Requests for arbitration

Initiated by Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! at 01:10, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

• Curly Turkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Safrolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darryl Kerrigan‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr.Gold1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Littleolive oil
• diff of notification Safrolic
• diff of notification Darryl Kerrigan‎
• diff of notification Mr.Gold1
• diff of notification Legacypac

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair (pretty much the whole page and archive)
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1009#Editing on SNC-Lavalin Affair by User:Curly Turkey and others
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1010#Objection to premature closure of SNC-Lavalin Affair discussion

Statement by Curly Turkey

SNC-Lavalin affair is deadlocked over POV editing by a large number of editors, mostly brand new with histories of hundreds or fewer edits. This is not a "content dispute", but extensive intransigent behaviours circumventing WP:CCPOL compliance.

The article is on a sensitive political topic involving the Canadian prime minister in an election year. This makes timely resolution especially important, as having it drag out would also serve the ends of a POV editor—the content of the article will not matter to them in six months. The media and public hotly debate interpretations of events such as who is to blame (if anyone), but these editors have pushed for wording slanting against the Prime Minister's Office (PMO)—with an especial emphasis on the lead.

While trying to copyedit the article, I found numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, etc. Sustained pushback has met attempts to fix it. Editors incorporating POV into the article—sometimes by subtle wordings—try to drive away those who strive to restore NPOV. Tactics include WP:IDHT filibustering, CIVIL accusations, FUD and aspersions, dismissal of WP:CCPOL, etc. Evidence of behaviours:

• Open POV statements about who and what the article is "really" about: [1][2][3][4][5]
• Attacks for pushing an unnamed "agenda": [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]—and refusals to name or demonstrate what that POV could be
• Accusations of "whitewashing" the article: [14][15][16][17][18][19]
• Persistent IDHT—I detailed one case here that continued even after that report. This is one of the most common behavioural issues in the "discussions".
• I've described other patterns here

Safrolic opened an ANI report against me "and others" for purported CIVIL violations. I responded in detail about POV editing with copious diffs, but nobody has examined them—the report drowned in verbiage, so no uninvolved participant was willing to view evidence from either side.[20] It closed without action after a month with minimal outside participation.

I've been the most persistent editor in insisting on compliance to WP:CCPOL. I'm not the friendliest ("curmudgeonly" or "brusque", in SMcCandlish's words), but my conduct has been in good faith (no POV can be identified) and will stand to scrutiny under WP:CIVIL; regardless, the dispute was underway before I arrived and had already resulted in Littleolive oil being aggressively chased off the page[21] for raising many of the concerns that I have. Littleolive oil is considerably less "brusque" than me, but did not achieve more productive discussion. They did not come back until Legacypac was indeffed. I've listed only the most active of the many participants.

"Discussion" is impossible when participants engage in bad faith. Heel-dragging will show POV editors how easy it is to manipulate public opinion via the 5th most accessed website in the world—just use all the tools laid out in WP:CIVILPOV, which Wikipedia has shown over the years to be ineffective at dealing with.

• As more evidence of bad faith, Darryl Kerrington has now WP:CANVASSed a number of sympathizers (and only sympathizers) with the message "Curly has not notified all parties": [22][23][24][25][26] Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil

Statement by Safrolic

Statement by Darryl Kerrigan‎

Statement by Mr.Gold1

Statement by Legacypac

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Statement by El_C

Just to bring everybody up to date about attempting to resolve this on the admin boards: I closed the month-long discussion a few days ago without resolution having been reahced. This was then objected to, but that objection was also closed. I recommend that the Committee accept this case, as it is clearly at a deadlock. El_C 01:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)