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

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 8 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	5
1–2	4
3–4	3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed final decision[edit]

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:54, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Excepting reverts that no reasonable person would dispute. AGK ■ 03:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. I don't disagree with this principle, but there is the grey area of stewardship. When an editor has invested significant time and energy into writing a page, especially those bringing it up to peer-reviewed status, it is not unreasonable for them to watch and "look after" pages, so the page does not degrade in quality. This is allowed under Wikipedia's guidelines, as long consensus is also respected. As we don't need to get into this debate, I've simply removed "and Stewardship" from the heading. If any of the other arbs object, please let me know. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree with WTT's change. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 18:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Pretty much matches WP:V. Worm^TT(talk) 19:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:57, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 03:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. 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.[9][10]

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not sure we really need a laundry list of diffs / names, but this is factual. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Accurate. AGK ■ 04:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.[11][12][13] 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.[14] 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).

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 03:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The points being made here do not, I think, rise to the level of a finding. AGK ■ 04:14, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Minor point: citing user sandboxes and stuff potentially causes problems down the line if it were to get deleted, replaced, vandalized without anyone noticing, etc. I know in one case we copied those items into case subpages for archiving. Worth doing here? At least, we should link to the current revision, not just the page. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opabinia regalis, I've linked to the revision, good idea. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Corrected 1 diff: AGK ■ 04:05, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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. ([15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]). 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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Again the laundry list of diffs isn't my favoured way of writing (would rather included a link to the history for the period), but I'm also not going to make a fuss. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 04:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.[29][30][31][32][33]

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Weakly: AGK ■ 04:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.[34] 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.[35]

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. AGK ■ 04:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per PMC and Katie's comments below. – Joe (talk) 11:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

KrakatoaKatie and RickinBaltimore, I've reworded this based on talk page commentary, please review it and make sure you support the revised version. Curly Turkey, I apologize for missing the SPI filing, that's on me. Since an SPI was never brought up at evidence or mentioned again on the SNC-Lavalin affair talk page, I incorrectly thought none had been made. That being said, accusing a new editor of sockpuppetry on the basis of a single IP edit, then filing a formal SPI without even waiting for them to respond is extremely bitey and a terrible assumption of bad faith. The very next day, PavelShk apologized and acknowledged that the edit was an accidental logged-out edit, which is a perfectly reasonable explanation. What could have been a learning moment about remembering to log in first turned into an unnecessary escalation of hostilities. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that yesterday and didn't have time to come in and fix it. Thanks for picking up my mess. ;-) It's still a personal attack to accuse someone of sockpuppetry without evidence, and there was none. PavelShk's involvement at the article predated Curly Turkey's first edit there by a month. Being new does not automatically call you into suspicion. Katie^talk 19:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.[36][37] He refused to consider other editors' views on the matter aside from his own.[38][39][40]

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Worm^TT(talk) 19:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Commitment to accuracy is a good thing, but this is too far into tendentiousness. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Many of these diffs just seem to exhibit getting worked up over trivial details. Our first commitment is to the accuracy of the encyclopedia. However, there will be no encyclopedia written if we are getting over-excited and agitated about minor details to the point that nobody can bear collaborating with us. Curly Turkey could have exhibited more calmness. AGK ■ 04:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Curly Turkey hasn't acted well in these discussions, and the cited diffs are excessively nitpicky. But for me tendentious editing is defined by an intent to make a point or push a point of view, and I haven't seen enough evidence to say that that was what Curly Turkey was doing. – Joe (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think this is a reasonable level of action. I'm not sure I'd support anything more at this point. Worm^TT(talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. CT is a good editor in many areas, but needs some time away from this topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. With the same commentary as I made at remedy 3: AGK ■ 04:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is a very localised dispute, so hopefully this will be enough to resolve it. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about the 2019 Canadian election, broadly construed.

Support:

Oppose:

1. I don't think this is necessary. The evidence we were presented with centered solely around the SNC-Lavalin affair, and when I went to look articles for involved figures like Justin Trudeau and Jody Wilson-Raybould (as examples), I don't see the same level of contentious behavior as at SNC-Lavalin affair. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think we're there yet. While we were writing the PD I noticed that, since the case was filed, edits to the article have been relatively sparse and the parties have hardly edited it at all. That's appreciated. Canadians just seem to be nice that way. Katie^talk 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Unlike American Politics, this hasn't seemed to extend to all facets of Canadian politics or the Canadian election. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not necessary for a dispute centred around a single article. – Joe (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not needed. Worm^TT(talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. When the case was just getting started, I was expecting to end up with this kind of remedy. As it turns out, it seems like the dispute really has centered on this one topic. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. (It's nice that we have a one-hit wonder on our hands.) AGK ■ 04:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. As a starting point. Many of us know the feeling of seeing red on an article. Everybody is doing wrong by it, standards are in the gutter, and one wants to charge in like a knight on a white horse. We are obliged as a Wikipedia community member to reframe our mindset and look to communicate effectively. Outcomes and content changes – not comments and personal status – are what matter on articles. I am sorry to agree that Curly Turkey forgot themselves in this matter. AGK ■ 04:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Always true, and worth repeating here. – Joe (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I think that an article ban from Arbcom is sufficient to act as a warning, so wouldn't really worry about passing this too. However, I'm not going to oppose, as I understand why other arbs might want to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worm That Turned (talk • contribs) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
2. Agree with (I assume) WTT. I don't see a lot of practical value to this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   It was indeed WTT; I've popped an {{unsigned}} on their vote. AGK ■ 04:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Editors admonished[edit]

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

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Edit warring clearly wasn't working. Worm^TT(talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Over three years in and I'm still never quite sure what "admonishments" really do. Since this is for a very specific behavior, perhaps it'll be useful as a reference if anybody does end up back in an edit war. Minor points: Only CT is unlinked here (presumably because he was pinged earlier, but it looks weird!) and I'm hesitating a little to include Pavel in the admonished group, because he's new enough for that to be a mitigating factor. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We don't really admonish people for a single revert (eg Darryl Kerrigan). As it happens I'd have preferred to vote these users out individually, although I would not oppose for that reason alone. AGK ■ 04:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Support:

1. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Katie^talk 10:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. Worm^TT(talk) 19:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK ■ 04:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Comments:

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.

Comments:

General[edit]

Implementation notes[edit]

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by SQL^{Query me!} 04:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC); the last edit to this page was on 03:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC) by SQL.[reply]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	7	0	0		·
2	Consensus	7	0	0		·
3	Behavioral standards	7	0	0		·
4	Dispute resolution	7	0	0		·
5	Edit warring	6	0	0		·
6	Ownership	7	0	0		·
7	Evaluating user conduct	7	0	0		·
8	Verifiability	7	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of dispute	7	0	0		·
2	Edit warring: LavScam	7	0	0		·
3	Edit warring: cite check	6	1	0		·
4	Edit warring: description	7	0	0		·
5	Curly Turkey has cast aspersions	7	0	0		·
6	Curly Turkey accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry	7	0	0		·
7	Curly Turkey and sources	5	1	0		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Curly Turkey article-banned	7	0	0		·
2	Discretionary sanctions	0	7	0		Cannot pass
3	Curly Turkey warned	5	0	2		·
4	Editors admonished	6	1	0		·
5	All editors reminded	7	0	0		·
Proposed Enforcement Provisions
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

Vote[edit]

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The Clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, unless an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support

1. I think we're done here. Katie^talk 20:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. AGK ■ 04:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. – Joe (talk) 12:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments