Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop

Questions to the parties

 * Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

=Proposed final decision=

WP:Weight
1) Article content should not sway the reader towards one position or another. Undue weight can be violated by "including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * It's not about content, but why you all have not been able to resolve the content issues. In regards of weight (and other content issues) the editors should not be swayed by poorly supported claims of "POV" or "whitewash', but resolve the issues on the basis of established processes and principles. No issue has been raised regarding the principles themselves; the issues regard their application. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:POV Fork
2) Content that is forked off a mother article to create emphasis on that aspect of the article may constitute a wrongful use of forked content, may violate WP:WEIGHT in the mother article and may be a non-neutral or a POV action which is meant to emphasize that forked off content. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:



WP: Too much detail
3) Content that is forked off a mother article and which contains excessive amount of detail per the weight of that content per its importance in a larger context as in the mother article may point to NPOV editing or a desire to underline the perceived importance of the content. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:Ownership
4) Construction of Wikipedia articles especially when contentious depends on collaboration. Editors should not feel they control the article in its construction, length, or content. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Placing undue emphasis on a single event may inappropriately impact a BLP
1) Content in an article on the current prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, includes his life as well as events in political office, and contains a  sub–section on a recent controversy. Information from that controversy was split off and extended to create a very heavily–detailed article updated in detail as the press released more information or opinion. This may be a violation of WP:Weight and WP:Fork since the Lavelin affair was only one issue of many in a life and political career. This is BLP content, and a few months before an election; great care in creating an article that does not influence is always paramount, but especially now. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * This is a finding of fact, not a principle. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Moved from above.
 * It certainly seems like there be a BLP issue here, and that should certainly be an issue of concern, but that is not established as a fact. Unfortunately, mere assertions of "POV" without presenting "coherent and concise arguments", in a context of edit-warring and personal attacks, has undercut what argument might be made for a BLP issue. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The arguments have been presented many times in greater and lesser detail. My evidence presents some instances, and I could present much, much more.  All the arguments and quotations of policy in the world achieve nothing when the other side resorts to WP:IDHT and other stonewalling behaviours—such as the repeated insistence that BLP cannot apply to the article, which took an admin to clarify (even the BLP banner at the top of the talk page was not enough to satisfy Safrolic until BotNL made it clear that [BLP  apply). [[User:Curly Turkey|Curly "JFC" Turkey]] 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a series of events which dominated Canadian politics for several months. There are more than a hundred sources cited in the article, and several hundred thousand available on google. I don't think that it's a violation of WP:WEIGHT for it to have its own article, and this is the first time such a concern has been raised to my knowledge. Also, there is content here to which BLP applies. The article itself is not BLP. Safrolic (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I raised the issue of the background weight concern here. . Weight also refers to the ratio of the single incident as relative to the rest of the life of the person involved. Popular press will explode with articles if it sells papers. Until we have a long view it's difficult to judge the importance of this incident. And I like others understand BLP to refer to the policy itself which includes all living persons in the article. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Background information that is too extensive inappropriately impacts an article's weight and a BLP
2) The split off article begins with a history of the Lavalin scandal  which occurred before Trudeau came to office. The detail and extensive coverage of the scandal within another article may violate WP: Weight. The history is pejorative in its subject matter and sets a tone in the article which may subtly implicate by association and because of its weight, the Prime Minister. Again, this is BLP related content. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There is no mention of the SNC-Lavalin Kerala hydroelectric scandal in the background section. The information given is necessary to understand the scandal itself. You've made no indication previously that you thought it was pejorative, or effort previously to change wording. Safrolic (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I apologize I linked to the wrong background information. And yes background is necessary but the weight of the background should not outweigh the subject matter of the article. What I took to be an innocent reply to my concern of weight indicated ownership issues probably because the editor was newer.
 * With regard to the my edit which you felt indicated ownership, I did not mean to imply that I was the only one building the article. What I did mean to point out was that the edits I was making were major restructuring and expanding of content. . Those expansions were well-written and well-cited. I wasn't objecting to others editing the content I added (I welcomed that multiple times, actually); I was saying that removal of content simply because it was more indepth than the rest of the article at that point would be problematic, because I was planning on expanding the rest of the article to give the same level of complete coverage. There's a policy/guideline I'm thinking of, but can't remember the name of at the moment... something about eventualism. I apologize for my poor wording back then and I want to stress that I have not made any pattern of edits indicating an ownership attitude. Safrolic (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a finding of fact, not a principle. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed remedies
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.

1RR restriction
1) All editors will be restricted to 1 revert on any article about or related to Canadian politics. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

I'm not sure how to remedy a situation where many newer editors converge on an article; they may have excellent writing skills but may be newer at understanding the nuances of policy. I don't mean to sound arrogant here. I, as well as anyone, can always learn more. DS has always looked like it puts a lot of power into one hand, could be used to cool down when things get tense, but instead can be perceived as chilling rather than helpful, and in total has never seemed to be effective. Edit warring with large numbers of editors with the same POV can control article content. 1RR rule may lessen that control and move article discussion more towards collaboration. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There was lots of edit warring. A block only indicates an admin saw the edit warring and acted not that the edit warring existed in the first place. If I understand your point. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * a number of editors have 3RRed, and there are some cases where multiple editors performed the same revert, but nobody has been blocked or reported to WP:ANEW. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see justification for this from the evidence. Were any editors actually blocked for edit warring? – bradv 🍁  01:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If none of the editors who were edit warring were reported to ANEW, then there's also no evidence that the regular editing rules couldn't resolve the issues. – bradv 🍁  02:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Inclusion criteria
1) Wikipedia articles sum up the consensus of WP:RSes, subject to policies and guidelines such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, MOS:W2W, and WP:BLP. Edits must not highlight preferred or fringe content, or colour the text via ambiguous or loaded terms, even if such terms appear in RSes, per MOS:CLAIM.  WP:VERIFIABILITY is a necessary—but in itself not sufficient—criterium for inclusion.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Moved from above
 * As I said above (and you said in you said in your opening statement), this is not a content issue. (That is for the Talk page.) The issue here is why resolution of various content issues is deadlocked. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The behaviour issue is the sustained dismissal of WP:CCPOL. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CCPOL is a catch-all "explanatory supplement" to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. For all the hand-waving you do you have not laid out a case for "sustained dismissal" of any those. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Part of the evidence is on the evidence page (I couldn't include all of it). Further evidence might be inappropriate on this page (I don't know the protocols) but here is  affirming that WP:BLP applies to the page after editors such as Safrolic and PavelShk had dismissed it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Part of the evidence"?? It seems you have no idea of what "building a case" involves. It's not enough to wave your hand at some corner where you think there is evidence for something you have not clearly and specifically stated. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an "Evidence" page, J. Johnson, and you literally just passed over more concrete evidence I provided. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:INTEGRITY
3) Citations must conform to WP:INTEGRITY. Sources cited must contain all the cited material and be placed or marked to make clear what portion of text each source cites.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Moved from above
 * Overstated: there is no "must" there. It is "important", but the "distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment...." It is hardly a threat to WP policies, and should have been resolved by routine, cooperative editing. It has arisen (as I documented in the Evidence section) where it was shown that Curly Turkey's claim that a quotation was not supported by source arose from his confusion of which source was applicable.  It has been overblown into a "violation" requiring Arbcom attention because Curly Turkey refuses to "drop the stick". &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is not "distance"—no objection was made to having a cite at the end of a long paragraph. The violation of WP:INTEGRITY is having material come between the citation and the material cited with no indication that's happening.  This is a "must", and Wikipedia's sourcing policies make no allowances for this.  Further, the example you cite is only once of a list of WP:INTEGRITY violations I listed, which included citing material that didn't appear in any of the sources given, concatenating quotations, adding POV details such as "illegal", etc. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I repeat: "must" does not occur at WP:Citing_sources (WP:INTEGRITY). Your cited source does not support your assertion. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not a quotation—it's a statement of principal. You're not seriously arguing WP:INTEGRITY allows us to cite material to sources that doesn't contain that material?  No—that's a "must". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:02, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:NOTVOTE
4) WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands—per WP:NOTVOTE: it is "the communal norm that ". Even a wide a majority of !votes cannot override WP:CCPOL.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Moved from above
 * I agree. And you have persistently failed to discuss your reasoning. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You'll have to explain this to the Arbs and —El C, did you close the "LavScam" RfC the way you did my "persistent failure to discuss my reasoning"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:29, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No such failure was apparent to me upon evaluating the RfC, but my familiarity with the article talk page does not extend much beyond that RfC and its extended discussion. (The reader may also note the objections to the close on my talk page vis-a-vis the RfAR.) El_C 10:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Stonewalling
5) WP:STONEWALLING behaviours such as WP:IDHT are forms of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Gaming the system that confound consensus-building and erode assumptions of good faith.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Tagging
6) Maintenance tags alert users and editors to issues such as those of content or sourcing to draw more participation in improving them. They should not be removed unless demonstrated to have been appropriately dealt with.  Removal of tags without having dealt with them can be seen as a stonewalling behaviour that reduces awareness of issues and thus reduces participation in improving them.

The WP:NPOV policy refers to article content; "POV" as a rationale for removal of maintenance tags has no precedent or community consensus.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:


 * Moved from above
 * Tagging specific content or sources can direct editorial attention to possible problems. But it is a very weak argument that any tagging will "draw more participation" in improving the article, as the lack of participation is due less to lack of awareness than to being scared off by the battleground environment. (Witness the treatment of PavelShk.) The insertion of the cite check warning is not directed at possible editors, but at the readers, and it makes a strong statement (in bold text) regarding the basis of the article as a whole. It is not a mere "maintenance" tag, it is an insinuation of dubious sourcing, which, aside from the weaselly qualification of "possibly", is not supported by any specific instances. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "the cite check warning is not directed at possible editors"—an unsupportable statement. Only an editor will deal with it.  You are making an argument against maintenance tagging.
 * "it is an insinuation of dubious sourcing"—based on the evidence (provided) of continued widespread sourcing issues.
 * "(Witness the treatment of PavelShk.)"—witness PavelShk's edit comment "This article is very accurate" while editwarring to keep it out. PavelShk's edits have been problematic and they have reacted with aggression to my attempts to fix them. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems I need to clarify: I am not "against maintenance tagging" (and your assertion is a misrepresentation). I do argue that the {cite check} template is not a mere maintenance tag, and strongly colors a reader's impression of the article. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your argument applies to the use of the Cite check tag in any article. This is not the venue to vent your disatisfaction with the documentation-compliant deployment of that tag—nor is SNC-Lavalin affair. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * A comment that adroitly avoids addressing a key issue in the use of {cite check}: it insinuates dubious sourcing, and strongly colors a reader's impression of the article. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Dubious sourcing I've demonstrated existed before, during, and after I placed the tag, yes. I have not avoided addressing this, and your argument continues to be about the tag itself and not my documentation-compliant use of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template
X)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed principles
Whereas the underlying issue here is intransigent behavior, the following principles are directly and generally applicable.

WP:Civility
1) A policy. The nutshell is particularly apropos:

Additionally: "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

Pertinent examples are found in the section "Identifying incivility":


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:No personal attacks (WP:NPA)
2) A policy. As stated by Safrolic: "There have at one point or another been accusations of bad faith or personal attacks made by and against almost every editor to this page." Such behavior indicates abattleground attitude and has contributed to the break down of cooperative editing at this article.

Note that per WP:AOBF "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack."


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:Assume good faith
3) A behavioral guideline. Much of the turmoil at this article arises from Curly Turkey's evident assumption that other editors are not acting in good faith; he broadly characterizes their editing as "POV editing", and therefore to be rejected.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:Disruptive editing
4) A behavioral guideline. In a nutshell:

Characteristic "tendencies" of disruptive editing are listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Particularly applicable are the following:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

Care must be taken in the accuracy with which the policies and guidelines are presented here. Disruptive editors per the guideline can be blocked indefinitely if the account's purpose is to disrupt. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

WP:NOTHERE
5) Particularly, the indications that an editor has "Little or no interest in working collaboratively".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Not a content issue
6) Issues regarding article content, POV, reliable sources, BLP, etc, should be resolved by discussion at the article's Talk page. The issue here is why that process has failed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Violations of WP:CIVILITY
1) Curly Turkey has violated the policy of WP:CIVILITY in failing to "Participate in a respectful and considerate way", failing to "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks", and failing to be "reasonably cooperative".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

I disagree. Curley Turkey presented arguments that indicated a good knowledge of policy and guideline when newer editors were not as clear about the nuances of those Wikipedia guides. Editors displayed ownership issues, a lack of knowledge about the extent to which BLP applies, as examples. While attempting to clean up sourcing issues which were extensive, and of course copyvios can be an issue, he was asked to discuss every single clean up he did. He described the concerns in general and that he would tackle the job of making sure sources and content were aligned, but no editor doing this kind of job, and it is a tedious job, can be reasonably expected to discuss every sourcing error. He said so but was repeatedly asked to discuss. If he became frustrated at different points, it's not surprising. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * He explained his reasoning. My point is about every source check he made. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When his edits are contested, he should expect to have to explain his reasoning. I grant he may be frustrated, but he should not expect everyone to fall in to his line of thinking when he won't explain his thinking. (And I mean beyond mere exclamations that violations are everywhere.) His mode of argumentation tends to jump straight to the conclusion without touching all of the bases in between. In some cases (such as his claim at ANI that he had apologized to PavelShk) it is pretty clear his claim has no basis. He would be less frustrated if he supplied (e.g.) requested diffs, or, when there simply are no such diffs, just backed down from claims he cannot substantiate. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "he should expect to have to explain his reasoning"—as I have in sometimes excruciating detail, giving examples, citing policy, and providing internal and external diffs. A prime example being the copious detail in Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair, which was a primary factor in the RfC's close against the majority !votes.  You can't seriously keep hammering this idea that I don't "explain [my] reasoning".
 * "such as his claim at ANI that he had apologized to PavelShk"—I retracted the socking allegation but stated I wouldn't apologize, as PavelShk's editwarring was inappropriate regardless of whether it was socking or accidental logout. You have yet to provide a diff to demonstrate I said I'd apologized, despite . Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I don't see how this is supported by the evidence. While Curly Turkey did get frustrated with other editors at times, I'm not aware of any instances of an actual personal attack. Certainly not any that deserved a warning or intervention by an administrator. – bradv 🍁  01:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Incivility covers more than just personal attacks, which I don't address here. (Though if you want instances, I would offer his accusation that PavelShk looked like a sockpuppet, and his characterization of my edits as "horeshit".) The lack of civility I have presented includes his rudeness and disrespect of other editors, and failing to present coherent and concise arguments when requested multiple times. His arguments here could also be taken as lacking in those regards. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Incivility covers more than just personal attacks"—if you lower the bar far enough that my expressoins of exasperation qualifies as "incivil", you'll quickly find everyone on the page (including yourself) subject to sanctions.
 * I stand by my "belligerent horseshit" comment—a response to your repeated aggravation in demanding I provide a diff to support claim I'd made an apology, and your refusal to provide a diff to show I'd claimed I made one.  And here you are doing the same thing—same refuted claim (with diffs to show it), and still no diffs of your own. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't you have it backwards? My claim is that you have never apologized nor retracted your accusation. At ANI, when your behavior towards PavelShk came up, I suggested (at ): "If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior." And you said : "" Not seeing any strike-outs of your remarks at either ANI or on the article Talk page I asked for diffs, which you refused : "But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording." Is that your notion of being "reasonably cooperative"?


 * In the diff you have supplied here you rationalized your remarks (e.g., "I jumped to conclusions"), but I see no apology, no retraction. I do see a lot of sloppiness in your characterization of others' remarks, and even of your own. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That is called a "retraction", but it doesn't matter: you haven't retracted the false claim "his claim at ANI that he had apologized", and here again you say "but I see no apology"—this'll never end. You're demonstrating everything I've been saying about your behaviour. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Violations of WP:AGF
2) Curly Turkey has failed to assume good-faith in regards of other editors, specifically and collectively, insinuating that one editor "looks like ... a sock-puppet", and that "other" editors collectively are motivated by "POV" considerations, without providing clear evidence to support those charges.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As I wrote in the ANI report, backed up by the edit history, I did assume good faith (that the sourcing issues were just sloppiness and inexperience) until the constant stonewalling and discovery of certain facts (and Legacypac's attacks and disruptions) made it untenable. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I wrote in my evidence submission, you began casting aspersions of bad faith almost immediately, with your second and fourth replies to Darryl.  A reasonable editor would not have bitten the newbie here. Safrolic (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Where does WP:AGF say to assume good-faith unless "certain facts" are discovered? What "certain facts" concerning PavelShk constituted "clear evidence" (emphasis in the original) that he was a sockpuppet? How does an alleged "attack" from Legacypac impugn everyone else's good-faith? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I said nothing about Legacypac's behaviour impugnging the others. The evidence against the others and about "certain facts" is on the "Evidence" page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:44, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit-warring
3) Curly Turkey has engaged in edit-warring, including repeated insertions of the cite check template against removals by multiple other editors.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

An editor is cleaning up sourcing issues and tags the article to indicate the work he's doing and that tag is removed before the job is done. Of course he replaced the tag. The protocol when an article is tagged is to deal with the issues in discussion. Removing a tag before that is done is the mistake not re adding the tag while work is ongoing. I am concerned about the inaccurate presentation of Curley Turkey's involvement. I apologize. I am not able to spend the time to rebut every point, nor do I have the stomach for this kind of work; I leave it to the arbs to look closely at the allegations. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Tags are supposed to be removed when the issue is resolved, or there is consensus to remove them. – bradv 🍁  01:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The weasel wording of {cite check} – that possibly there are citation and/or verification problems – is something generally true of ALL articles, so what is the point? It doesn't point to any specific problem, there was (when I removed it) no supplementary tagging to indicate any such problems, so how is it to be determined that these problems even exist, let alone are resolved? How is it that four editors removing it is "edit-warring", but CT adding it three times (and yourself once?) is not edit-warring? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You admit your issue is with the existence on Wikipedia of the tag itself and not my use of it, which was fully compliant with its documentation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is an example of Curly Turkey's frequent mischaracterization of others' arguments (putting words in other people's mouths). Here, it is clear that J. Johnson is objecting to the use of this tag on an article where there are not clear and pervasive citation issues throughout the article- as opposed to a few sporadic instances, which is common with heavily edited articles across the site. Safrolic (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "on an article where there are not clear and pervasive citation issues throughout the article"—per evidence on the "Evidence" page. The "few sporadic instances" were densely concentrated early in the article, primarily in the lead.  Again, we've been through this over and over—under no circumstances will you allow the tag on the page, even when sourcing issues turn up  the tagging.
 * "putting words in other people's mouths"—come again? J. Johnson's words: "The weasel wording of {cite check} – that possibly there are citation and/or verification problems – is something generally true of ALL articles, so what is the point?"  That's about, not my usage of it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Failure to discuss
4) Curly Turkey has ignored repeated requests to discuss his concerns about sources or citations on the Talk page.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I've brought up many of the sourcing issues on the talk page, inlcuding the entire section Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair/Archive 1. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * However that may be, I have shown that you ignored repeated requests to discuss your basis for adding {cite check}. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You have not demonstrated this, you have asserted it, just as you asserted without diffs I claimed to have made an apology I never said I made. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:52, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

"Does not discuss" as arrogance
5) Curly Turkey's comment that he does not discuss these kinds of problems, he "fixes them", shows an arrogant assumption that he is right and no discussion is needed.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Misrepresentation—"I fix them" was in the context of J. Johnson's demand that I either tag or bring sourcing issues to the talk page for "approval" first. My response is that I proactively fix them, which ideally any Wikipedian should, and the vast majority of my fixes (inlcuding hunting down sources and dealing with INTEGRITY issues) have been unchallenged—I've even been commended for these proactive fixes.
 * As for "he does not discuss these kinds of problem ... no discussion is needed"—I've already linked to where I've opened a discussion on sourcing issues. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Misrepresentation indeed: I never demanded that he get "approval" first. I did suggest (along with others) that he should discuss these problems he keeps seeing, or at least explain his edits. I have documented where, in one case, his complaint that a quotation was not found in a source was due to his looking at the wrong source. That is precisely the kind of situation where a lot of verbiage could have been avoided if the apparent problem had first been mentioned on the talk page. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "or at least explain his edits"—you keep saying this.
 * "his complaint that a quotation was not found in a source was due to his looking at the wrong source"—you keep saying this, too.
 * You keep saying these things, even with the Arbs watching. I don't know what to make of that. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Erroneous argument
6) In a particular claim by Curly Turkey that a specific quote was not to be found in a specified source it was found that he had the wrong source, the correct source being in an adjacent reference.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "it was found that he had the wrong source"—this was never "found", or even claimed. Safrolic asserted it was fine to have the second source separated from the text it supported—he never claimed I had the wrong source, and neither has anyone else. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Safrolic's (as I documented in the Evidence section): "the quote itself is sourced from the first source, where it appears verbatim. You are taking issue with the second source, ...." More misstatement, and IDHT. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's right, I took issue with the placement of the second source, which is the source I moved. Safrolic's misunderstanding of WP:CITEFOOT was that if the quote appears in the first source, it's okay to have the second source (which does not contain the quote) appear after it.  Safrolic did not say anything resembling "it was found that he had the wrong source"—the dispute was over the placement of the second inline.  You don't appear to be reading the context of the statements you're quoting—you are the only one claiming I "had the wrong source". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I wrote a two-sentence passage, and sourced the two sentence with two sources. Both sources covered entirely the same material. In the first source, a quotation which formed part of the passage was given verbatim. In the second source, the same quotation was paraphrased. I bundled both citations together. You "moved" the source to elsewhere in the article; in other words, you removed the source within the context of that passage. The quotation was not controversial, nor was its meaning changed by the paraphrasing in the second source. Safrolic (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The sources were not bundled. WP:BUNDLING is not placing one citation after another—it is placing multiple citations into one inline cite.  The WP:CITEFOOT you keep quoting shows two ways to do this.  We've been through everything in your comment over and over, and still you're stonewalling. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not cite WP:BUNDLING, and actually didn't know that had a specific meaning here. Please read my use of "bundled" as meaning "grouped". WP:CITEFOOT, which I did cite, says "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the clause, sentence, or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." I leave it to the arbitrators to decide who is behaving improperly here. Safrolic (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "actually didn't know that had a specific meaning here"—because you're not listening to what people are saying to you, over and over and over (per my evidence). Again, everything you've just written has been refuted and re-clarified, and you're still IDHT-ing it.  Here, in the middle of an ArbCom case, where this very behaviour is under the spotlight. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Escalation of a minor matter
7) On that occasion, instead of working cooperatively to resolve any confusion, Curly Turkey escalated a minor matter into a "violation" of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:BUNDLING, for which he requires ArbCom's attention.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * "instead of working cooperatively"—I've provided diffs of my attempts to resolve this, including alternative ways of handling it, and why. The isolated violation is not why we're at ArbCom—it's another example of a sustained pattern of stonewalling. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I encourage the arbitrators to read the chain of replies to which he is replying in that diff. I showed clearly why it was appropriate for both citations to be given at the end of that passage, and gave multiple options for addressing his concerns which would have been less disruptive. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've demonstrated on the talk page and evidence page Safrolic's IDHT with regards to this issue. Here he does it again. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * We are here because you claim (in part) "numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". The significance of this instance is as an example of you over-reacting to a minor matter. It seems quite possible that your other claims of "violation" are also minor. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The INTEGRITY violations are not the basis of the case—the stonewalling against fixing them is. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Your preliminary statement is plain: "numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". No mention of stonewalling, and only three (?) mentions in your Evidence section, all ancillary mentions under other headings. Perhaps it wasn't that big of deal until this stage? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The Arbs are obviously not going to buy any of that, and should be offended you'd even try. This comment can only serve as more evidence of how persistence this behaviour is, and how it can drive an editor clear off the ledge of exasperation.  "Discussion" is impossible when these are the sorts of comments one's faced with. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Disruptive behavior
8) Curly Turkey's behavior at SNC-Lavalin affair has disrupted resolution of various content issue, including possible BLP issues.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * No evidence provided. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
1) User Curly Turkey is indefinitely banned from the article SNC Lavalin affair.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Other remedies could be considered, but I believe this is the simplest, and likely most effective. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:00, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I support this remedy, as I did the last time it was proposed. I want to be clear that it's not because we disagree on issues- I disagree with Olive often and don't problem working with them. Curly Turkey's continual problematic behaviour- incivility, battleground behaviour, biting newbies, misrepresenting others' arguments, etc- makes it impossible to work on this article productively. As other new editors have said, this behaviour makes me want to give up on editing Wikipedia- and I think that competent editors like myself are the kind Wikipedia is trying to attract and retain. It's time for ArbCom to showing that uncivil behaviour isn't acceptable on the project. Safrolic (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I actually think the problem is not CT's behaviour. He does get frustrated but so did I. I left instead of dealing with it head on as he did. I no longer will sacrifice my health to deal with Wikipedia articles. I have decided it's better to walk away and let an article deteriorate rather than stay and deal with intractable situations. I do think editors are talking past each other though. You and others are excellent writers, but what you have to realize is that Curley Turkey has a huge amount of experience in editing. Reverting tags when an editor has taken on the tedious task of checking sources is beyond frustrating. Claiming aspects of policy that aren't accurate is exasperating and this all impacts BLP content. My initial reaction to multiple reverts by SPA editors and I suspect it would be for any experienced editor is that I was dealing with sock puppets or accounts which are COI driven, paid, meat puppets and so on. When these editors aggressively revert, yes, frustration sets in. I hope my concerns are unfounded but please understand why they arose. What has to happen and it's just my opinion is that newer editors have to respect experience and not respond with reverts, and yes, I as a more experienced editor do try to not cause anyone who wants to edit appropriately to feel attacked. But the attacks go both ways. One can be civil and still drive another editor away. I suggested all editors be restricted to IRR which may help the situation. I do think many of the accusations leveled at CT simply aren't true and that definitely causes problems. We all have to get along and part of that is understanding where the other guy is coming from. Editors with excellent writing skills are so needed on Wikipedia so I hope you and others stay around. Best. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're saying "huge amount of experience editing", but I'm hearing "unblockable". Many editors with plenty of experience editing have joined in this discussion at one point or another. None of them, including the now-blocked LegacyPac, have been as persistently uncivil as Curly Turkey has been here. It is a good idea for newer editors to respect experience, and I think us newer editors have by and large been doing that. But we're not obligated to tolerate incivility towards us, aspersions of misbehaviour and bad faith, or arguments which don't appear to be supported by the policies and guidelines cited. I hope you stick around in the future too, I'd be happy to continue working with you. Safrolic (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Does this mean we've lost Littleolive oil again? Congratulations, Wikipedia. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Much harder to get rid of me than that CT. I was describing my strategy for dealing with intractable situations and it's to walk away from that situation which helps me, but may not help the article. And Safrolic I meant what I said and none of that was, this editor cannot be blocked. Do I think he should be blocked. No. What I am saying is that it takes many to Tango and the situation on this article is not a simple, block this person and it will all be OK. The situation is a complex intertwining of multiple interactions and people. Things improve when everyone takes responsibility. And I don't like to see people blocked. Wikipedia is not punitive. It is collaborative. 23:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that we can all take responsibility for improving our own behaviour, interactions with others, and the article itself. However, I believe also that because of Curly Turkey's history of incivility and battleground behaviour, this can't happen while he remains active on the article. There simply is no coming back from it- it's clear he does not and will not believe any of us are acting in good faith, it's clear he has no intention of changing his behaviour, and it's clear there is no prospect of productive collaboration with him in the future. I need to leave for the day and I believe this workshop will be closed while I'm out, so this will be my last edit here- apologies for anything I've left unfinished.Safrolic (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have reluctantly come to the same conclusion as . Curly, at least with respect to SNC-Lavalin affair, seems to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith, suggesting they are pushing WP:POV, WP:NOTHERE, WP:SOCKs or are guilty of some other sin or transgression.  This was well documented here, at ANI and on the talk page.  Unfortunately, I do not see that improving in the near future.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "seems to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of bad faith"—I've accused a handful of editors of bad faith—those listed in this case. Harris Seldon, for example, has consistently taken opposite positions with me throughout, yet we haven't had these issues.  Perhaps because Harris Seldon has not engaged in intransigent IDHT stonewalling, editwarring, accusations of pushing an "agenda", dismissal of WP:CCPOL, or other bad-faith behaviour, and has shown a willingness to try to understand opposing positions—even proposing compromises. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * This is not in the best interest of the encyclopedia. The article would be in a worse condition without Curly Turkey's efforts. – bradv 🍁  01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As I've said in the past, Curly has made many minor formatting fixes and wording cleanups, and those are appreciated. However, editing on the article has now almost entirely ceased even though there are significant improvements and expansions yet to be made, and the talk page has devolved into a two month long fight, which has sprawled onto ANI, ArbCom, and multiple noticeboards, because of other edits he's made and his behind the scenes behaviour. I disagree that where we are now (before the supreme court arguing about conduct) is better than where we would be without his efforts (continuing to improve an article with some formatting and wording issues). Safrolic (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Would you argue that the article's current state justifies CT's problematic behavior? Or might the article (and WP) be better if he would do his work with less drama?


 * What alternatives would you suggest? TBANing everyone else? Afd? ?? &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed remedies
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
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

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

BUNDLING

 * —no evidence provided to back up this statement, per my evidence there was never any attempt at BUNDLING, and I had already clarified this here (also linked in my evidence) with alternatives to handle it (actually bundling would have been another alternative, though I don't see how the second source could have been appropriately marked or why one would want to). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:RS

 * —the link doesn't show me making such an argument, and the source was never removed. It was being used to source the aftermath of the story itself having broken, and I removed an inline of it from one such case in the lead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

WP:PRIMARY

 * —the link does not demonstrate me making such an interpretation, and shows me explaining cases in which primary sources are often used. I  raised concerns of overreliance on primary sources, but have not advocated removing them—only of supporting them with secondary sources.  The source I removed that Safrolic objected to was an SNC-Lavalin press release that had gone dead. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 15:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I did object to Curly's removal of the SNC-Lavalin press release cite in error, having already lost patience with his behaviour at that point. I acknowledged that error and self-reverted almost immediately. I replaced it with a cite from an RCMP press release following the discussion on my talk page here. Curly continued to take issue with this citation, despite my citation of WP:PRIMARY policies here. Safrolic (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I took issue with the overreliance on PRIMARY sources, but made no attempt to have the RCMP source removed, and you've provided no evidence to support the quote above. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Dicsussion continued at ANI

 * —this thread of the discussion continued during a portion of this ANI discussion that begins here. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

"lack of discussion"

 * —my complaining about lack of discussion is not evidence of discussion; also the issue was never the lack of the term, which I raised only as an example of other alt terms (see my IDHT evidence) Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * There was a 'lack of discussion' because when you brought it up, others pointed out that nobody had any problem with "Wilson-Raybould scandal" being included. Unless by discussion, you meant argument, this seems like sufficient discussion to me. Regardless of what the underlying issue was, I raised this as an example of mischaracterization of past discussion. The facts are that this term was repeatedly brought up, by you, and discussed (as in, others assented to it being included), and that you later claimed it had never been discussed at all. Safrolic (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: I submit Safrolic's above comment as the latest piece of evidence re: "Wilson-Raybold scandal" IDHT, which I've gone into in great detail on the "Evidence" page. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

"no problem" with the word "scandal"

 * —the diff is in response to DK's statement "I have already addressed your point about calling the SNC-Lavalin "scandal" as it is referred to as a scandal elsewhere including in the lede." At this point, issues with the word "scandal" had not been raised by anyone.  My comment expresses bafflement at DK's statement, which they never clarified, and cannot be interpreted as expressing there being "no problem with using the word 'scandal, which had not been discussed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

It's not a content issue
I agree with Curly Turkey that the issue here is not content, but intransigent behavior. However, it is significant that CT (and others) would have this matter resolved on the basis of content, and particularly on personal characterizations of whether content (or tagging) is "accurate" versus "POV". (Presumably non-neutral POV is meant.) On that basis there should be no issue, as we have processes and standards for dealing with POV, reliable sources, weight, etc., and for the most part they work at other articles and with other editors.

It is significant that CT assesses editor behavior on the basis of content. E.g., he justifies his insertion or deletion of material (or tags) as proper and correct because (in his mind) he is making the 'pedia better, whereas what other editors do is bad because they are "POV pushing". Such self-assurance tends to short-circuit any discussion.

A yet deeper issue is CT's approach to argumentation. I can see a possibility that some of his apparent concerns could be validly argued (by which I mean valid syllogistic reasoning), but his bellicoise approach and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:

"...and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument." This just isn't true and is a sweeping, generalized statement which is not born out by the talk page. CT engaged over and over again. And we are looking at the evidence and his arguments. No one is suggesting the matter be resolved on the basis of content. The misunderstanding and or misuse of policies which deal with content constitute behavioural issues. Potential WP:POV editing impacted content but is about the editors who create content and their point of view. Littleolive oil (talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: