2013, that used the same source, tagging that article with dubious tags. [296]

Another consensus gained here [297] re a section being off focus having no bearing on the article. The section was removed here and replaced, going against that consensus three days later. [298] and again over the following days. [299] [300] [301] Until the article was protected here. [302] Then added again in December 2012. [303] They then removed it after accepting consensus here. [304] Only to reinstate it in September 2013 with no change of that consensus. [305] Then an IP editor removes it per the previous consensus. [306], Only to have it replaced by RoslynSKP quoting WP:POLL now believing the consensus was not valid. [307] Then again here. [308] In another article using that same consensus on 14 October 2012. [309] on 25 October. [310] On 26 October. [311] On 27 October. [312] The page was protected here. [313] The then replaced the section on 18 September 2013 with no further discussion or change of consensus. [314] The again on 27 September again quoting WP:POLL [315] finally again on 4 October 2013 [316]

Attempts to discuss issues on talk pages are often dismissed "stop wasting my time". [317] Or making allegations of a personal attack. [318] [319] Attempts to edit articles by adding a wikilink and a couple of words are called being disruptive. [320]. When an IP editor correctly hi-lighted a possible copyright problem. [321] instead or trying to resolve that concern RoslynSKP just accused the IP of vandalism. [322] [323]. Another IP editor commented on a talk page about a problem with semi colons and spelling errors. [324] The post was deleted by RoslynSKP without resolving the problem and an edit summery of "cut post from unidentified editor" [325] When another IP editor added an over quotation tag to an article it was removed as "cut tag inserted by unidentified editor" [326] And again when a too long tag was added to an article with an edit summery of one anonymous editor thinks there is too much detail - is not a good enough reason to add the too long tag [327]

Current word length: 295; diff count: 41.

Type A[edit]

RoslynSKP edits other user's talk page comments to change Turkish to Ottoman[edit]

As part of the wider Ottoman / Turkish dispute—which has already been well documented above—my talk page comments were changed here from "Turkish" to "Ottoman", indicating the level to which this dispute escalated. [328]

Type B[edit]

RoslynSKP repeatedly edits, removes or redacts other users talk cmts[edit]

Roslyn has been warned on numerous occasions not to edit other users cmts per WP:TALKO, but has done so repeatedly in the past, often invoking claims of "personal attack" in order to dismiss comments rather than dealing with the issues they raise, and placing inappropriate user talk page tags on article talk pages. Meanwhile, as pointed out by another editor in the recent ANI the intentions, actions or opinions of those in disagreement with RoslynSKP are derided on her user page in the matter of an attack page.

Some examples of editing talk page comments:

• Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) - [329] [330] [331]
• Talk:Harry Chauvel – [332][333]
• Talk:Battle of Beersheba (1917) - [334]
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#partof section of military conflict infobox - [335]

Naming dispute just part of project wide pattern of edit warring by RoslynSKP[edit]

The edit history of most articles associated with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign over the last two years highlights a disruptive pattern of edit warring by RoslynSKP, while the Ottoman / Turkish dispute itself seems to be just a repeat of the earlier ANZAC / Anzac Mounted Division dispute which saw RoslynSKP submit 4 move requests and a move review, indicating that users WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and problems with WP:OWNERSHIP. Some recent examples of edit warring though:

• 3rd Light Horse Brigade - [336][337][338][339][340]
• Desert Mounted Corps - [341][342][343][344][345][346][347]
• Capture of Damascus (1918) - [348][349][350][351][352][353][354][355]
• Gallipoli Campaign -[356] [357][358]
• Battle of Nablus (1918) - [359][360][361][362][363]
• Third Transjordan attack - [364][365][366][367][368]

Current word length: 169; diff count: 9.

Type B[edit]

RoslynSKP dismisses concerns politely raised by others[edit]

RoslynSKP often dismisses concerns about their conduct which are expressed politely, and at times labels them as being personal attacks or threats. This has been running for about two years:

• Most recently, they repeatedly interpreted the concerns posted by various editors (including myself) at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Improper use of rollback as being "Unsubstantiated impugning of reputation" and similar.
• Old examples: [369], [370], [371]
• Other recent examples: [372], [373], [374], [375]

RoslynSKP has repeatedly attempted to use administrative processes to win content disputes and punish the other editors[edit]

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive113#Protection from two editors who are rude and degrade articles (December 2011)
• Misuse of the admin help template: [376], [377] (August 2012)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive799#Stalemate in Southern Palestine (June 2013)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive256#Improper use of rollback (October 2013) (particularly the initial labelling of this as "illegal" and the lack of recognition that the improper use of rollback was almost certainly driven by frustration over their endless edit warring over the article's terminology)

Current word length: 496; diff count: 6.

Outline of dispute[edit]

While copy editing ANZAC Mounted Division, I became aware of a dispute about the use of "ANZAC" or "Anzac". I was concerned about article stability, so at 05:03 on 27 October 2013 (UTC), I posted a compromise suggestion: [378]. I became aware of the Turkey/Ottoman issue on the ANZAC Mounted Division article after this edit at 03:50 on 28 October 2013: [379], which added this note: "ITS NOT ACCURATE TURKEY DID NOT COME INTO EXISTENCE UNTIL AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER".

In response, at 11:51, 28 October 2013, I tried to promote a compromise again and suggested adding a footnote: [380]. This was based on the following note in Gallipoli: The Turkish Story (written by two Turkish scholars and an Australian): "Many 'Western' history books (including virtually all histories of the Gallipoli campaign) use the terms 'Ottomans' and 'Turks', and 'Ottoman Empire' and 'Turkey' as if they are interchangeable. The words may be synonymous to English-speaking peoples, but in fact they have quite specific historical meanings". (p. xi).

In suggesting this I was not claiming that the "Ottoman Empire" and "Turkey" are synonymous. I was stating that many sources use the term synonymously. There is a difference. My intent was not to promote the use of either term over the other, but to seek a compromise by accepting the main editor's choice of term, while pointing out to our readers in an unobtrusive manner that academic sources take varied approaches to the matter. In these situations, as Wikipedians we should simply (and politely) acknowledge that there is disagreement in the sources, present it neutrally, and move on so we can focus on expanding our content.

I believe that in writing the ANZAC Mounted Division article (and similar articles), Jim has exercised a legitimate editorial judgment to use the term that the majority of his sources use, i.e. "Turkey". While I personally think "Ottoman" is more accurate (some times), I support his decision. As Wikipedians we are amateur historians, so we must follow our sources. Jim readily accepted the compromise [381], although not everyone agreed: [382] A wider discussion then followed: [383]

My suggestion to resolve this is to accept that neither term is "better" than the other in relation to World War I articles and we treat the matter in a manner that allows the main editor to choose their preferred term so long as it is supported by the sources as both are legitimate editorial decisions. To clarify, I am saying that if Jim (or anyone else) wants to use "Turkey" in articles he is writing, then we should accept that. Likewise, if others want to use "Ottoman" in other articles where they are the main editor, then they should be allowed to do that too. It shouldn't be a zero sum game. Agree to compromise, work collaboratively, raise concerns politely on the talk page, and above all allow the main editor to get on with writing their article.

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}[edit]

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.