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

The purpose of the workshop is for the parties to the case, other interested members of the community, and members of the Arbitration Committee to post proposed components of the final decisions for review and comment. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions, which are the four types of proposals that can be included in the final decision. The workshop also includes a section (at the page-bottom) for analysis of the /Evidence, and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Fact-finding[edit]

No motions have been proposed by the parties in this case.

No temporary injunctions have been proposed by the parties in this case.

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Questions to RoslynSKP[edit]

@RoslynSKP: Evidence has been presented demonstrating misconduct on your part. Do you think this evidence demonstrates you are not able to constructively contribute to:

1. The dispute about Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming?
2. Articles about military history?
3. Articles about general history?

Plenty of “Type B” has also been presented, and demonstrates a deep inability on your part to collaborate with other contributors (on any topic area). Unfortunately, such an inability cannot be remedied through narrow sanctions like an editing restriction or topic ban.

4. How would you defend yourself against the suggestion that your editing style is fundamentally unsuited to a collaborative project like Wikipedia?

Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:RoslynSKP

1. No. The evidence overlooks the constructive contributions made to the Ottoman Empire/Turkey naming dispute, in particular drawing attention to the historical facts which relate to WW1 as outlined in Ottoman Empire, and the weakness of the footnote.
2. No. The evidence relates mainly to interchanges with Jim Sweeney. Rather, I have constructively contributed to many articles describing the Sinai and Palestine campaign, some of which have gained B-class and GA. This could not have occurred without extensive, extremely valuable, and constructive collaborations with many, many editors. Without these editors willingness to give their time and interest to collaborate with me, these often long and complex articles, could not have progressed.
3. I can't think of any general history articles I have edited on Wikipedia.
4. During the three and a half years I have worked on Wikipedia, my collaborative editing style has been developing and improving. This has been thanks to positive interactions and collaborations with many editors, when new and existing articles have been written, and others re-written and reconstructed. Most, if not all these articles, have been successfully assessed by MILHIST to B-class [1], and a number have reached GA [2]. This would have been impossible if my editing style had been unsuited to Wikipedia, proof of which can be found in the many positive collaborations with Guild Copy Editors, and GA reviewers, whose willingness to interact and guide me to make the necessary changes, have brought these articles up to standard. Proof of all these positive collaborations and my improving editing style can also be found on the MILHIST monthly contest [3], which I have entered for some considerable time. The records of this contest could prove my consistent and successful efforts to improve the articles of the Sinai and Palestine campaign. During November, Battle of Beersheba (1917) was improved from B-class to GA earning 5 points, the First Battle of Gaza was improved from C to B-class earning 3 points, and the Southern Palestine Offensive a new article reached B-class earning 6 points, gaining 2nd place in November. [4] This month I have entered a new article the Capture of the Wadi el Hesi which has gained B-class for 6 points.

Other comments- I have worked collaboratively with many many editors. Exceptions to these positive working relationships include, trying to deploy the 'remove personal attacks' tag, edit wars with Jim Sweeney, and trying to get help from MILHIST co-ordinators and Administrators during which there were obviously breakdowns in communication, which I cannot understand nor explain.

Nevertheless, disagreements with Jim Sweeney regarding their cutting longer articles to create new articles e.g. Battle of Ayun Kara from Battle of Mughar Ridge, were entirely based on my misunderstanding of how articles are linked/nested on Wikipedia. I am now very grateful for this knowledge, as it made possible the development of the many battle articles which make up the Battle of Sharon, eight of the ten are now at GA. Thank you. Rskp (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers, @RoslynSKP. I have two more questions:

5. For your changes from "Ottoman Empire" to "Ottaman-Turkey empire" (etc.), do you accept that you have edited in violation of consensus?
6. If you were taken back now to the beginning of this dispute, what would you do differently?

AGK [•] 10:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

1. As far as I can recall I have not edited in violation of the MILHIST consensus, although I have sort to limit its application to the article concerned, arguing that the dubious footnote does not give to other articles the "context clearly in favor of the term," referred to in the MILHIST consensus. I did change links to the ambiguous redirect "Turkish Ottoman Empire" as the Ottoman Empire was not Turkish, just as the British Empire was not English, and adding the link to the redirect into articles only creates confusion.
2. I would not use the word "illegal," nor react in any way at all, to the personal attacks and negative comments etc. --Rskp (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to Military history co-ordinators[edit]

@WP:MILHIST coordinators: Several co-ordinators have mentioned that this dispute falls ‘within the purview’ of the co-ordinators, and reference is made in several workshop proposals to the co-ordinators as a user group (similar to site administrators). However, the WikiProject front page defines co-ordinators as “the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project […] responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes” and says they do not […] have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.”

1. What actual control do you exert over RoslynSKP, and in what capacity have you acted during this dispute?
2. Where, for the very first time, was RoslynSKP mentioned on a WikiProject Military history project page?
3. When, for the very first time, did RoslynSKP come into contact with a WikiProject co-ordinator?

Thank you. AGK [•] 11:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:TomStar81

1. The 'rights reserved' (such as they are) to the coordinators of the Military history Project are usually low key background tasks, in particular tagging and assessing articles within our scope. To this end then we exert very little actual control over RoslynSKP, the extent of our involvement being that the community looks to us as a veteran group of editors with experience in handling tricky matters to help locate and implement consensus in articles, and to ensure that the written material in our articles is of a sufficiently high quality to obtain our in project A-class assessment, allowing us a little wiggle room in articles to question and encourage corrections to the text. Beyond these simple measures we have no real power or authority over Roslyn's editorial actions, and since Roslyn pretty much refuses to follow any editorial policy or guideline we are at the mercy of this editor's drive to add and protect their edits those pages related to our project. In my capacity in this dispute I have acted with the best interest of the project in mind, sacrificing my ability to administratively enforce whatever sanctions or restrictions are added here in the greater interest of our editorial community so that they may have the chance to work on these articles without the risk of encountering editorial terrorism from parties that have already decide what the articles can and can not say. As noted in the ANI thread I cited as evidence that other measures had been tried, before this incident I never had the misfortune of interacting with RoslynSKP, yet in the interest of our project's members I felt that an intervention was needed between the warrior factions.
2. That would be in November 2011 at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Archive_106#Request_for_opinions, at which time RoslynSKP was a party involved in an editorial disagreement over whether the name of an article in question should be "battle" or "affair".
3. During the above mentioned discussion. In the process of the discussion on that page the coordinators Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) and to a lesser extent Hchc2009 (talk · contribs) were present to offer suggestions and feedback on the matter.

Response by User:Nick-D

• In regards to question 1: As Tom notes, the coordinators duties are largely clerical, and the only task they perform which other editors are not able to do is to close the project's A-class reviews. The coordinators also act as a point of contact for the project, and are well placed to provide informal guidance on dispute resolution due to their level of experience. From time to time individual coordinators will attempt to mediate disputes (and especially those which end up being discussed at WT:MILHIST), but this is done informally. About half of the coords are also admins, and act in this role when necessary (though issues around WP:INVOLVED obviously limit the scope to which the tools can be used at times).
• In regards to question 3: I (primarily as an admin, but also as one of the project's joint lead coordinators at the time) also move protected the then Affair of Abu Tellul article (now Battle of Abu Tellul) on 13 November 2011 to stop the move-warring over the article's title. My reasoning for this and advice to the editors on dispute resolution is now at Talk:Battle of Abu Tellul#Article protected from further moves. From memory, I also protected a related article a bit later - I can't remember which one at the moment though. I didn't want to step into this matter beyond making totally uncontroversial administrative actions given that I've had a long (and entirely positive) history of working with all the involved editors other than RoslynSKP on various articles, and I'd previously posted comments on her talk page thanking her for her early contributions, so there was a danger that I'd be seen as non-neutral by some or all of the involved editors. On a few points in 2012 and possibly earlier this year I posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators suggesting that an uninvolved coordinator (preferably one of the coords who is also an admin) look in on whatever the most recent iteration of this dispute was, but I don't think that anyone was willing to take it on single handed. Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with Dank and Hawkeye's comments on the role of the coordinators: we certainly don't have any powers over editors or ability to impose solutions to disputes through this role, and I don't think that any established editor believes that to be the case. The name of the role should be taken literally! Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for responding, gents. AGK [•] 10:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:Dank

• • I cringed when this case was filed supposedly on behalf of the coords, which would include me I guess, since I had asked that we try taking the conflict to a noticeboard, and I cringed again when someone said that this dispute falls "within the purview" of the co-ordinators. Most Wikipedians don't spend much time getting to know wikiprojects, so they never get a chance to see how great MilHist is ... and the greatest thing about MilHist IMV has been that, up until now, no one, including coords, has been asserting that they're in charge of disputes, or asserting that the coords were acting in concert to take action against anyone, which would understandably make not just this one project member nervous, but potentially any project member. OTOH, MilHisters have often been frustrated by apathy at noticeboards and among admins about various issues that have felt real enough to us to warrant at least a warning, so perhaps Arbcom seemed like a more productive route. I'll leave it there until this case is concluded. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • To bottom-line this, I think this case came too fast, but it might work out in the end. The real problem is that the standard routes through the standard noticeboards haven't worked well in a few cases of long-term head-butting, this case being one example. Maybe admins are overworked, I don't know. But I appreciate the work everyone has put into writing up evidence and proposals, so maybe this will give us the resolution we need after all. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:Hawkeye7

If Dan cringed, I wanted to hide under my desk. The last thing I need was to give ArbCom an excuse to block, ban or admonish me.

1. The part which says that coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project tends to mean that disputes will come to the coordinators. While we have no formal authority over article content, there is what comes from maintaining our internal structure and processes, such as the style manuals and the review processes, which provide considerable leverage. And too, the coordinators include some extremely knowledgeable editors, which yields the form of authority that flows from knowing what you are talking about which is always useful on wikipedia, although rarely sufficient.
2. There was a 2011 content dispute over whether the name of an article in question should be the "battle" or "affair" of Katia. The latter was supported by the Imperial Battle Nomenclature Committee. I remember providing an explanation of the Committee. This is a typical example of something being brought to the project page to reach a consensus. Discussions will often be closed by a coordinator.
3. RoslynSKP joined the project in July 2010, and came into contact with the coordinators within days. RoslynSKP has done sterling work on the Sinai-Palestine articles.

::;Response by [[User:Example]]
::#X
::#Y
::#Z
::Comments and/or signature. ~~~~

Questions to Jim Sweeney[edit]

@Jim Sweeney: The evidence demonstrates that you have edit warred with RoslynSKP on multiple occasions.

1. When did these edit wars over 'Ottoman Turkey/Ottoman' first begin?
2. What attempts did you make to discuss the reverts with RoslynSKP?
3. Why did you not ask, at the administrators' noticeboard, for the consensus in favour of Ottoman Turkey to be enforced? Why did you continue to edit war?

Thank you. AGK [•] 12:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response by User:Jim Sweeney

1. As far as I can remember it started on the 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade article on 8 January 2013 when RoslynSKP changed Turkish to Ottoman with the edit summery enlarge article cut pjorative word [5] I changed it back later that day with the edit summery Turkish used in all sources[6] Two days later, 10 January, RoslynSKP returned and revert it back [7]. It was then changed back with a hidden note quoting Turkish was used by all sources [8] To which RoslynSKP then attached a dubious tag [9]
2. Discussion was started on that article Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade/Archive 1#Error by RoslynSKP. They seemed to accept Turkish there as can be followed in the discussion. It was also going through a GA assessment at the time, and they did not comment about Turkish being used there Talk:15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade/GA1. In the ANZAC article discussion of the use of Turkish/Ottoman began on the article talk page, by another editor, here Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division#Ottoman Empire/Turkey 28 October and in an attempt to get more editors involved I added a post at WPMILHIST Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 122#Ottoman Turkish Empire wording dispute 10 November.
3. If you mean the first consensus on the ANZAC Mounted Division talk page I did not consider asking at ANI, don't know why just did not think about it. If you mean the WPMILHIST consensus. I did not consider that as edit warring but enforcing consensus.

Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That has clarified several things for me. Thanks very much, AGK [•] 10:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Workshopping[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Neutrality and conflicts of interest[edit]

1) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutrality and sources[edit]

2) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarised sources, does not fulfil the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesised claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point-of-view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tendentious editing[edit]

3) Users who disrupt the editing of articles by engaging in sustained aggressive point-of-view editing may be banned from the affected articles. In extreme cases they may be banned from the site.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Fanning the flames[edit]

4) Because wider community participation can help resolve disputes and issues, participating editors are expected to remain civil, to assume good faith, and to avoid disruption to prove a point to avoid further inflaming the issues.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Disruption to WWI articles[edit]

1) Various WWI articles, including but not limited to: 1st Light Horse Brigade, 2nd Light Horse Brigade, 3rd Light Horse Brigade, 12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia), 15th (Imperial Service) Cavalry Brigade, ANZAC Mounted Division, Australian Light Horse, Battle of Beersheba (1917), Battle of Hareira and Sheria, Battle of Romani, Battle of Sharon, Capture of Damascus (1918), Capture of Jenin, Charge at Huj, Chaytor's ForceAustralian Mounted Division, Desert Mounted Corps, Edmund Allenby, 1st Viscount Allenby, Gallipoli Campaign, Harry Chauvel, New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Raid on Nekhl, Stalemate in Southern Palestine, Third Transjordan attack, Timeline of the history of the region of Palestine and Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine, have been subject to edit warring, aggressive point-of-view editing, or generally uncivil behaviour over the past 2 years. This has frequently spilled out onto talk pages and resulted in long-term unresolved disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Behaviours of RoslynSKP[edit]

2) RoslynSKP has engaged in battleground behaviour, failed to assume good faith, breached the three-revert rule whilst edit warring and exhibited gaming tactics in order to avoid scrutiny or show respect for consensus, across many of the articles mentioned in "Disruption to WWI articles" above, as well as at WP:ANI and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Some cases of uncivil behaviour have also been shown towards fellow-editors, as well as an attempt to canvass a partisan editor. Such behaviours have persisted for approx. 2 years.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RoslynSKP attacks Jim Sweeney[edit]

3) RoslynSKP disrupted Wikipedia to prove a point at WP:ANI; she failed to respond to requests for rationale and evidence, and rejected scrutiny of her own behaviour, whilst continuing to assert that sanctions on another editor were required.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarcusBritish and TomStar81 are uninvolved[edit]

4) TomStar81 is an uninvolved admin and MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes. MarcusBritish was an uninvolved MilHist coord, and has been acting in that capacity regarding the disputes, continuing to do so after stepping down as coord. No conflict of interest exists for either party in resolving the matter.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Are you saying you were uninvolved up until the point arbitration was filed, or that you are uninvolved at this point and will be after the case closes? On the second meaning, by convention administrators cannot be uninvolved in relation to arbitration cases in which they have actively participated. AGK [•] 11:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

As a point of clarification for me as it stands at the moment: if I am being classified an uninvolved admin do I retain the capability to use at my discretion those admin tools I have to enforce the rulings of this Arbitration Committee as it relates to the case at hand, or should I avoid taking direct action and instead only report breeches of the arbitration committee ruling at WP:AN or similar boards on Wikipedia? I ask only because I want to be very clear on what I will and will not be permitted to do when the final ruling is made, and I would rather not end up in trouble for acting in good faith to enforce whatever the committee agrees on here. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what AGK said above, I am going to operate under the assumption that when this closes I will be considered an involved party and accordingly I will refrain from using admin tools as they relate to the editors and pages involved in this arbitration request. In the event that I am the first to notice a breech of the committee's ruling I will inform the relevant noticeboard and allow an uninvolved admin to handle the matter. As it relates to Military history Project editing, I intend to return to my grazing field such as it were, but in the event that the need arises I will seek either consensus or third party opinions for milhist matters related to this arbitration. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Nick-D, this proposal refers to all activity upto the need for this ArbCom case, and affirms that TomStar81 and I did not take part in the disputes in an unsuitable manner. i.e. we did not revert edits, did not abuse our capacity as coords (or admin) in order to influence the dispute, and that this case was not opened in order to gain a "win" for us, but was opened in the best interests of MilHist and Wiki itself, given the extent of the issues in hand. The outcome of the naming convention doesn't really matter to either of us, but the outcome of the edit warring disputes is in everyone's interests, and so no one is technically "neutral" who favours a resolution and has posted evidence against any of the parties. It is simply necessary to know that only appropriate steps were taken to get to this point, and no party can complain of sysop abuse or COI issues against those of us who pushed this case forwards. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to @User:AGK – uninvolved upto the point of this case in terms of the content being disputed. Not necessarily in terms of forms of dispute resolution, such as responding to MilHist threads – that would mean we were involved to resolve concerns, usually between RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney, but not directly involved in editing the articles. The consensus at MilHist was opened in order to resolve the "Turkish" naming issue, but even then we did not attempt to edit/revert the articles to which that consensus related. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If you ask to be listed as a party in an arbitration case then, in my non-expert opinion, you are no longer in a position to attempt to even-handedly intervene in the matter given that the parties may no longer perceive you as being neutral. Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RoslynSKP's interpretation of "personal attacks"[edit]

5) Between 20–30 September 2013 [10], the Talk:12th Light Horse Regiment (Australia) became a war ground over the {{rpa}} template between RoslynSKP, Jim Sweeney and Anotherclown. The alleged attack being "don't waste your time trying to satisfy the fevered ravings of some old woman" from an anonymous proxy-IP which was reiterated by Anotherclown. Whilst WP:RPA remains vague regarding removal of text, and WP:TALKO discourages modifying other editor's posts, the alleged personal attack hardly warrants 10 days of reverting each other a dozen times for an attack which does not violate WP:WIAPA in any great fashion, and was at best "uncivil". Given this history RoslynSKP is far too "trigger happy" in her use of tags and revert against other editors, potentially baiting other editors into further arguments by "making a mountain out of a mole hill" and pretentiously claiming a moral high ground where none exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In response to RoslynSKP's post above to AGK's additional question ("If you were taken back now to the beginning of this dispute, what would you do differently?") that "I would not use the word 'illegal,' nor react in any way at all, to the personal attacks and negative comments etc" I feel compelled to point out that this statement in and of itself could be construed (as it has be me) to indicate that nothing in this entire process has otherwise effected rskp's view or perception of the underlying issues. Being repeatedly told by veteran editors, milhist coordinators, and Wikipedia administrators that your behavior, editing patterns, and article development processes are out of line with policy and guideline standards on site are not so called "personal attacks or negative comments", they are suggestions, and hard as it is to listen to them you've an obligation to adhere to what other people are saying. If on the eve of an Arbcom ruling RSKP still can not do that then I'm going to be real concerned about what happens when the final decisions are handed down and the case enforcement begins. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ottoman/Turkish naming[edit]

1) Although the term "Turkish" may not have been officially adopted by Turkey until 1923, the c. 4th-century Medieval Latin word Turchia for "Land of the Turks" likely pre-dates the word "Ottoman" relating to Osman I, a 13th-century ruler, "Turkey" itself being 14th-century derived from the Latin. Turkey#Etymology provides some background, worth considering.

RoslynSKP has been unable to provide any definitive sources which can conclusively prove that "Ottoman" should take precedence over "Turkish", nor that "Turkish" is a term that is used in a colloquial or derogatory fashion which should not be applied in a liberal manner. The source noted by AustralianRupert, Gallipoli: The Turkish Story, does not support RoslynSKP's claim either, advising that "Turk" and "Turkish" was adopted by the Young Turks movement themselves as nationalistic symbols – a far cry from being "derogatory".

• Given its wide-spread use across English and foreign sources, "Turkish" would appear to support WP:COMMONNAME practices, and should not be discouraged nor limited, as proposed by RoslynSKP, as this amounts to revisionism from a viewpoint that is not widely supported.
• Given that the Ottomans originated from Turkish tribes, and that the modern use of "Turkish" stems from the Ottoman "Young Turks" party, it would appear to support WP:PRECISE criteria. Though it may not be a wholly accurate term, it is an immediately recognised term.
• The term "Ottoman Turkish" has been shown to be used in various sources and would appear to provide a broader description of the forces, in general, and should not be discouraged.
• Readers of WWI articles are more likely to associate with the word "Turkish", a present-day European nation, than "Ottoman" which relates to an empire that became extinct approx. 90-years ago, and therefore may require some readers to need a background introduction, thus failing WP:BLUE. Existence of a "Turkish" nation is a more widely known fact than an "Ottoman" empire.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I am aware that this is a content issue, and also that when things go wrong its usually not for one particular reason but for a combination of reasons. As it relates to the issue of Ottoman and Turkish, and I have proposed to my fellow coordinators the possibility of an amendment to our military history manual of style (WP:MILMOS) that would clarify the project's position on the matter. At the moment the proposal is still very much so in its infancy, but if we work together to find a solution we can agree on we can put the proposed amendment to the community for ratification and addition to the milmos, and that should help us reduce the risk of an issue of this nature coming back to WP:ANI or God-forbid WPARBCOM again (no offense guys, but I'd rather not go through this again if I can help it :) TomStar81 (Talk) 00:08, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to clarify that this proposal is that the disputed terms, "Turkish" and "Ottoman", with "Ottoman Turkish" thrown in for good measure, all have their place in articles, given the versatility of sources on the matter. I believe it should be MilHist who make the final determinations for the MILMOS. This, however, simply proposes that "Turkish" is not a derogatory or colloquial term, which is the primary claim made by RoslynSKP, and therefore should not be omitted from articles, nor allow the option to refactor articles for some politically correct grand scheme. The consensus !vote at MilHist was made to determine that "Turkish" was an acceptable term, per se, not that it was the only term we should use, nor that it should take precedence over "Ottoman", only that it should be allowed without resulting in petty disputes, which has been the case. I think it would be sufficient for ArbCom to rule that "Turkish" be considered acceptable modern vocabulary, without determining specific its content applications. MILMOS may do that, in time, if necessary. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 02:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a content issue, something which ArbCom has always avoided ruling on. However, it is within the remit of the MilHist Coordinators. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed: I don't think that there's a need for ArbCom to make any kind of ruling regarding the content in question here given that community processes proved able to resolve it once the matter was discussed on a central noticeboard. As Hawkeye notes, the MilHist Coordinators are able to manage discussions on the project's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be well outside ArbCom's remit to rule on whether the current consensus is the right one. Further, the claim that RoslynSKP did not provide strong arguments does not demonstrate that strong arguments do not exist. (What's that called, an appeal to ignorance?) Jd2718 (talk) 04:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3RR restrictions[edit]

2) Due to extensive reverts across many articles, all within a short space of time, and often between User:Jim Sweeney and User:RoslynSKP with many bordering and possibly breaching WP:3RR, which is generally disruptive and creates an unstable collaborative environment:

• 0RR – any edits made by Jim Sweeney many not be reverted by RoslynSKP on articles or their respective talk pages.
• 0RR – any edits made by RoslynSKP may not be reverted or rolled-back by Jim Sweeney on articles or their respective talk pages.
• 1RR – any edits made by other editors, including IPs and bots, may not be reverted by RoslynSKP on articles or their talk pages applied across all of en:wiki, regardless of topic, not including RoslynSKP's own userspace and talk page.
• 3RR – RoslynSKP may not make any more than three reverts total within any 24-hour period applied across all of en:wiki, regardless of topic, not including RoslynSKP's own userspace and talk page.
• Revert restrictions to RoslynSKP should be placed for 12 months initially, after which RoslynSKP may request a review of their behaviour for that period to regain normal 3RR rights for all but reverts against Jim Sweeney, which should remain a 0RR area indefinitely.
• The same restriction should remain for Jim Sweeney: 0RR against RoslynSKP indefinitely.
• During the restriction of revert rights period, RoslynSKP may not set up or apply any manual archiving to article talk pages that might serve to make consensus harder to identify.
• During the restriction of revert rights period, RoslynSKP may not apply for Rollback rights, and may not do so until 6 months after return of normal 3RR rights.
• No exceptions to be made for circumventing set revert restrictions: concerns of vandalism or disruptive behaviour should be taken to an uninvolved sysop, MilHist or ANI for consideration; WP:BRD may not be used under any circumstances during the restriction period – discuss concerns and come to a productive solution.

Comment by Arbitrators:

When restrictions become this complicated, I'd prefer just to topic ban the subjects. (IP 204 is spot-on that remedies like this have an exceedingly poor track record.) AGK [•] 10:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with AGK that the restrictions here are too complex. However, I'd be inclined to support a remedy that addresses the behaviour concerns while keeping the very positive contributions of two active contributors. I'd be more inclined to consider 0RR than a topic ban. And I would be concerned that any effective topic ban might essentially be a site ban. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In response to @AGK: – I do not believe any topic bans would be effective here. RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney appear to be two of the busiest WWI content editors. Starting from dates throughout 2014 we have the WWI centenary and I am sure the MilHist project will need such editors to respond to any "growth" in editing and readership of the topic, particularly a flood of anon-IP edits will need our experienced editors to review and respond to the typical trolling/vandalism that occurs during a popular event, as there are sick people in the world who will even trash WWI articles in the midst of an anniversary. I believe once these two editors stop attacking each other and focus on the topic itself, we will see a marked and sustainable improvement in content. Given the dozens on reverts that have been identified, and hours of time wasted on bitter talk page disputes, we need those strengths redirected into the articles, not banned altogether. For the same reason, I have not proposed an interaction ban – the top two WWI editors are inevitably going to cross paths at times, we can't risk removing their ability to focus their attentions more positively. I believe a restriction on revert rights for a time would go further than the risk of losing them altogether – a topic ban would simply be the equivalent of Wiki shooting itself in the foot and appears more an "easy way out" solution, which ArbCom should not be looking for as it will do more harm than good; MilHist has trouble dealing with these disputes, yes, but has even fewer resources available to plug the gaps should any or both editors be banned during a busy period such, as we likely face in 2014–18. To put it bluntly, these two editors need to "get a room", not a divorce, for any good to come of this matter. The simplest solution might be to boil it down to a 1RR on RoslynSKP for 6–12 months, a 0RR on each other indef. RoslynSKP is certainly likely to wikilawyer anything too complex, but there are MilHist sysops seeking clearer grounds to block her after this case, in order to enforce its ruling – I'm sure she won't enjoy that and will learn to cooperate fast or end up banned indef. from en:Wiki, let alone a single topic. ANI won't take any "I'm being victimised" nonsense after this case. We don't need topic bans, we know for a fact that RoslynSKP will have no room to manoeuvre from now on, and can either make or break herself without much involvement from anyone else. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 11:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike Marcus, I fully support and would openly endorse a topic ban here. Even though these two are alleged to be the most active WWI contributors that doesn't change the fact that these are serious issues which brought us here, and to let either one of them off with a slap on the wrist such as it were would come back to bite us all in the butt in the long run. It is my firm belief that lessons learned the hardest are those remembered the longest, so in my opinion the harsher the punishment here the longer the lesson will be remembered, and topic banning any editor is a very harsh lesson to be learned. I know Jim would wide it out and emerge with no problems, but I am unsure that the same could be said for RSKP. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you, but I don't want to see any topic ban have an adverse effect on the MilHist project either. There are several pros and cons of any topic ban to weigh up here. I expect that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Operation Great War Centennial may be promoted in 2014, and the "safest" topic ban duration would be 6 months, because the Great War goes from June. But a topic ban might backfire and result in one or both editors leaving Wiki for good. Though there are several options available here, it feels more like Russian Roulette in terms of whether Wiki, MilHist or the parties will actually benefit from topic bans or not. I agree that RosylnSKP is the hardest to predict here, and I don't think her battleground attitude will disappear overnight, and Jim already lists himself as semi-retired and can't really be accused of provoking the disputes, only fuelling them, and even then because of the lack of admin involvement in the matter; he has virtually been a one-man army against RoslynSKP's POV with poor continued DR support, mainly because RoslynSKP has tactically discouraged third-party involvement, in my opinion. She won't be able to maintain that position after this case ruling, I see near-future blocks as inevitable to enforce any ruling also. A topic ban would make matters worse, imo, not better – this is why we need ArbCom to make detailed restrictions, instead of a whitewash ruling that does more harm than good. I think RoslynSKP would benefit more from specific parole terms and a mentor to assist in content disputes, to insure RoslynSKP given that she clearly has trouble working with most of the regular MilHist members at this time. RolsynSKP needs to accept where she has gone wrong, that she needs closer support and will agree to work through a mentor for 6–12 months to help her develop a better working relationship with other editors. Jim is far too experienced and better at handling himself to need a mentor, so it wouldn't be worth it. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 12:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At MarcusBritish above just to clarify, I only consider myself semi retired having withdrawn from doing reviews, GA etc, as they were taking up so much time. I still edit on a recreational basis. Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The 3RR applies across the whole wiki in any case. But a editor's talk page has always been regarded a personal and special. Restricting an editor's access to her personal talk page is normally only for editors who use the talk page as an attack page, or to evade community bans. This is not the case here. Interaction bans are normally mutual even when only one editor is at fault, which is not the case here. And restricting an editor from WP:PERM/R and WP:RfA circumvents our normal policies and procedures, which have their own checks and balances. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These remedies need to be made much simpler. Complex remedies don't last long or work well. Wikilawyers dance where admins fear to tread. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging restrictions[edit]

3) Due to extensive use of maintenance tagging, often leading to edit warring over their – often dubious – placement, it is proposed that RoslynSKP not be permitted to apply header or inline tags. RoslynSKP should restrict themselves to discussing content concerns on the talk page without ridiculing articles with sanctimonious "POV" tags, as they generally do not achieve anything other than to fuel disputes, where time could be better spent discussing the content concerned. RoslynSKP's aggressive use of the "RPA" tag on various talk pages is also fuelling more arguments than it is solving, and is considered to violate WP:TALKO guidelines by many editors. Under this restriction:

• RoslynSKP may only place inline {{citation needed}} tags where, specifically, there is not already a reference, but not to dispute an existing citation.
• RosylnSKP may not place {{Failed verification}}, {{Better source}}, {{Dubious}}, or any other similar inline tags used to challenge sources, content, wording or attribution.
• RoslynSKP may not place {{POV}}, {{Refimprove}}, or any other similar header tags used to challenge sources, content, wording or attribution.
• RoslynSKP may not make use of the {{rpa}} outside of her own talk page; any claims of "personal attacks" should be reported rather than challenged to avoid causing further disruptions.
• RoslynSKP may only remove maintenance tags when providing content to justify their removal, or following a talk page discussion where an agreement or consensus to do so exists, but not because they simply disagree with the challenge or do not recognise the [IP] editor. If RoslynSKP disputes the placement of a tag they should use the talk page or invite MilHist to review the concerns and possibly remove the tag if it is unwarranted.
• Tags removed from articles that were initially placed by RoslynSKP but subsequently challenged are subject to 0RR and should be discussed, not reverted and reinserted – such behaviour leads to petty and disruptive war editing.
• Tagging restrictions to RoslynSKP should be placed for 12 months initially, after which RoslynSKP may request a review of their behaviour for that period to regain normal tagging rights.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As above, I understand the thinking behind this proposal, but it's too micro. AGK [•] 10:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a bit complex. But I would consider a straightforward restriction on using any article maintenance or message templates. If we are able to place plain and simple restrictions on RoslynSKP's troublesome behaviour, yet leave her able to create more Good Article quality content, I think that might be positive. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Appeal restrictions[edit]

4) RoslynSKP has stated in their evidence that, "While I have respected the MILHIST consensus I have tried to and will try in the future, to limit the use of 'Turkey' where it replaces the Ottoman Empire in WW1 articles." It is clear from the evidence provided by several other MilHist members that RoslynSKP has not respected consensus and has made various attempts to reject it, having openly called it "wrong". Whilst WP:CCC does suggest that "consensus can change", it also states that "proposing to change a recent consensus can be disruptive". In order to avoid needless disruptions and prevent future exploits of Wikipedia's collaborative system:

• RoslynSKP may not continue to dispute the Ottoman/Turkish naming convention on articles or their talk pages.
• RoslynSKP may not attempt to overturn MilHist consensus via any on-going campaign which could be disruptive to articles and the limited resources of MilHist.
• RoslynSKP may only propose that the current-standing be re-considered once every 12 months.
• RoslynSKP must not attempt to overturn consensus within areas of Wikipedia whilst neglecting to inform and invite members of MilHist through the project's main talk page – covert discussions and canvassing should be considered bad faith behaviour.
• RoslynSKP must respect the aims of future discussions without repeating the same detrimental behaviour that was exhibited this time in an attempt to game the consensus. Attempts to misinterpret or invalidate the wording of any consensus should be considered bad faith behaviour.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Broader and simpler remedies are needed. Rather than agree to something like this, I would go for a topic ban; and I would rather avoid a topic ban. At this point RoslynSKP should have got the message about how consensus works and about how tendentious editing is destructive to the moral of the project. What I would be interested in is the possibility of a simple warning that if she engages in behaviour that could reasonably be construed as WP:tendentious editing and/or persistently ignoring WP:consensus she would be liable to blocks of increasing duration. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RoslynSKP admonished[edit]

5) For considerable battleground behaviour over a lengthy period and across a large number of articles, for calling for sanctions, and for ignoring collaborative processes RoslynSKP is admonished.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure this would be sufficient. RoslynSKP has been the source of much contention in Ottoman-related areas, and I think a topic ban would probably be the most effective method of resolving the issue for the time being. It's not as if they wouldn't be permitted to appeal the decision at a later juncture. Kurtis ^(talk) 12:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Sweeney warned[edit]

6) For considerable disruptive behaviour unbecoming of an experienced editor, including a misjudged use of rollback, Jim Sweeney is generally warned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand the conduct issues with Jim Sweeney to have been resolved, so I'm not sure this is needed in order to resolve the dispute. AGK [•] 10:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Nick-D: It never hurts to reinforce a warning. That talk page comment will disappear in time, an ArbCom ruling will at least remain available to remind everyone that editor privileges, such as rollback rights, should be used with care. I'm sure Jim would not object. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Given that Jim has already been sternly warned over the rollback thing by an admin [11], I don't think that ArbCom needs to also warn him over this specifically as well unless he's ignored the admin's comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As warnings issued by ArbCom carry much greater weight than those issued by single admins, I don't think that this is necessary unless the issue has reoccurred and there's a need to strongly reinforce the point. There's also the danger that ArbCom could risk stepping on the toes of admins by issuing warnings for matters which were reported on an admin noticeboard and then successfully resolved by a responding admin. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with AGK and Nick-D. - Dank (push to talk) 18:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parties encouraged[edit]

7) All involved editors in the WWI topic area, a very important area of military history, are encouraged to try to collaborate and work constructively instead of accusing others of misconduct.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

A reminder that parties should move entrenched/protracted disputes to central noticeboards or otherwise actively seek input (in a neutral way) from uninvolved editors per WP:DR seems justified as well. If no-one beats me to it, I'll post some suggestions for this later this week. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parole and mentorship[edit]

8) Given concerns over 3RR restrictions or topic bans having detrimental effect, and sanctions being prone to wiki-lawyering or damaging to MilHist scope development, a third-party to act indefinitely as mediator may prove beneficial to all concerned. It is proposed that RoslynSKP be given mentorship support for a minimum period of 6 months, during which time she may continue to edit as normal, but with a total 1RR restriction on all articles/talkpages and 0RR interaction with Jim Sweeney. During this term RoslynSKP should discuss any concerns regarding content with their mentor rather than become involved in war editing; this mentor will serve to review any disputes impartially, with RoslynSKP agreeing to refrain or withdraw from disputes should the mentor believe the matter exhausted or a consensus clear. This would free MilHist of resources, give RoslynSKP and Jim Sweeney a "buffer" to prevent arguments but without a strict interaction ban and allow continued editing in an important historical military topic. The mentor would be required to determine when RoslynSKP is capable of consistently working collaboratively, and release her from mentor supervision to work independently once again. A contract with the mentor would determine the terms of RoslynSKP's parole, should RoslynSKP attempt to deviate from cooperating with a mentor in good faith, she may be subject to a complete topic and interaction ban.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Willing and voluntary mentorship can be very positive and effective. Imposed mentorship tends to be problematic, and has a poor track record. Should RoslynSKP enter into a mentorship agreement with someone of her own accord, I think that would be helpful. But one imposed on her would have a different dynamic, and I wouldn't support that. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Editnotice and talk page FAQs[edit]

1) In order to effect a timely halt to ongoing editorial conflicts and encourage parties to discuss and agree upon a course of action to implement in a given article I would propose that all articles involved in this debate be required to carry an edit notice and a talk page FAQ similar to the ones currently used at the page ANZAC Mounted Division (see Template:Editnotices/Page/ANZAC Mounted Division and Talk:ANZAC Mounted Division/FAQ for example). This was part of the solution to the WP:ANI thread concerning ANZAC Mounted Division article, and it appears to be working on the page by explaining why things have been worded or phrased the way they are. Similar edit notices and talk page FAQs have been employed on articles with the scope of the military history project before to help preemptively prevent long term editorial disagreements (examples include but are not limited to the pages Death of Osama bin Laden, General of the Armies, and Talk:USS Kentucky (BB-66)), and the presence of such templates serve to both encourage discussion on the subject matter before editing an article's page to add questionable material. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement[edit]

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

RoslynSKP: Edit warring[edit]

1) Over an extended period, RoslynSKP (talk · contribs) has edit warred in order to change “Ottoman Turkey empire” to “Ottoman empire”. (01: [12], [13], [14], [15]. 02: [16], [17]. 03: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]) . On some occasions, these reversions were made with an inaccurate edit summary ([25], [26], [27], [28], [29]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments welcome. AGK [•] 13:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

RoslynSKP: Ignoring consensus[edit]

2) RoslynSKP has ignored the consensus view of their fellow editors. In an early November 2013 ANI thread, the disputants consented to honour the status quo for naming conventions until "an agreement was reached". Later in November 2013, a discussion and straw poll was closed with the agreement that troops should be called "Turkish" and not "Ottoman" on all related articles. RoslynSKP then began to edit war on other articles ([30]), citing the older ANI thread; RoslynSKP did not recognise or failed to accept that the discussion and straw poll constituted the "agreement" required by the ANI thread. RoslynSKP edit warred on the inaccurate grounds that the discussion and straw poll concerned only a single article and not the broader naming dispute ([31], [32], [33]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments welcome. AGK [•] 13:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcus: I've copyedited to fix that inaccurate reference. Is the finding now accurate? AGK [•] 09:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Correction, the poll was primarily to determine whether WWI troops from the Ottoman Empire could be referred to as "Turkish" and not "Ottoman". RolsynSKP's argument is that the Ottoman Empire consists of various countries and that use of "Turkish" ignores other nations, or to quote her verbatim: "Oppose the use of a colloquial term which covers up the diversity of the men who served in the Ottoman Army. They came from Turkey, certainly, but also from Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon and from present day Israel." The consensus majority agrees that "Turkish" is a widely-accepted term as the Ottoman Empire was of Turkish origin and was governed by Turkish rulers during WWI. Use of the term "Ottoman Turkish Empire" wasn't really covered in detail, as this normally applies to headings than reference to troops, but is relevant to the case as to whether the extended term is suitable or redundant. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 13:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: Yes, that sounds closer to the truth at the heart of the matter. Ma®©usBritish^{chat} 09:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

RoslynSKP: Tenacious editing[edit]

3) RoslynSKP has changed "Turkey" to "Ottoman" in talk page threads and other editors' comments ([34], [35], [36], [37]). RoslynSKP has repeatedly tagged articles concerned in the naming dispute with {{POV}}, a tag which marks an article as being written non-neutrally, and edit warred in the process ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]; evidence on abuse of maintenance tags).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments welcome. AGK [•] 13:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template[edit]

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: