Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes

Case opened on 01:19, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Case closed on 03:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Involved parties[edit]

• 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)
• PavelShk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

• Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair
• 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[edit]

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.

• Darryl Kerrigan has now WP:CANVASSed 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]
• To clarify: the names I listed were those I thought most active in POV/NPOV-related disputes—the charge I've lodged is of behaviours related to POV editing. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 00:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Littleolive oil[edit]

I have zero desire to become involved in an ArbCom case, but there are BLP issues at stake since content often references the Canadian Prime Minister and other government officials, and there is some small sense of urgency because a Canadian election is upcoming-in five months time. The issues we deal with here here may have impact beyond our articles assuming Wikipedia does impact outside events so, I see a need to iron things out. Given other failed attempts to achieve agreement on the issues arbitration seems like a next step.

As someone who attempted to work on the article now and then I found it impossible in most cases to achieve consensus; the positions editors hold are intractable in part because editors have drawn two distinct lines in the sand which define their sense of what is neutral. One group of editors believe there is wrong doing on the part of the Prime Minister's Office, the other sees wrong doing as a possibility not a fact and potentially pertaining to both sides. It's very difficult to agree on simple word changes when there are deep underlying differences on the understanding of and what is the fundamental NPOV. If there is a lack of agreement on the nuances and application of policy , if neutrality is confused then navigation towards resolution can be almost impossible.

• @Safrolic: It's not improper to not add certain editors to a case. There may be reasons CT didn't add the names and that's acceptable. It's also acceptable for editors to remove or add their names or other' names as long as it's reasonable. Some editors don't want to be included because that brings scrutiny. Littleolive oil (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @J. Johnson: I agree. There are lots of reasons editors do not want to be involved in an arbitration. None are mutually exclusive. My point about scrutiny was addressed to a new editor who at this point in time will probably not know what an arbitration case entails but could and should be warned that scrutiny can be an unpleasant sideline of any arbitration. Some editors seemed insulted that they were not included. I am in essence saying, don't be, and scrutiny is one reason why. I have seen too many new editors overwhelmed with arbitration because they do not know "the ropes". We forget what we know that new editors do not which can put them at a disadvantage. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Safrolic[edit]

(Rewrite in consideration of Amanda's clerk note) I support the opening of this case, though I disagree with CT on a number of points. This conduct/content dispute isn't going anywhere, and ANI wasn't able to handle it. I went to ANI following an unproductive talk page discussion with CT, to get input on whether CT's behaviour was acceptable or certain of his policy interpretations were grounded. After opening the ANI, Curly continued to make accusations of bad faith or misbehaviour, finally requesting that Darryl and I be TBANned. About a week later I supported J.Johnson's ABAN proposal for CT, saying that regardless of whether the underlying issue is a content dispute, there's really no way that discussion can move forward with the conduct issues. Then, I objected to El_C's closure of the ABAN proposal for CT because I didn't see a way for discussion to move forward without some kind of resolution. At every stage, I've asked for outside input to resolve the various disputes raised by CT, because the discussions just between him and the others in the group aren't going anywhere, and just devolve into back and forth accusations. I still think that some kind of outside resolution is needed.

Notes:

• Most of the diffs in CT's request are by Legacypac, who is currently indefinitely blocked, something I support. I think he should be removed as a party- his input here will not help anyone and realistically, he's not coming back for a long time. I agree with CT that LP has been uncivil. I would prefer not to be judged by his behaviour, just as I would prefer not to be judged by CT's behaviour if I agreed with him in these disputes.
• I agree with three of Darryl's notifications, as CT improperly neglected to list them as involved parties- two are users he has made prior accusations of misbehaviour against. Two of Darryl's notifications were improper. @J. Johnson, SWL36, and Harris Seldon: should be added to the list of parties. Thanks to Olive for including PavelShk.
• I've replaced my original statement here as it wasn't appropriate for this stage, sorry.

Statement by Darryl Kerrigan‎[edit]

Firstly, I would like to apologize if I inappropriately notified others. I was concerned that many involved in edits on the page, conversations on the talk page, and with the ANI did not appear to be notified. I respect Safrolic and take his criticism to heart. Reflecting on this, I think the correct thing to do would have been for me to post on the talk page as I see Harris Seldon has now done. I thank him for that. I likely should have also notified Bradv. Given that I have been accused once of canvassing already, I will leave that for others to do if appropriate. I had noted that SMcCandlish and El_C who both commented at ANI were already aware of this process having been pinged or already commenting here when I posted. If there are others who should be notified, please do so.

On the merits of this request, I support this case going forward. I have been taking a break from Wikipedia for the last few days. Talk page discussions like this, replies like this and sur-replies like this suggest to me that the situation has not improved. The situation on the talk page devolved to a WP:Battleground a long time ago. Help is needed.

I also thank El_C for closing the RfC on the LavScam issue. At the same time, that close is a hard one to accept (with an 11-4 YES vote becoming a NO). It is also problematic because Curly Turkey originally raised WP:WEIGHT concerns, saying the term could be included "Only if along with other frequent terms for the affair" going on to say that a list of terms would likely be too long so his "preference is to leave them all out". He subsequently changed his vote citing other reasons. Attempts had previously been made to determine exactly what these alternate terms were, their prevalence, uniqueness etc, so WP:WEIGHT concerns could be addressed (by including some other additional terms alongside LavScam) but he refused to play ball. He has accused me of dishonesty for raising the fact that he made reference to the possibility of including other terms. I suspect he will level those allegations again here.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@El_C - With respect, I don't think I am wrong in my count: 11-YES (Legacypac, Safrolic, Britishfinance, Harris Seldon, SWL36, myself, PavelShk, Rsrikanth05, Handy History Handbook, Ktrimi991, & StoryKai) vs. 4-NO (Curly Turkey, bradv, AdA&D, StudiesWorld). Agreed, closing an RfC is not a purely mathematical exercise only partly one. If I have miscounted I apologize, but I don't think I have.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mr.Gold1[edit]

Hello all. I don't wanna get involved further in the arbitration case but I'll make my statement highlighting what I mentioned on the Talk Page
The answers to the following questions will help us classify the SNC-Lavalin affair into a political scandal or political controversy:

1. Is the SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
2. Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
3. Is the affair ethically wrong or right? (An ethics investigation was opened when the affair was first reported to the general public)?
4. Is the affair only just a heated prolonged public disagreement that doesn't involve any actions (e.g. investigations, hearings, apparent political actions, etc)?

The difference between a scandal and controversy lies in the answers to the above questions.
I think what has been done to the SNC-Lavalin affair article is a darn disgrace. I'm the page creator of the SNC-Lavalin affair, not that it should account for something but just putting it out there.
Thanks to all. Cheers. Mr.Gold1 (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PavelShk[edit]

I have no position or opinion on arbitration as I'm a new editor with very little experience. I just want to comment that I did my best to edit SNC-lavalin affair page and learn and follow all Wikipedia policies in the process. I never engaged in edit wars, I discussed things on talk page and I participated in RfCs. However, I have been repeatedly attacked by user Curly Turkey, who accused me first of 'sock puppetry', then of creating a 'single purpose account', then of starting an edit war when in fact I did not, then of violation of multiple policies, and at the end called me 'an aggressive newbie'. All while reverting my perfectly valid change of removing a 'cite check', without any explanation. IMO all of this are personal attacks and bullying, from an experienced editor who perfectly knows he bullies a new editor. PavelShk (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Statement by Robert McClenon[edit] The ArbCom was established about fifteen years ago in order to resolve intractable conduct disputes in the English Wikipedia. That should still be its principal purpose. It has had other duties assigned to it only because its members are highly trusted functionaries who can oversee other highly trusted functionaries and can perform other arcane functions. The community has in recent years normally but not always been able to deal with conduct disputes, such as by banning of trolls and flamers. Also, the ArbCom has developed a procedure of discretionary sanctions permitting administrators to deal harshly and effectively with disputes in battleground areas, including those that have historically been real battlegrounds. However, the ArbCom is still the last resort for dealing with intractable conduct disputes. In recent years, the ArbCom has often, in my opinion too often, deferred or avoided taking on intractable conduct disputes, in the hope that other solutions could be found. Most of the cases taken by the ArbCom in recent years have involved the conduct of administrators, where there is no community remedy. However, the ArbCom also has the mandate to deal with conduct disputes that the community has been unable to resolve because the community is divided or polarized. In cases where the ArbCom has avoided dealing with conduct disputes that the community could not resolve, by asking the parties or the community to keep trying, the conduct has too often continued, and the anger and division has worsened. Sometimes the ArbCom should accept cases at the first sign that a dispute is intractable, rather than waiting for too much evidence of intractability with collateral damage. The SNC-Lavalin affair dispute has shown itself to be an intractable conduct dispute. It dragged on for a month at WP:ANI with various proposals for topic-bans that did not achieve consensus. The dispute is likely to continue until effective action is taken, which may consist of the topic-bans that the community has not doled out, or may even involve bans, but something needs to be done. The ArbCom should accept this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Afterthoughts by Robert McClenon[edit] ArbCom discretionary sanctions are probably part of the answer to this case. Their imposition should not be a substitute for evidence and fact-finding, but may shorten the evidence and workshop phases, so that ArbCom will not need to identify all of the editors whose conduct is problematic. I suggest that ArbCom shorten the time for the case with the expectation that other offenders can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement. It is not necessary to unblock Legacypac or otherwise worry about his status. The worst that would happen if he were a party is that he could be blocked, and he already is blocked. He should be allowed to submit evidence by email, and a clerk should post any proper evidence. If discretionary sanctions are imposed, the sanctions can deal with any conduct issues after he is unblocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by El_C[edit] 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] I also concur with many here that ARBAP2 should also encompass Canadian politics. Granted, overall it's not as contentious an area as its American counterpart (that is my impression, at least). But being able to place some Canadian politics-related articles and editors under DS, will prove of much use. El_C 23:43, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Darryl Kerrigan is wrong. It's easy to count the preferences, and it is 9-5 11-5, not 11-4, with two users having changed their minds. Anyway, RfC is not a vote and I'm not just a tally machine. I stand by my no consensus closure, even if it was, admittedly, a close one. El_C 03:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Darryl Kerrigan, regardless, this is not the proper venue. *** I'll just note for the benefit of the Committee that this was part of a whole series of RfC closures I did at ANRFC. El_C 04:37, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by QEDK[edit] This is clearly ArbCom jurisdiction, per the very definition of intractable conduct dispute, as Robert McClenon has put forward. I closed one of the TBAN proposals by the filer at ANI (Curly Turkey) against the other involved editors as there was no consensus for it. The matter then, as now, is clear — it is too complex for any one editor to dive in and reach a singular, proper conclusion. Fwiw, I agree with EI_C's closure, it clearly wasn't premature and no solutions were being arrived to. Given the failure of the discussion at ANI and the previous ensuing disputes, the next sensible course of action is to pass it forward to the committee for targeted remedies. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reply to @BU Rob13: Can't the ArbCom pass a temporary injunction that exist for the very purpose of enabling ArbCom proceedings, which in this case, would result in a temporary unblock of the editor concerned? --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Reply to @Levivich: What are you talking about? It is allowed via procedure for blocked editors to be unblocked so that they can make their case. Whether they are blocked now is not pertinent if a case is being taken up, noting further that the current sanctions were not a product of involvement in this topic area. Removing an involved party is not a solution, involving them in the resolution is the solution. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Levivich: There is no answer charges. The injunction is simply meant to allow an editor to participate in the case, that's all. It is how it is. --qedk (t 桜 c) 21:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Alanscottwalker[edit] Where the issue is around content, and how to say something in articles, in the past it has been often done by Arbcom members at this stage to explore whether the parties have a willingness to enter into good-faith mediation, perhaps to construct useful RfC's where no agreements can be reached. None of that, of course addresses conduct, which if we are at a conduct impasse the cmtte could remove users, restrict users in a case, or it could have the mediation occur concurrently. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Ivanvector[edit] Arbcom should accept this case, as our colleagues above have already quite eloquently argued. Canadian politics and its editing on Wikipedia is becoming increasingly similar to the topics covered by the post-1932 American politics discretionary sanctions. I don't think I could point to a particular date (and I don't follow really so I don't know what relevance 1932 has) but many of the same issues to the south are also issues here, or there are political forces (and Wikipedia editors) who want them to be. As the editing and outright POV campaigning around the SNC-Lavalin controversy shows, a new category of discretionary sanctions for Canadian politics is overdue. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Levivich[edit] @QEDK: Unblocking someone temporarily because they're named in an Arbcom case sounds too much like "requiring" a person to log on to Wikipedia just to "answer charges". If an editor is not editing–whatever the reason–then there is no ongoing disruption that needs to be prevented with sanctions, and thus no reason to waste the community's time in examining their actions (from months ago, I'd add). In this case, we're talking about an editor who has been indef blocked for several weeks. I agree with Rob, they should be removed as a party. Leviv ich 20:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] @QEDK: If they ask, an editor could be unblocked to participate. But I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion that we'd say to any editor, "Though you've been blocked for three weeks, please log in now and defend your actions from two months ago." That sounds nuts to me. Leviv ich 21:04, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by TonyBallioni[edit] Yes, Legacypac should be unblocked to allow participation in this case if he so desires as standard procedure. That isn't requiring him to participate. It is giving him the option to participate without him having to beg for it, which knowing him he won't do. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by J. Johnson[edit] Curly Turkey has accused (at 04:25) Darryl Kerrigan of canvassing for notifying myself and several other editors (User:SWL36, User_talk:Harris_Seldon, User:Ret.Prof, and User:Handy History Handbook) of this request. We were not notified by CT, presumably because our involvement in the article is little (in my case, I have made just a single edit to the article) or none, and it is rather a fine point is to whether we are "involved parties", or not. But all of us have witnessed CT's behavior, at either the article's Talk page, or the recently closed ANI discussion; ArbCom may find our experiences relevant. My principal statement in this matter is that while there are issues of POV, reliable sources, edit-warring, etc., at SNC-Lavalin affair, I would agree with CT's statement to the extent of "This is not a "content dispute", but extensive intransigent behaviours...", the said "behaviours" being the reason why the content issues have not been resolved. I differ on the point of whose behaviour is at fault. I believe the matter is serious enough that this case should be accepted. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] P.S. The matter is serious because the behavior involved tends to put-off new editors, and discourage even experienced editors. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Littleolive oil: Some of us would rather not be included because these affairs tend to be big sinks of time, energy, and morale with frustratingly little result, undermining what we would prefer doing: researching and editing content. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by SWL36[edit] Arbcom should absolutely accept this case, to examine the conduct of the editors at this article and in the noticeboards, and also to examine whether DS should be applied to Canadian politics as a whole. As someone who has been somewhat involved in the article, its talk page, and the noticeboards. One of the most persistent problems with this article has been the constant invocation of bad faith on the part of several parties while editing. Every change, proposed change, or even vote on a proposed change was met with a constant stream of various charges related to POV editing, socking, and all manner of other aspersions. Hopefully the remedy to this case offers resolution to these issues and a way to prevent or speedily address them in the future. SWL36 (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Vanamonde93[edit] Legacypac should not be removed as a party, and should be unblocked to participate, but with a restriction from editing anywhere except the case page. Legacypac's current block is the result of his conduct in a very different dispute. The expectation is that he will be unblocked if he files an unblock request adequately addressing that behavior; such an unblock request should not be a get out of jail free card for his participation in this dispute. Conversely, an unblock for the sake of participation here should not be a get out of jail free card for previous misconduct. Unblocking with an "everything except ARBCOM" tban is the only way out of this that I can see. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply] Statement by Nosebagbear[edit] My statement purely refers to various statements suggesting DS being spread to Canadian politics, as "it can be helpful for certain pages". While that wouldn't seem out of order for this particular page, I do not see this case as being sufficient to warrant its introduction to a major new category (as DS is implemented "spreads" fairly rapidly within an applicable category). Nosebagbear (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

• @Curly Turkey: You've gone over the 500 word limit, please retract some things.
• @Safrolic: You are at 502 words, this is just an advisory I won't squabble over two words, but that you have no further room for replies.
• @Curly Turkey and Safrolic: Please remember this is not the evidence phase. You do not need to prove your case here, only tell the Arbs why you think it is necessary. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse – bradv🍁 13:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (7/0/0)[edit]

• Accept Reading this request, and the lengthy thread at ANI, it's clear that the community is coming to the end if its resources to properly resolve this issue. ArbCom at this point appears to be needed to help resolve this issue. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Accept after reading the ANI. This is the clearest example of an intractable content dispute that I've seen during my tenure on the Committee. One minor note: I think Legacypac should not be a party because they are already indefinitely blocked. Even if their behavior was relevant to the dispute, I think it would be unjust to examine it formally in a case while they cannot comment. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC) [reply]

  Given the time-sensitive nature of this issue, upon the opening of this case, I plan to propose a temporary injunction/remedy that enacts discretionary sanctions on all edits related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, broadly construed, to expire at the end of the case. I doubt we would stick with such a narrow topic area for DS in any final remedy, but this would give us time to examine the entire dispute in the broader topic area without such a rush. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Resigned from the Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:54, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Accept I agree with much of what has already been said above. The larger topic area may need to be examined as well. Regarding intractable content disputes, in looking at the locus of the dispute we may find remedies or ways in which to equip the community in dealing with the core issues as has been done in other topic areas. Mkdw ^talk 20:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to drop a quick note here that we're still sorting out some matters for the case to move forward. We apologize for the delay and hopefully will get this ball rolling soon. Mkdw ^talk 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not convinced that this dispute is so entrenched as to warrant a full case (nor convinced, given ArbCom's track record on content disputes, that we would be able to resolve the matter speedily and effectively), however I hear the concerns that this is a timely topic that needs a speedy response. We know that DS is effective in reducing conflict on controversial articles. It might be worth us looking into implementing a scheme where we can fast track certain content disputes into temporary DS protection for six or 12 months. I think this is a situation which might benefit from us looking at temporary DS protection rather than going through a full case. SilkTork (talk) 00:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept per Rick. Katie^talk 12:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, per Rick and Rob. If Legacypac is to remain a party, we should unblock him so he can participate; otherwise, we should remove him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. It's pretty clear that this dispute has gone on for quite some time without successful resolution, so I think it makes sense for us to take a whack at it. Per PMC, if Legacypac remains a party to the case, he should be unblocked for the sole purpose of allowing him to participate in the case if he so wishes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:32, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept, per above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Accept. AGK ■ 09:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Consensus[edit]

2) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Behavioral standards[edit]

3) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution[edit]

4) If a dispute becomes protracted or the subject of extensive or heated discussion, the views and comments of uninvolved contributors should be sought. Insulating a content dispute for long periods can lead to the disputants become entrenched, and so unresolvable questions of content should be referred at the first opportunity to the community at large—whether in a Request for Comment, Third Opinion, or other suitable mechanism for inviting comment from a new perspective.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

5) Edit warring is not desirable as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 6 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ownership[edit]

6) Wikipedia pages do not have owners who control edits to them. Instead, they are the property of the community at large and governed by community consensus.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Evaluating user conduct[edit]

7) An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse bad behavior or misconduct in another aspect of participation. An editor's misconduct also is not excused because another editor or editors may also have engaged in such conduct. Such factors may nonetheless be considered in mitigation of any sanction to be imposed, or for other relevant purposes such as an inferring a user's overall intent toward the project.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Verifiability[edit]

8) All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. A source "directly supports" a given piece of material if that information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support this material is not a violation of Wikipedia:No original research.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Locus of dispute[edit]

1) This case centers around the article SNC-Lavalin affair and the behavior of editors on the article and its talk page.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring: LavScam[edit]

2) From April 8-April 12, multiple editors, including Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Mr.Gold1, PavelShk, Safrolic, SWL36, and others, edit warred over the use of the term "LavScam" in the lead as an alternate name for the situation.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]. During that time, the term was under contentious discussion on the talk page. Involved editors did not seek outside assistance via mechanisms such as dispute resolution or third opinion until Safrolic brought the matter to ANI on April 11, leading to the involvement of Bradv, who established an RfC on the matter on April 12.[35][36]

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring: cite check[edit]

3) On April 12, Curly Turkey added a {{cite check}} template to the article and began 'scrubbing' the page for sourcing problems he perceived on the page.[37][38][39] Over the following days, he edit warred with multiple other editors to keep the template on the page; it was removed for the final time by J. Johnson on April 17.[40] During the edit war, Curly Turkey refused multiple requests on the talk page to explain the issues he was seeing with the sourcing (timeline by J. Johnson).

Passed 6 to 1 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring: description[edit]

4) Between May 3 and May 8, multiple editors edit warred over the question of whether to use "scandal," "controversy," or "dispute" in the lead to describe the situation. ([41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]). An RfC was opened on May 8th by one of the involved editors, but discussion became contentious and it did not come to a resolution.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey has cast aspersions[edit]

5) When multiple editors pushed back against Curly Turkey, Curly Turkey engaged in BATTLEGROUND behavior, accused multiple editors of bad faith, and cast aspersions on editors who have disagreed with him.[55][56][57][58][59]

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry[edit]

6) On April 15, Curly Turkey accused PavelShk, a new editor with whom they disagreed, of sockpuppetry on the basis of a single IP edit.[60] Just over an hour after making this accusation, without attempting to communicate with PavelShk about his concerns, Curly Turkey filed an SPI report. PavelShk responded on the article's talk page the next day acknowledging that he had made the edit without realizing he was not logged-in.[61]

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey and sources[edit]

7) Curly Turkey exhibited a black and white view of verifiability and text-to-reference integrity that crossed the line from reasonable concern for verifiability into tendentious editing. As a result of this strict interpretation, he insisted upon the removal or tagging of sources which other editors reasonably argued supported the preceding text.[62][63] He refused to consider other editors' views on the matter aside from his own.[64][65][66]

Passed 5 to 1 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey article-banned[edit]

1) For BATTLEGROUND behavior, incivility, and refusal to engage with other editors, Curly Turkey is prohibited from editing SNC-Lavalin affair and its talk page for a period of six months. This restriction may be appealed at WP:ARCA after three months.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Curly Turkey warned[edit]

3) Curly Turkey is warned that future violations of Wikipedia's conduct policies and guidelines, including WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:ASPERSIONS, may result in blocks or bans.

Passed 5 to 0 with 2 abstentions at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Editors admonished[edit]

4) Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Littleolive oil, PavelShk, Safrolic, and SWL36 are admonished for edit warring.

Passed 6 to 1 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

All editors reminded[edit]

5) All editors are reminded to seek dispute resolution and to use appropriate resources, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, for outside opinions and suggestions for resolving problems.

Passed 7 to 0 at 03:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.