User:J. Johnson/sandbox/evidence

In his preliminary statement Curly Turkey (CT) attributes the debacle at SNC-Lavalin affair to "POV editing by a large number of editors, mostly brand new with histories of hundreds or fewer edits." Elsewhere he has accused me of and "". To be clear: my edit count is over seventeen thousand; aside from Curly Turkey and Legacypac I had never even heard of these other editors before; I do not know enough about Canadian politics to have a point-of-view, and I have made only a single edit to the article.

The slow-motion edit-war CT refers to began with of the cite check template, which generates a box that says: "This article possibly contains inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text." (Bolding in the original.) This and subsequent re-insertions (,, and ) were removed by PavelShk (twice, first time while not logged in), SWL36, and myself , , , and.

Following PavelShk's second removal CT said PavelShk "". After his last restoration CT (Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair), saying: "The removals of the &#123;&#123;Cite check&#125;&#125; template have to stop. Numerous citation violations continue to be found, and the source check isn't even close to finished. The template has been removed three times in the last two days—this is editwarring and is unacceptable."

On various occasions CT was asked to either explain why he kept adding the template, or to list or discuss the problematic citations ( [PavelShk], [SWL36],  [Legacypac],  [Harris Seldon],  [J. Johnson], and  [SWL36]). To my suggestion that he raise his concerns in a discussion he replied: ""

When I stated ", CT replied : "I have indeed shown there problems (plural) have continued to exist after the template was added—and after the template was removed. And you have indeed shown that no matter how many turn up, you are poised to move the goalposts once more—below you even warn me not to add any failed verification tags if any of the sources fail verification!" And:

"You're WP:NOTHERE to help improve the article. Shoudn't you be off to ANI with your fantasy accusations that my fixing the article's sourcing is POV-pushing?"


 * (The forgoing material can be viewed in a clearer, chronological format here.)

Further evidence of Curly Turkey's battleground attitude and failure to engage in consensus building can be found in the ANI discussion. E.g., at CT's TBAN proposal (following PavelShk's "Comment" at 03:38, 3 May), CT claims to have retracted the statements of sock-puppetry, but (there being no evidence of any such retraction) he refuses to provide any diffs that would resolve the point. He responds with: "", and (in part): ""