Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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.
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.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This case centers around the article SNC-Lavalin affair and the behavior of editors on the article and its talk page.
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]
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).
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about the 2019 Canadian election, broadly construed.
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.
4) Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Littleolive oil, PavelShk, Safrolic, and SWL36 are admonished for edit warring.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
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.
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 |
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.
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
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.
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.
Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee or the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page. |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1) This case centers around the article SNC-Lavalin affair and the behavior of editors on the article and its talk page.
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]
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).
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.
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]
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]
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]
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.
2) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for any page relating to or any edit about the 2019 Canadian election, broadly construed.
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.
4) Curly Turkey, Darryl Kerrigan, Legacypac, Littleolive oil, PavelShk, Safrolic, and SWL36 are admonished for edit warring.
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.
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.
0) Appeals and modifications
|
---|
This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.
Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:
No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes:
|
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.
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 |
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.