Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:16, 18 May 2019

WP:ARC

Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair\|Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair]]		16 May 2019	4/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Definition of the "area of conflict" Clause 4 (b)	Motion	none	26 July 2024
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	none	17 August 2024
Clarification request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	none	(orig. case)	8 September 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair

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

Involved parties

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Curly Turkey

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

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

While trying to copyedit the article, I found numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY, WP:WEIGHT, WP:SYNTH, etc. Sustained pushback has met attempts to fix it. Editors incorporating POV into the article—sometimes by subtle wordings—try to drive away those who strive to restore NPOV. Tactics include WP:IDHT filibustering, CIVIL accusations, FUD and aspersions, dismissal of WP:CCPOL, etc. Evidence of behaviours: Open POV statements about who and what the article is "really" about: [1][2][3][4][5] Attacks for pushing an unnamed "agenda": [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]—and refusals to name or demonstrate what that POV could be Accusations of "whitewashing" the article: [14][15][16][17][18][19] Persistent IDHT—I detailed one case here that continued even after that report. This is one of the most common behavioural issues in the "discussions". I've described other patterns here

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

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

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

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

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.

I hope the arbs will accept this case.

@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]

Statement by Safrolic

(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

Statement by Mr.Gold1

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:

Is the SNC-Lavalin affair an action or event?
Did the SNC-Lavalin affair cause general public outrage in Canada?
Is the affair ethically wrong or right? (An ethics investigation was opened when the affair was first reported to the general public)?
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 Legacypac

Statement by PavelShk

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]

Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

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]

Statement by QEDK

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

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

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

@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

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

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]

Statement by SWL36

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 {Non-party}

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

Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair: Clerk notes

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

@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]

Disputes at SNC-Lavalin affair: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

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)[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'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]

@@ Line 134: / Line 134: @@
 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 "{{tq|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. &diams;&nbsp;[[User:J. Johnson|J.&nbsp;Johnson&nbsp;(JJ)]] ([[User_talk:J. Johnson#top|talk]]) 22:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
+=== Statement by SWL36 ===
+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. [[User:SWL36|SWL36]] ([[User talk:SWL36|talk]]) 12:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 === Statement by {Non-party} ===