Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case opens; New discretionary sanctions draft proposal available for review

The Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case has opened. The second draft of the discretionary sanctions proposal is now open for review.

The Ottoman Empire–Turkey naming dispute case was brought by TomStar81 on behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Project. The case involves a long-standing pattern of edits and reverts in articles associated with the Sinai and Palestine Campaign, and difficulty over a consensus to use "Turkish" to refer to soldiers from the Ottoman Empire during the First World War.

The Arbitration Committee has announced that the latest update of the draft for new discretionary sanctions procedures has been posted and is open for comment. The update would replace the current version of the procedures. Discretionary sanctions evolved from "article probation", which authorized administrators to issue topic-bans within problematic topics.

Among other provisions, the proposed procedure would remove the provision that "Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to the decision authorizing sanctions; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines." It adds three appeal options, including a provision that "To obtain a clear and substantial consensus to annul the sanction of either (a) uninvolved participating administrators at the AE noticeboard, or (b) uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard."

Currently 27 topic areas are under discretionary sanctions and 713 pages are under article probation.

• Clarification request: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): An amendment request was initiated by Fram; the named party was encouraged to appeal the topic ban to the Committee.
• Clarification request: Argentine History: A clarification request was made by MarshalN20 regarding his Latin American history topic ban. An editor who had previously requested an interaction ban with the filer asked if he was allowed to comment and was subsequently blocked for one month in a separate action at arbitration enforcement.
• Clarification request: Kiefer.Wolfowitz banned: An amendment request was initiated by John Cline regarding a voter guide posted by a banned user. The voter guide was removed, as was talk page access.
• Clarification request: Amendment request: Macedonia 2: A clarification request was initiated by Red Slash regarding naming discussions. The committee agreed that no amendment was necessary for naming discussions to take place.

← Previous "Arbitration report"

Next "Arbitration report" →

In this issue

4 December 2013 (all comments)

Traffic report

Recent research

Discussion report

News and notes

WikiProject report

Featured content

Arbitration report

+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.

• The arbitration report of Argentine history, while accurate of what is going on, does not accurately reflect what has happened up to now. Perhaps separating the IBAN matter from the TBAN clarification request, and expanding on the former, might be helpful. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 15:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not so much the goal of the Report to reflect "what has happened" with the clarification and amendment requests as to give a general idea of the topic, and a link for those who want to read more. Of course, reflections are always welcome in the comments. —Neotarf (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The "An editor who had previously requested an interaction ban with the filer asked if he was allowed to comment and was subsequently blocked for one month in a separate action at arbitration enforcement." part makes it seem like he was blocked for asking if he was allowed to comment, which is not the case. He was blocked for posting an opinion (he didn't actually wait for ArbCom to okay it) to the ArbCom page, which uninvolved editors saw as containing personal attacks and unsubstantiated allegations. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I counted 11 direct quotations with diffs. The clerk's edit summary is specific: "Removing per request by arbitrators as violation of his interaction ban." Two arbitrators found the submission to be a violation of the restriction, and one of them requested AE to enforce it. —Neotarf (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I, for one, found Wolfowitz's election guide useful. It's a shame ArbCom decided to be legalistic and remove it only to placate the incumbent ArbCom members up for re-election that KW was pushing to vote against. And yet, we have editors being bullied on wiki and leaving in frustration and the same ArbCom doesn't care. Chris Troutman (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I, for two, support that. Interested voters can look up the history. I didn't write a voters guide but collected answers from the candidates regarding a fact in the case for which I am policed, - the answers are promising, , even from those seeking re-election, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The arbs are individuals, you can't tar them all with the same brush. And no one should be bullied; not editors, not arbs, not Jimbo. —Neotarf (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that the election is over, and this page is about to archive, it might be a good time to add a shameless plug for my own election guide.—Neotarf (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]