Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: DeltaQuad (Talk) & Cameron11598 (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos (Talk) & KrakatoaKatie (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Proposed decision postponed[edit]

The due date for the proposed decision has been postponed to Friday, June 28, 2019. For the arbitration committee --Cameron11598 (Talk) 16:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Curly Turkey[edit]

User:Mr.Gold1 has now been indefinitely checkuser blocked.[1] Apparently this is the second time—per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mr.Gold1/Archive the first was in March, and also involved the SNC-Lavalin affair article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "6) Curly Turkey accused PavelShk, a new editor with whom they disagreed, of sockpuppetry. Curly Turkey stated they would make a report, but never did.[32]"
"but never did"—I did here
This accusation is concerning—aside from being demonstrably untrue, it was never brought up in the evidence phase, so could not be cross-examined or refuted. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie, Premeditated Chaos, and RickinBaltimore: Will this not be addressed? People are continuing to support a statement that is demonstratedly false. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 14:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie and Premeditated Chaos: Re: [2] The evidence was PavelShk's engaging in editwarring on an already contentious article with edit comments such as "This article is very accurate", from an editor who had already slipped in "illegal"[3][4] in an inappropriate place. After PavelShk cleared things up, I did not pursue it—I didn't even name PavelShk in this ArbCom case, as the issues with PavelShk did not persist. I don't see PavelShk's "apology" that appears in the current wording.
I also have great concerns with the fact that I was being censured for not opening the report I said I would, and now for actually having opened the report I said I would. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're being called out in this FoF for accusing another editor without evidence. Your gut feeling is not evidence, and your comment caused a novice editor to admit to his IP address in public. I didn't put that in the FoF, but if you like, I can do that. Katietalk 00:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KrakatoaKatie: It was not "without evidence" or based on "gut feelings". I provided evidence the IP was PavelShk editwarring (and was right), though I admitted months ago the it was insufficient to prove socking and that I had jumped the gun.
"your comment caused a novice editor to admit to his IP address in public"—if I had asked politely if that IP were PavelShk, they still would have "admitted it in public". This issue has not been raised until now, and I am not aware of how I could have handled it without making the connection between PavelShk and the IP public.
"I didn't put that in the FoF, but if you like, I can do that."—if this is actionable, it should be in; if not, it should not; but it should not be employed as a threat against an editor who has raised concerns.
The concerns remain: the FoF accuses me of accusing PavelShk of socking based on "disagreement" and the fact that they were "new"; these are serious accusations of bad faith on my part, for which no evidence has been given—I hope such a serious allegation is not based on "gut feelings", and will be either demonstrated or removed.
Thank you, Premeditated Chaos, for correcting this. I hope the other issues below will be addressed. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: re: "Edit warring to keep something in implies that it wasn't wanted by other editors on the page"—multiple editors on both sides warring to keep it implies others on the page wanted it—this is not "Curly Turkey vs everybody else". No effort was made to ensure the tags' concerns were dealt with—PavelShk and J. Johnson allege the tags themselves are POV, an extraordiary claim that would have consequences throughout Wikipedia and would give J. Johnson the freedom to editwar to remove maintenance tags, as he is amongst the "Editors admonished" for editwarring (I assume this is an oversight?).
The related statement "Curly Turkey refused multiple requests on the talk page to explain the issues he was seeing with the sourcing" also still needs to be dealt with, as it there is no evidence to support it. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So many more issues:
  • "Edit warring: LavScam": Littleolive oil is accused of editwarring over "LavScam"—but they weren't even editing during this period (chased away by Legacypac and had not yet returned) [(now corrected)
    • This accusation is repeated in "Editors admonished" (and J. Johnson is left out).
  • "Edit warring: cite check"—"Curly Turkey refused multiple requests on the talk page to explain the issues he was seeing with the sourcing": demonstrated false multiple times—entire talk-page sections are devoted to sourcing issues, and no evidence provided of me refusing any request for explanation, let alone "multiple". I provided several without even being asked.
    • This accusation ("refusal to engage with other editors") is repeated in "Curly Turkey article-banned".
  • "Curly Turkey accused PavelShk of sockpuppetry": "a new editor with whom they disagreed"—this implies the accusation was based on disagreement (for which no evidence is provided), rather than because PavelShk editwarred under both their username and an IP. This is a counterfactual assumption of bad faith with nothing to support it—and ignores that I dropped the accusation after PavelShk stated they'd accidentally edited while logged out.
  • Several of the diffs given don't appear to support the statements they cite: for example, how does this support the statment "He refused to consider other editors' views on the matter aside from his own"?
This is concerning enough of itself, but distressing when three Arbs have already approved of these statements. Further:
  • There is no proposal regarding Safrolic's and Darryl Kerrigan's stonewalling, which is the centrepiece of the case I presented. It thus does not have even the chance to be rejected by the Arbs.
    • Nor is there a proposal regarding their aspersions (of pushing an "agenda" or "gaslighting").
    • Nor regarding Legacypac's aggressive incivility, aspersions, and BATTLEGROUND behaviour, driving off an editor.
    • Nor Mr.Gold1's sockpuppetry.
  • There is no talk of the appropriateness of removing maintenance tags—the issue will be left up in the air.
  • "Verifiability" is a proposed principal, but there are no findings of fact or proposed remedies related to it. Was a train of thought lost?
    • There is no talk of WP:WEIGHT, a core principal that is again at the heart of the case I presented. This really can't be ignored—Safrolic has been planning to have the "LavScam" RfC relitigated once I'm not in a position to counter with statistics and policy.
Even if rejected in the end, the above considerations cannot seriously be ignored. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 17:47, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: J.Johnson's "lack of showing of specific problems"[5]—per the evidence, I've demonstrated with diffs more than once that there were concrete sourcing problems before, during, and after the time I placed the template, and that I had addressed them on the talk page, including directly to J. Johnson. Another reason the issue needs to be addressed is that J. Johnson keeps tendentiously restating this—the truth of the statement needs to be evaluated. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Guerillero: If by "work", you mean "Keep Curly Turkey from conflicting with other editors at the article", it'll "work" because, after the federal election in October, there will be no further interest in either introducing POV into the article, or in my expending effort trying to fix it. The result will be a win for reducing conflict, and a loss for WP:CCPOL (the latter of which is inevitable as there has been no examination of POV-related behaviours). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: "There have been continuous accusations of SPA editors on this article"—have there? I made one once in April, and immediately dropped it. I'm not aware of another since. Could you provide diffs?
"yet neither you nor CT presented any evidence of such editors during the arbitration case"—why would I provide evidence for accusations I haven't made? I retracted even the one accusation I made over a month before the case opened. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Opening sentence of your preliminary statement at the case request: SNC-Lavalin affair is deadlocked over POV editing by a large number of editors, mostly brand new with histories of hundreds or fewer edits. From Littleolive oil: I am concerned about new editors with SPAs or close to[6], This is being done in part by very new accounts some of whom are single topic accounts which are adding content that is pejorative towards Trudeau[7], and a few more [8][9][10][11] generally spanning March to May, plus the now-struck statement below. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: How can my statement be read as an accusation of socking? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Point to where I used the word "socking" in my comment to Littleolive oil. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Premeditated Chaos: Sorry, I guess "SPA" stands for "Single-Purpose Account" and not "Sock-Puppet Account". Regardless, the only editor I have accused of being an SPA was PavelShk, and have made no such accusation of anyone since April. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 07:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your preliminary case statement led by waving around the spectre of a large number of editors, mostly brand new with histories of hundreds or fewer edits making POV edits to the article. Olive has made many similar statements, per the above diffs. And yet, as I pointed out to Olive below, neither of you presented evidence with regards to any large number of brand-new or SPA accounts. Do you really not see how repeatedly making these assertions without providing evidence is problematic? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Premeditated Chaos: Perhaps you've misread my comment in light of Littleolive oil's, but our statements were not coordinated. A large number of mostly new editors made problematic edits to the page—that is not an accusation of SPA, and my evidence did not rest on the number of their edits, but on their documented behaviours. I provided no evidence of SPA because I did not make the accusation—let alone "repeatedly making these assertions". Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I’m commenting in the wrong place. I’m on a phone and can’t figure out how to get to my own section. Please do not conflate my comments with CT’s. I disagree that I made “many” statements about SPAs but if that is how the arbs are reading this sanction me. My statements have nothing to do with CT. Also there is a difference between accusations on an article page and i’ve explained that, and what one says in an arbitration comment when trying to explain a position. I treated the editors on the article with respect so the implication that I was making continuous accusations isn’t accurate. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re: J. Johnson"once a "maintenance" tag is in it should not (must not?) be removed until the [alleged problem is fixed"]—no, it should not be removed until it has been demonstrated it is not needed (either by fixing it or showing it is otherwise inapporpriate). No attempt was ever made to demonstrate this (certainly nobody else helped with checking the cites, despite multiple requests), evidence was provided that issues continued to persist, and the argument against it was not that it had been dealt with (or "discussed") but that its very presence was POV. The last assertion is extremely contentious and without any precedent I'm aware of—as it was the key argument behind removal, it needs evaluation. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Curly Turkey: All currently active arbs vote on the proposed decision, regardless of whether they were active when the case was accepted, unless they have recused or stated they are inactive on this particular case. – Joe (talk) 09:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JR: Thank you. One more question: after the Arbs expected to have read through the evidence and workshop pages before voting, or can they rely on the findings of draft arbitrators? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Safrolic[edit]

Re: 1.2.2 Edit warring: LavScam, "Involved editors did not seek outside assistance via mechanisms such as dispute resolution or third opinion until BradV established an RfC on the matter on April 12.", I sought assistance at ANI on April 11, that's how Bradv first entered the article space. However, it was not specifically about the use of Lavscam, it was about user conduct and sourcing principles in general, so this may be an irrelevant comment.

Re: 1.3.4 Editors admonished, LegacyPac was removed as a party because he was not able to defend himself, being blocked indefinitely. I'm not sure if including him here is an oversight, or if non-parties can be admonished as well- just figured I'd bring it up. Safrolic (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A note to both editors who have claimed they felt they were dealing with sockpuppets and they were; the account which created the article, which stopped editing for a while and made 4 substantive comments in the talk page towards the end, had a sockpuppet, which had made two edits to the article (to add a photo) a month before all this began. At no time during any of this were either of you dealing with a sockpuppet directly. The aspersions which were cast (on all sides) were universally directed at real editors. I don't know if it's appropriate for me to respond to various other things here (I have no particular desire to do so), but if an arb or clerk thinks I should, I'll come back to this. Thanks to all of you for your time reading and deliberating. Safrolic (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We left Legacypac in there because he was a significant part of the problem and in the drafters' opinion, it should be on the record that he bore as much responsibility as anyone else participating who was also admonished, in case he is unblocked and it becomes relevant in the future. That being said, we didn't sanction him separately because the indef would make any sanction moot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1.2.2, I don't tend to think of ANI as a dispute resolution mechanism in the same way as DR/3o/RfCs/other problem-solving-stuff. Reporting to ANI has the feeling of being an adversarial maneuver (even if it's not intended as such) - think of how often people use "I'm going to bring you to ANI" as a threat. Whereas saying "ok let's get a third opinion, let's make an RfC, let's ask for dispute resolution," those things are more like collaborative problem-solving maneuvers. Nobody threatens to ask for a third opinion (at least not that I've seen!). So the intention was more to highlight that the discussion got contentious but nobody tried collaborative problem-solving until BradV created the RfC. I've adjusted the wording to reflect that Brad showed up because of your request at ANI. (And to be clear, I don't think your filing at ANI was a hostile or malicious action, I just think ANI is one of those things, like getting a DS alert, that nobody likes being on the other end of no matter what). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I see what you're driving at with this one now. Safrolic (talk) 06:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns with Decision[edit]

I have some concerns with the decision:

Diffs do not show olive edit warred the term LavScam as stated in the decision. An RfC is a form of dispute resolution and should preclude a larger form. Brad was an off and on active editor on the page and an obvious person to open the RfC. I think most editors felt the RfC settled the problem so not sure why go to another form of Dispute resolution

Also through much of the talk page and admin was active as a kind of mediator on the page. I did ask that he protect the page, but he declined. I did think about protecting after I'd made an edit so he may have felt the protection would favor my edit which I understand completely. Still there were attempts to seek help which decision does ot seem to take into account.

"During the edit war, Curly Turkey refused multiple requests on the talk page to explain the issues he was seeing with the sourcing ..." This just isn't true. Curley Turkey opened discussions about what he was up to. I'm not sure what an editor is supposed to do when sources cited are inaccurate. This is in copyright violation territory. The tags should never be removed until the problems are solved but editors removed the tags while CT was cleaning up sources. And he did discuss. And not sure why legitimate cleaning up of sources is described as scrubbed which seems derogatory. What tools does an editor have to clean up if ot to tag and carry out the clean-up.

J Johnson's time line is inaccurate.

The secnd RFc did not come not a conclusion for the time being since it was abandoned until after the RfC if I remember correctly.

He was concerned as was I that we were dealing with sock puppets and indeed we were. See above MrGold1.

I am traveling, rushing now and cannot finish this but please could the arbs relook at their decisions; there are many mistakes. Thanks for your consideration. Littleolive oil (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

**To the arbs: The decisions posted by the arbs are extraordinarily concerning. The one editor, with experience, who worked tirelessly to clean up this article including the tedious job of checking sources-and as an aside, any article focused on Trudeau is about the upcoming election-is being threatened with a sanction despite the evidence that indicates the inaccuracies of information the decisions are based on. There are multiple inaccuracies for example in J Johnson's comments. Please look at CT's comments where he points out those inaccuracies.

The best way to understand what went on in the LavScam article if the comments are not clear is to read the talk page; its not long. Littleolive oil (talk) 01:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos:. CT's frustration is a result of, not what instigated the issues on the LavScam article. I too felt frustrated and upset with the subtle way the article was being constructed. I too suspected COI and potential sock puppets. I don't have the stomach or staying power to deal with contentious articles so left at different times. CT stuck it out. I want to assume good faith of the editors on that page and I do not like to see people sanctioned especially unfairly; I prefer talk so I didn't do much in this arbitration. CT and I were dealing with editors with very few edits but excellent writing skills and good technical knowledge of Wikipedia with a knowledge of policy although perhaps not always its nuances. They were uniformly supportive of specific edits. They didn't seem like new editors. I too felt frustrated when simple edits were reverted, tags had been removed and when editors who did not always understand policy reverted repeatedly. I feel that by sanctioning CT as has been proposed the arbs are condoning editing practices that make it impossible to edit. I certainly agree none of us should act on our frustrations but a focus on one editor while under emphasizing the underlying issues is unfair to an experienced editor who sincerely was trying to deal with the issues on an article. I believe the sanction of CT is the easy way out of dealing with a complex situation. It takes many to Tango. I have no animosity towards the editors on the article and don't want to see anyone sanctioned but the focus on CT, and given the errors in the decision is discouraging for me; I can't imagine how CT feels. Littleolive oil (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been continuous accusations of SPA editors on this article, and yet neither you nor CT presented any evidence of such editors during the arbitration case (or indeed on the article's talk in the lead-up to arbitration). As far we saw, the only editor who comes close to meeting the definition of an SPA in the situation was PavelShk, and he was a brand-new editor who flat-out stated that he joined because he was interested in the topic. Who are these "many" SPA accounts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make continuous accusations. When I first came to the article I saw what looked like editors who were editing Canadian politics. This was early in the article discussions and I just wasn't sure enough to do anything about it. I am trying to explain here how this arbitration has flipped over what I experienced, is the opposite of what I was concerned about. I actually don't care if editors are SPA editors and I don't think being an SPA editor necessarily means anything. But in concert with other issues yes, I was truly concerned, concerned enough to know I couldn't deal with it all. Nor did I want to point the finger at anyone. I'm trying to explain how the environment on that article might very well lead editors to feel concern. It's impossible to describe the subtlety of the edits which slant the article. And I have no idea whether the slant is deliberate or not. I don't have the constitution anymore to deal with arbitration, the implied attacks when you have to present diffs to implicate someone, and these days I'd sooner let an article stand slanted than fight. I realize it's somewhat disrespectful to suggest you all may have made a mistake. But CT is a good editor who saw what I did. The answer in my mind was not to sanction him over others but perhaps to mete out equal admonishments. Yeah, its ballsy of me to say this and maybe inappropriate. I won't say more and I'm sure you all are glad of that. I can't imagine being an arb and I wish you all the best. The phrase, "dirty job but someone has to do it comes to mind". Best wishes. Littleolive oil (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by J. Johnson[edit]

Littleolive oil: Yes, one diff in my timeline was incorrect, and a word was omitted from an edit summary; I have corrected those. A pair of comments are inverted, but the timestamps are correct. Please advise if anything else needs correction. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CT mentions there is "no talk of the appropriateness of removing maintenance tags—the issue will be left up in the air." Indeed. I wonder if it would be useful to mention in the decision that 1) deletion of the {cite check} template by multiple editors, along with discussion on the Talk page and a lack of showing of specific problems, indicates a consensus to not retain the tag, and 2) an editor's conviction of a problem does not grant a right to retain any tag. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's reasonably covered by the finding that CT edit warred to keep the tag in. Edit warring to keep something in implies that it wasn't wanted by other editors on the page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think CT would agree that the tag "wasn't wanted by other editors on the page", but that isn't the point I think needs to be made. CT's argument is that, regardless of what other editors want, once a "maintenance" tag is in it should not (must not?) be removed until the [alleged] problem is fixed. Note: not "until the problem has been discussed", but until it has been fixed, and, implicitly, to his satisfaction. I suspect this notion that retention is privileged is why he seems to think that multiple insertions is "appropriate", and therefore not edit-warring (or excuses it), while even a single removal is edit-warring. Explicit clarification of whether {cite check} is a maintenance tag whose retention is privileged (or not) might avoid some future contention. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: If you are going to accuse me of "multiple inaccuracies" you need to specify them, not just wave your hand over to where CT is flopping his hands all around. While your statement presumably applies to comments in the now-closed stages, and should have been made there, yet I am not adverse to making any corrections, provided you specify which comments, and the specific inaccuracy. (Same for my timeline.) If you can't (or won't) do that then your statement should be struck.

The single "inaccuracies" that CT alleges is my reference (just above) to a "a lack of showing of specific problems". Perhaps I should have phrased that as "a lack of convincing demonstration of specific problems"? At any rate, we went through this in the previous phases: despite his firm conviction (and yours?) that he has "demonstrated ... concrete source problems", the rest of us were not convinced. (E.g., you may recall that in the one instance he particularized it was found he was using the wrong source. Where upon, instead of conceding the point, he claimed a violation of WP:INTEGRITY.) More importantly: on proposed Finding of Fact #3 the Arbitrators are leaning (4-0 so far) towards "Curly Turkey refused multiple requests on the talk page to explain the issues he was seeing with the sourcing", which certainly implies that my statement is more accurate than Curly's. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Littleolive oil: No, not "gravedancing", but recognition that your viewpoint is not well supported.
What I asked you to point a finger at is the specific inaccuracies that you attribute to me, in either my timeline or my comments. As noted above, I have corrected the former, and your claim of inaccuracy there is itself no longer accurate.
Your claim of "inaccuracies" in my comments appear to be matters of interpretation of the evidence, and thus should have been addressed in either the evidence or workshop phases. While I would prefer to resolve your concerns, sorry, that's not what we are here for; this is Arbcom territory. And while I will allow the possibility that the article is as POV-flawed as you (and CT) complain, I think the point you need to accept is that CT's behavior has actually impaired addressing those problems. If you want to discuss this further we probably should do so on your or my Talk page. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Curly Turkey, re your "admitted" comment today: Not exactly, but a good example of how you mis-take and misunderstand things. What I have "admitted" is that you provided what you thought was evidence of a specific problem (and my off-hand recollection is of only a single problem). In fact, your "evidence" was completely undermined in that you consulted the wrong source; the evidence was false. It is not a matter of simple disagreement: you were simply, demonstrably, barking up the wrong tree. That you are seemingly unable to understand that, plus your battleground response, actually goes to the heart of why we are here.

As to your other claims of having responded: I think those were adequately refuted in previous phases, and we are now past arguing them. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis/Arbs: I did not include my timeline in my evidence section because it was getting too big, and I wasn't certain if it would useful. I have no objection if it is copied, either there, or anywhere else that might be convenient. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Darryl Kerrigan[edit]

I will comment just briefly on this "new editors" issue raised by Littleolive oil and Safrolic. There were suggestions that he, I, Harris Sheldon and others were new editors with less than 1000 edits under our belts. I may have done fewer edits than some, but I have been editing since 2014. It is not accurate to call me a new editor. Safrolic is not a new editor either. There were some new editors involved here, but the suggestion that all of us are green is simply not correct.-Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Well, since 2014 with a user name. Around that time, a more experienced editor encouraged me to register instead of making IP signed edits.-Darryl Kerrigan (talk)

Comments by Robert McClenon[edit]

The suggestion to use dispute resolution resources in general is fine, and the suggestion in general to use the dispute resolution noticeboard is fine, but DRN does not normally accept a case that is also pending at a conduct forum such as WP:ANI. DRN certainly would not have been effective with a non-administrator moderator in a case such as this where there were aspersions of bad faith. The proposed decision is fine as long as no one thinks that cases can be sent from ANI to DRN without a sword of Damocles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time limited restriction[edit]

Arbs, why do you think that a time limited editing restriction is going to work? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We thought about a permanent ABAN but decided that six months, until after the Canadian federal election, would probably suffice. He can appeal to have it lifted sooner, of course. Katietalk 00:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decision[edit]

I was removed from edit warring evidence presented by the drafter but still remain in the decision. Is this something else? Could you remove me if not?

Note to the arbs:

This is a heartbreaking decision. Why? Because you were sidetracked by an editor's frustration and resulting behaviour but ignored the circumstances that led to that frustration. You are allowing editors with a single view point and infractions per Wikipedia like ownership, quite extreme edit warring which are controls on the article, and in this case dominated an article and whose single stream of edits are creating a subtle POV article. An editor who edit wars as Pavel did creates disruption but yet he is to be excused? Do I have that wrong? While unfamiliar with the scandal when I first came to edit my resulting research into the sources led me to realize the article was a subtle mirror of opposition party politics in Canada. (I am a Canadian so I had some familiarity with politics in Canada).

Some of the actions which CT was criticized for like trying to keep a tag in the article while he was editing are just beyond understanding. I too was trying to discuss a section that seemed weighty and while I was discussing length an editor came in and made it even longer. The editor apologized, but when I tagged the section so it could be discussed in peace with out edits occurring the tag was removed. I left the article. I can't edit with multiple editors constantly bending the guides that we all edit by. They may be newer editors but this kind of editing is untenable and not acknowledging that behaviour in those editors, and it goes way beyond a little edit warring, removes the tools any editor has to at least have a say in what happens. CT is highly experienced editor, he rebutted almost all of the evidence against him but still this decision. I don't expect arbs to be infallible but I always hope for a certain quality of mind in the processing of information. I am sure the arbs have this quality and yet I think you all missed the boat here. I know you are all volunteers doing a very difficult job and I am not happy in myself to suggest there has been a mistake. Nor do I have animosity in anyway towards anyone including the editors on the article. I know you have made a mistake in the unequal dealing of editors here and that saddens me in part because I know what it feels like to judged wrongly–how devastating it is. I hope we do not lose a very experienced editor over this. Littleolive oil (talk) 17:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk Note[edit]

information Clerk note @Curly Turkey, Safrolic, Littleolive oil, and J. Johnson: Please stop trying to re-litigate the case on this talk page. The time for that has passed, you are welcome to offer input and suggestions but trying to re-argue the case is counter productive. The Arbitration Committee has already reviewed the evidence and will come to a decision. Further attempts to re-litigate the case may result in myself, or another clerk taking action and removing such discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you're right and apologies. I've never seen a talk page used quite this way after an arbitration but there were difference in the format of this arbitration and so jumped in when I saw comments made here thinking this was something newer. I wasn't trying to re litigate the case but I see that's what it looked like. More like I was thinking out loud which probably doesn't help anyone. Littleolive oil (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by SWL36[edit]

I'd like to request that my name be removed from the EW admonishment and the finding of fact related related to the LavScam debacle. I participated in a talkpage RfC on the subject but I never made an edit to the article related to the term, so my inclusion as participating in the edit war over the term is inaccurate. My only contentious edit on the mainspace article was removing the cite check template after Curly refused to provide a rationale that addressed the NPOV issues with placing the tag. You can verify this by looking at my edits on the article and the evidence diffs in the decision, my edits on the article were unrelated to LavScam. SWL36 (talk) 23:48, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More