User:J. Johnson/sandbox/timeline

I have made only one edit to the article, for which CT. Therefore I present the following timeline of "The Great 'Cite check' slow-motion editwar" and associated comments from Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Not all associated comments are included, but I believe the following is a fair representation.

Note: Cite check displays this box:

02:36, 12 April 2019 : CT inserts the template with the edit summary: {Cite check}—this article is absolutely riddled with misrepresented sources.

06:00 Legacypac removes: Don't need that tag either. (Corrected 29 June. -JJ)

06:02 12 April  Bradv restores in connection with other content. (Corrected 29 June. -JJ)

19:07, 14 April : Template removed by IP 184.151.179.197 with: This article is very accurate. Why do we have the warning? It's misleading to the readers.

21:18, 14 April : Curly Turkey restores.

00:09, 15 April : PavelShk removes with: Why exactly do we have this banner on top? It implies to readers the article is inaccurate. What specifically is inaccurate? From talk page I see all recently found errors were corrected. Link says, "When the issue has been adequately addressed", this should be removed.

01:13, 15 April : Curly Turkey restores: Undid revision 892503931 by PavelShk (talk) long list of issues on the talk page

The following comment excerpts are from Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair.

¶ 01:22, 15 April Curly Turkey: PavelShk is a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account[53] whose edits are exclusively to articles related to this one. [Uncanny similarity to 184.151.179.197's edit summary, therefore:] it looks like our single-purpose account may also be a sock-puppet account. I'll be reporting.

¶ 18:13, 15 April PavelShk: explains he is a new user, and the IP edit came when he did not realize he was not logged in.

¶ 23:07, 15 April Curly Turkey: And Pavel has made controversial edits that didn't hold up to verification, followed by editwarring. ... Most of the sources have not been checked, and your own edits are a primary reason the {Cite check} was there. ... Here's a tip: if you want people to assume good faith, don't editwar.

20:49, 16 April : SWL36 removes the template with: Sourcing for various sections has been fixed and improved since it was added with the section about interference having a better source and reflecting it more accurately. If you want to re-add it, SPECIFY which sources you believe are misrepresented. The onus is on you when you add this template, you can't just require people to check 120 citations to make sure none are misrepresented.

23:04, 16 April : Curly Turkey restores: Undid revision 892782179 by SWL36 (talk) it's been specified more than once that this article is undergoing a source check. Do not remove again—it is disruptive.

The following excerpts are from Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair if "RR", or Talk:SNC-Lavalin_affair if "CC".

¶ 23:27, 16 April RR Curly Turkey: 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.

¶ 23:41, 16 April RR Legacypac: You stop putting that template on. Your record of identifying problems on this page is not good. If you think there is a problem you can't solve start a talkpage discussion about the specific concern and editors can hash it out.

¶ 23:25, 16 April CC SWL36: If Curly or another editor has issues with citations, please list them here so that we can address them and remove this template message.

¶ 00:27, 17 April CC Curly Turkey: That's not how it works, SWL36. Numerous citation issues have been identified and fixed; the template is there as a result of how widespread the problems have been and continue to be. It will remain until the source check is complete, and the next atempt to remove it will be brought to WP:ANEW.

¶ 00:39, 17 April at WP:Citing sources) Curly Turkey: Is there a place to request cite checks? (It was explained to CT that there is no such place, along with clarification of just what a "cite check" might be.)

¶ 11:54, 17 April CC Harris Seldon: @Curly - would it help if you listed the actual problems that had to be fixed? [...] I honestly can only recall 3 or 4 major fixes [...] Perhaps if others saw the magnitude/volume of what errors you've come across in the article and that it is not just one or two but is actually a dozen or so, they might see the reason for the cite check notice?

¶ 20:54, 17 April RR J. Johnson: ... there is no basis for alerting the readers of problems that don't exist, and the inclusion of this false alert violates WP:NPOV. Therefore I will be removing it.

21:34, 17 April CC J. Johnson: Removing the {cite check} template. There is NO basis for this (as discussed on the Talk page), and its presence violates WP:NPOV. Only one editor wants it, and he has not shown any such "citation" problems.

¶ 01:09, 18 April CC Curly Turkey: And now J. Johnson has joined in the editwarring.

¶ 20:33, 18 April RR J. Johnson: Please note that if you fix a problem, the problem no longer exists, and therefore there is nothing to which the readers need to be alerted. .... I STRONGLY SUGGEST — as you have already been advised — that you raise them in a discussion on this page.

¶ 23:21, 18 April RR Curly Turkey [re "raise them in a discussion"]: No. I fix them.

¶ 23:35, 18 April RR  SWL36: Other editors can't understand these problems because you do not state them. ... Please post on the talk page when you discover actual problems, and be specific as to their nature.

¶ 20:42, 18 April RR J. Johnson: I have made one edit; that is not edit-warring.

¶ 00:49, 19 April RR Curly Turkey: you're tag-teaming with others.

¶ 20:28, 19 April CC J. Johnson:  ... you have not shown that there are any current (i.e., unfixed) problems.

¶ 21:27, 19 April CC Curly Turkey: 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!

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?