![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
1) Article content should not sway the reader towards one position or another. Undue weight can be violated by "including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Content that is forked off a mother article to create emphasis on that aspect of the article may constitute a wrongful use of forked content, may violate WP:WEIGHT in the mother article and may be a non-neutral or a POV action which is meant to emphasize that forked off content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
3) Content that is forked off a mother article and which contains excessive amount of detail per the weight of that content per its importance in a larger context as in the mother article may point to NPOV editing or a desire to underline the perceived importance of the content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
4) Construction of Wikipedia articles especially when contentious depends on collaboration. Editors should not feel they control the article in its construction, length, or content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1) Content in an article on the current prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, includes his life as well as events in political office, and contains a sub–section on a recent controversy. Information from that controversy was split off and extended to create a very heavily–detailed article updated in detail as the press released more information or opinion. This may be a violation of WP:Weight and WP:Fork since the Lavelin affair was only one issue of many in a life and political career. This is BLP content, and a few months before an election; great care in creating an article that does not influence is always paramount, but especially now. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2) The split off article begins with a history [2] of the Lavalin scandal [3] which occurred before Trudeau came to office. The detail and extensive coverage of the scandal within another article may violate WP: Weight. The history is pejorative in its subject matter and sets a tone in the article which may subtly implicate by association and because of its weight, the Prime Minister. Again, this is BLP related content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize I linked to the wrong background information. And yes background is necessary but the weight of the background should not outweigh the subject matter of the article. What I took to be an innocent reply to my concern of weight indicated ownership issues probably because the editor was newer [4].
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) All editors will be restricted to 1 revert on any article about or related to Canadian politics. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to remedy a situation where many newer editors converge on an article; they may have excellent writing skills but may be newer at understanding the nuances of policy. I don't mean to sound arrogant here. I, as well as anyone, can always learn more. DS has always looked like it puts a lot of power into one hand, could be used to cool down when things get tense, but instead can be perceived as chilling rather than helpful, and in total has never seemed to be effective. Edit warring with large numbers of editors with the same POV can control article content. 1RR rule may lessen that control and move article discussion more towards collaboration. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Bradv: There was lots of edit warring. A block only indicates an admin saw the edit warring and acted not that the edit warring existed in the first place. If I understand your point. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia articles sum up the consensus of WP:RSes, subject to policies and guidelines such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, MOS:W2W, and WP:BLP. Edits must not highlight preferred or fringe content, or colour the text via ambiguous or loaded terms, even if such terms appear in RSes, per MOS:CLAIM. WP:VERIFIABILITY is a necessary—but in itself not sufficient—criterium for inclusion.
Moved from #Comment by parties above
explanatory supplement" to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. For all the hand-waving you do you have not laid out a case for "sustained dismissal" of any those. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Primary sources should be used with care, and their use limited; secondary sources are preferred, per WP:PSTS. Overuse of primary sources in lieu of secondary ones may raise legitimate WP:OR or WP:UNDUE concerns.
3) Citations must conform to WP:INTEGRITY. Sources cited must contain all the cited material and be placed or marked to make clear what portion of text each source cites.
distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment...." It is hardly a threat to WP policies, and should have been resolved by routine, cooperative editing. It has arisen (as I documented in the Evidence section) where it was shown that Curly Turkey's claim that a quotation was not supported by source arose from his confusion of which source was applicable. It has been overblown into a "violation" requiring Arbcom attention because Curly Turkey refuses to "drop the stick". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
4) WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands—per WP:NOTVOTE: it is "the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Even a wide a majority of !votes cannot override WP:CCPOL.
5) WP:STONEWALLING behaviours such as WP:IDHT are forms of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Gaming the system that confound consensus-building and erode assumptions of good faith.
6) Maintenance tags alert users and editors to issues such as those of content or sourcing to draw more participation in improving them. They should not be removed unless demonstrated to have been appropriately dealt with. Removal of tags without having dealt with them can be seen as a stonewalling behaviour that reduces awareness of issues and thus reduces participation in improving them.
The WP:NPOV policy refers to article content; "POV" as a rationale for removal of maintenance tags has no precedent or community consensus.
draw more participation" in improving the article, as the lack of participation is due less to lack of awareness than to being scared off by the battleground environment. (Witness the treatment of PavelShk.) The insertion of the {{ cite check}} warning is not directed at possible editors, but at the readers, and it makes a strong statement (in bold text) regarding the basis of the article as a whole. It is not a mere "maintenance" tag, it is an insinuation of dubious sourcing, which, aside from the weaselly qualification of "possibly", is not supported by any specific instances. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
against maintenance tagging" (and your assertion is a misrepresentation). I do argue that the {cite check} template is not a mere maintenance tag, and strongly colors a reader's impression of the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
X)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Whereas the underlying issue here is intransigent behavior, the following principles are directly and generally applicable.
1) A policy. The nutshell is particularly apropos:
- Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
- Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
- Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same.
Additionally: "Editors are expected to be reasonably
cooperative, to refrain from making
personal attacks, to work within the scope of
policies, and to be responsive to
good-faith questions.
"
Pertinent examples are found in the section "Identifying incivility":
- 1. Direct rudeness
- (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
- (b) personal attacks, ...
- (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
- (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
- 2. Other uncivil behaviours
- quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.
2) A policy. As stated by Safrolic: "There have at one point or another been accusations of bad faith or personal attacks made by and against almost every editor to this page.
" Such behavior indicates a
battleground attitude and has contributed to the break down of cooperative editing at this article.
Note that per
WP:AOBF "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.
"
3) A behavioral guideline. Much of the turmoil at this article arises from Curly Turkey's evident assumption that other editors are not acting in good faith; he broadly characterizes their editing as "POV editing
", and therefore to be rejected.
4) A behavioral guideline. In a nutshell:
- This page in a nutshell: Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.
- Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.
Characteristic "tendencies" of disruptive editing are listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Particularly applicable are the following:
- 1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
- 3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; ... uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
- 4. Does not engage in consensus building:
- a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
- 5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Care must be taken in the accuracy with which the policies and guidelines are presented here. Disruptive editors per the guideline can be blocked indefinitely if the account's purpose is to disrupt. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
5) Particularly, the indications that an editor has "Little or no interest in working collaboratively
".
6) Issues regarding article content, POV, reliable sources, BLP, etc, should be resolved by discussion at the article's Talk page. The issue here is why that process has failed.
1) Curly Turkey has violated the policy of
WP:CIVILITY in failing to "Participate in a respectful and considerate way
", failing to "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks
", and failing to be "reasonably cooperative
".
I disagree. Curley Turkey presented arguments that indicated a good knowledge of policy and guideline when newer editors were not as clear about the nuances of those Wikipedia guides. Editors displayed ownership issues, a lack of knowledge about the extent to which BLP applies, as examples. While attempting to clean up sourcing issues which were extensive, and of course copyvios can be an issue, he was asked to discuss every single clean up he did. He described the concerns in general and that he would tackle the job of making sure sources and content were aligned, but no editor doing this kind of job, and it is a tedious job, can be reasonably expected to discuss every sourcing error. He said so but was repeatedly asked to discuss. If he became frustrated at different points, it's not surprising. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior." And you said ( 04:11, 4 May): "I already retracted them." Not seeing any strike-outs of your remarks at either ANI or on the article Talk page I asked for diffs, which you refused ( 00:33, 6 May): "
But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording." Is that your notion of being "reasonably cooperative"?
I jumped to conclusions"), but I see no apology, no retraction. I do see a lot of sloppiness in your characterization of others' remarks, and even of your own. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 18:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Curly Turkey has failed to
assume good-faith in regards of other editors, specifically and collectively, insinuating that one editor "looks like ... a sock-puppet
", and that "other" editors collectively are motivated by "POV" considerations, without providing clear evidence to support those charges.
clear evidence" (emphasis in the original) that he was a sockpuppet? How does an alleged "attack" from Legacypac impugn everyone else's good-faith? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3) Curly Turkey has engaged in edit-warring, including repeated insertions of the {{ cite check}} template against removals by multiple other editors.
An editor is cleaning up sourcing issues and tags the article to indicate the work he's doing and that tag is removed before the job is done. Of course he replaced the tag. The protocol when an article is tagged is to deal with the issues in discussion. Removing a tag before that is done is the mistake not re adding the tag while work is ongoing. I am concerned about the inaccurate presentation of Curley Turkey's involvement. I apologize. I am not able to spend the time to rebut every point, nor do I have the stomach for this kind of work; I leave it to the arbs to look closely at the allegations. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
4) Curly Turkey has ignored repeated requests to discuss his concerns about sources or citations on the Talk page.
5) Curly Turkey's comment that he does not discuss these kinds of problems, he "fixes them", shows an arrogant assumption that he is right and no discussion is needed.
6) In a particular claim by Curly Turkey that a specific quote was not to be found in a specified source it was found that he had the wrong source, the correct source being in an adjacent reference.
the quote itself is sourced from the first source, where it appears verbatim. You are taking issue with the second source, ...." More misstatement, and IDHT. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
7) On that occasion, instead of working cooperatively to resolve any confusion, Curly Turkey escalated a minor matter into a "violation" of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:BUNDLING, for which he requires ArbCom's attention.
numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". The significance of this instance is as an example of you over-reacting to a minor matter. It seems quite possible that your other claims of "violation" are also minor. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". No mention of stonewalling, and only three (?) mentions in your Evidence section, all ancillary mentions under other headings. Perhaps it wasn't that big of deal until this stage? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
8) Curly Turkey's behavior at SNC-Lavalin affair has disrupted resolution of various content issue, including possible BLP issues.
1) User Curly Turkey is indefinitely banned from the article SNC Lavalin affair.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I agree with Curly Turkey that the issue here is not content, but intransigent behavior. However, it is significant that CT (and others) would have this matter resolved on the basis of content, and particularly on personal characterizations of whether content (or tagging) is "accurate" versus "POV". (Presumably non-neutral POV is meant.) On that basis there should be no issue, as we have processes and standards for dealing with POV, reliable sources, weight, etc., and for the most part they work at other articles and with other editors. The deeper issue is why these processes did not work here.
It is significant that CT assesses editor behavior on the basis of content. E.g., he justifies his insertion or deletion of material (or tags) as proper and correct because (in his mind) he is making the 'pedia better, whereas what other editors do is bad because they are "POV pushing
". Such self-assurance tends to short-circuit any discussion.
A yet deeper issue is CT's approach to argumentation. I can see a possibility that some of his apparent concerns could be validly argued (by which I mean valid syllogistic reasoning), but his bellicoise approach and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"...and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument." This just isn't true and is a sweeping, generalized statement which is not born out by the talk page. CT engaged over and over again. And we are looking at the evidence and his arguments. No one is suggesting the matter be resolved on the basis of content. The misunderstanding and or misuse of policies which deal with content constitute behavioural issues. Potential WP:POV editing impacted content but is about the editors who create content and their point of view. Littleolive oil ( talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
![]() | The Workshop phase for this case is closed.
Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go
here and create an
edit request. |
Case clerks: DeltaQuad ( Talk) & Cameron11598 ( Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Premeditated Chaos ( Talk) & KrakatoaKatie ( Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
![]() |
|
Track related changes |
1) Article content should not sway the reader towards one position or another. Undue weight can be violated by "including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery." Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Content that is forked off a mother article to create emphasis on that aspect of the article may constitute a wrongful use of forked content, may violate WP:WEIGHT in the mother article and may be a non-neutral or a POV action which is meant to emphasize that forked off content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
3) Content that is forked off a mother article and which contains excessive amount of detail per the weight of that content per its importance in a larger context as in the mother article may point to NPOV editing or a desire to underline the perceived importance of the content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 20:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
4) Construction of Wikipedia articles especially when contentious depends on collaboration. Editors should not feel they control the article in its construction, length, or content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
1) Content in an article on the current prime minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau, includes his life as well as events in political office, and contains a sub–section on a recent controversy. Information from that controversy was split off and extended to create a very heavily–detailed article updated in detail as the press released more information or opinion. This may be a violation of WP:Weight and WP:Fork since the Lavelin affair was only one issue of many in a life and political career. This is BLP content, and a few months before an election; great care in creating an article that does not influence is always paramount, but especially now. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
2) The split off article begins with a history [2] of the Lavalin scandal [3] which occurred before Trudeau came to office. The detail and extensive coverage of the scandal within another article may violate WP: Weight. The history is pejorative in its subject matter and sets a tone in the article which may subtly implicate by association and because of its weight, the Prime Minister. Again, this is BLP related content. Littleolive oil ( talk) 21:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I apologize I linked to the wrong background information. And yes background is necessary but the weight of the background should not outweigh the subject matter of the article. What I took to be an innocent reply to my concern of weight indicated ownership issues probably because the editor was newer [4].
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) All editors will be restricted to 1 revert on any article about or related to Canadian politics. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to remedy a situation where many newer editors converge on an article; they may have excellent writing skills but may be newer at understanding the nuances of policy. I don't mean to sound arrogant here. I, as well as anyone, can always learn more. DS has always looked like it puts a lot of power into one hand, could be used to cool down when things get tense, but instead can be perceived as chilling rather than helpful, and in total has never seemed to be effective. Edit warring with large numbers of editors with the same POV can control article content. 1RR rule may lessen that control and move article discussion more towards collaboration. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Bradv: There was lots of edit warring. A block only indicates an admin saw the edit warring and acted not that the edit warring existed in the first place. If I understand your point. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) Wikipedia articles sum up the consensus of WP:RSes, subject to policies and guidelines such as WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, MOS:W2W, and WP:BLP. Edits must not highlight preferred or fringe content, or colour the text via ambiguous or loaded terms, even if such terms appear in RSes, per MOS:CLAIM. WP:VERIFIABILITY is a necessary—but in itself not sufficient—criterium for inclusion.
Moved from #Comment by parties above
explanatory supplement" to WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR. For all the hand-waving you do you have not laid out a case for "sustained dismissal" of any those. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Primary sources should be used with care, and their use limited; secondary sources are preferred, per WP:PSTS. Overuse of primary sources in lieu of secondary ones may raise legitimate WP:OR or WP:UNDUE concerns.
3) Citations must conform to WP:INTEGRITY. Sources cited must contain all the cited material and be placed or marked to make clear what portion of text each source cites.
distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment...." It is hardly a threat to WP policies, and should have been resolved by routine, cooperative editing. It has arisen (as I documented in the Evidence section) where it was shown that Curly Turkey's claim that a quotation was not supported by source arose from his confusion of which source was applicable. It has been overblown into a "violation" requiring Arbcom attention because Curly Turkey refuses to "drop the stick". ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
4) WP:CONSENSUS is not a raise of hands—per WP:NOTVOTE: it is "the communal norm that it is "not the vote" that matters, but the reasoning behind the !vote that is important". Even a wide a majority of !votes cannot override WP:CCPOL.
5) WP:STONEWALLING behaviours such as WP:IDHT are forms of WP:Disruptive editing and WP:Gaming the system that confound consensus-building and erode assumptions of good faith.
6) Maintenance tags alert users and editors to issues such as those of content or sourcing to draw more participation in improving them. They should not be removed unless demonstrated to have been appropriately dealt with. Removal of tags without having dealt with them can be seen as a stonewalling behaviour that reduces awareness of issues and thus reduces participation in improving them.
The WP:NPOV policy refers to article content; "POV" as a rationale for removal of maintenance tags has no precedent or community consensus.
draw more participation" in improving the article, as the lack of participation is due less to lack of awareness than to being scared off by the battleground environment. (Witness the treatment of PavelShk.) The insertion of the {{ cite check}} warning is not directed at possible editors, but at the readers, and it makes a strong statement (in bold text) regarding the basis of the article as a whole. It is not a mere "maintenance" tag, it is an insinuation of dubious sourcing, which, aside from the weaselly qualification of "possibly", is not supported by any specific instances. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 21:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
against maintenance tagging" (and your assertion is a misrepresentation). I do argue that the {cite check} template is not a mere maintenance tag, and strongly colors a reader's impression of the article. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
X)
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Whereas the underlying issue here is intransigent behavior, the following principles are directly and generally applicable.
1) A policy. The nutshell is particularly apropos:
- Participate in a respectful and considerate way.
- Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors.
- Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks; encourage others to do the same.
Additionally: "Editors are expected to be reasonably
cooperative, to refrain from making
personal attacks, to work within the scope of
policies, and to be responsive to
good-faith questions.
"
Pertinent examples are found in the section "Identifying incivility":
- 1. Direct rudeness
- (a) rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions
- (b) personal attacks, ...
- (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
- (d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen", "snipped crap")
- 2. Other uncivil behaviours
- quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them.
2) A policy. As stated by Safrolic: "There have at one point or another been accusations of bad faith or personal attacks made by and against almost every editor to this page.
" Such behavior indicates a
battleground attitude and has contributed to the break down of cooperative editing at this article.
Note that per
WP:AOBF "repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack.
"
3) A behavioral guideline. Much of the turmoil at this article arises from Curly Turkey's evident assumption that other editors are not acting in good faith; he broadly characterizes their editing as "POV editing
", and therefore to be rejected.
4) A behavioral guideline. In a nutshell:
- This page in a nutshell: Disruptive editors may be blocked or banned indefinitely.
- Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time on many articles, and disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia.
Characteristic "tendencies" of disruptive editing are listed at WP:DISRUPTSIGNS. Particularly applicable are the following:
- 1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.
- 3. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; ... uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable.
- 4. Does not engage in consensus building:
- a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits;
- b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.
- 5. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.
Care must be taken in the accuracy with which the policies and guidelines are presented here. Disruptive editors per the guideline can be blocked indefinitely if the account's purpose is to disrupt. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
5) Particularly, the indications that an editor has "Little or no interest in working collaboratively
".
6) Issues regarding article content, POV, reliable sources, BLP, etc, should be resolved by discussion at the article's Talk page. The issue here is why that process has failed.
1) Curly Turkey has violated the policy of
WP:CIVILITY in failing to "Participate in a respectful and considerate way
", failing to "Present coherent and concise arguments, and refrain from making personal attacks
", and failing to be "reasonably cooperative
".
I disagree. Curley Turkey presented arguments that indicated a good knowledge of policy and guideline when newer editors were not as clear about the nuances of those Wikipedia guides. Editors displayed ownership issues, a lack of knowledge about the extent to which BLP applies, as examples. While attempting to clean up sourcing issues which were extensive, and of course copyvios can be an issue, he was asked to discuss every single clean up he did. He described the concerns in general and that he would tackle the job of making sure sources and content were aligned, but no editor doing this kind of job, and it is a tedious job, can be reasonably expected to discuss every sourcing error. He said so but was repeatedly asked to discuss. If he became frustrated at different points, it's not surprising. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If you no longer hold those views you should retract them. And even apologize for your aggressive, uncivil behavior." And you said ( 04:11, 4 May): "I already retracted them." Not seeing any strike-outs of your remarks at either ANI or on the article Talk page I asked for diffs, which you refused ( 00:33, 6 May): "
But no, you'll move the goalposts and demand a particular wording." Is that your notion of being "reasonably cooperative"?
I jumped to conclusions"), but I see no apology, no retraction. I do see a lot of sloppiness in your characterization of others' remarks, and even of your own. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 18:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
2) Curly Turkey has failed to
assume good-faith in regards of other editors, specifically and collectively, insinuating that one editor "looks like ... a sock-puppet
", and that "other" editors collectively are motivated by "POV" considerations, without providing clear evidence to support those charges.
clear evidence" (emphasis in the original) that he was a sockpuppet? How does an alleged "attack" from Legacypac impugn everyone else's good-faith? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 18:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
3) Curly Turkey has engaged in edit-warring, including repeated insertions of the {{ cite check}} template against removals by multiple other editors.
An editor is cleaning up sourcing issues and tags the article to indicate the work he's doing and that tag is removed before the job is done. Of course he replaced the tag. The protocol when an article is tagged is to deal with the issues in discussion. Removing a tag before that is done is the mistake not re adding the tag while work is ongoing. I am concerned about the inaccurate presentation of Curley Turkey's involvement. I apologize. I am not able to spend the time to rebut every point, nor do I have the stomach for this kind of work; I leave it to the arbs to look closely at the allegations. Littleolive oil ( talk) 01:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
4) Curly Turkey has ignored repeated requests to discuss his concerns about sources or citations on the Talk page.
5) Curly Turkey's comment that he does not discuss these kinds of problems, he "fixes them", shows an arrogant assumption that he is right and no discussion is needed.
6) In a particular claim by Curly Turkey that a specific quote was not to be found in a specified source it was found that he had the wrong source, the correct source being in an adjacent reference.
the quote itself is sourced from the first source, where it appears verbatim. You are taking issue with the second source, ...." More misstatement, and IDHT. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 19:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
7) On that occasion, instead of working cooperatively to resolve any confusion, Curly Turkey escalated a minor matter into a "violation" of WP:INTEGRITY and WP:BUNDLING, for which he requires ArbCom's attention.
numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". The significance of this instance is as an example of you over-reacting to a minor matter. It seems quite possible that your other claims of "violation" are also minor. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:05, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
numerous uses of sources violating WP:INTEGRITY". No mention of stonewalling, and only three (?) mentions in your Evidence section, all ancillary mentions under other headings. Perhaps it wasn't that big of deal until this stage? ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 00:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
8) Curly Turkey's behavior at SNC-Lavalin affair has disrupted resolution of various content issue, including possible BLP issues.
1) User Curly Turkey is indefinitely banned from the article SNC Lavalin affair.
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
1) {text of Proposed principle}
2) {text of Proposed principle}
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
1) {text of proposed remedy}
2) {text of proposed remedy}
1) {text of proposed enforcement}
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
I agree with Curly Turkey that the issue here is not content, but intransigent behavior. However, it is significant that CT (and others) would have this matter resolved on the basis of content, and particularly on personal characterizations of whether content (or tagging) is "accurate" versus "POV". (Presumably non-neutral POV is meant.) On that basis there should be no issue, as we have processes and standards for dealing with POV, reliable sources, weight, etc., and for the most part they work at other articles and with other editors. The deeper issue is why these processes did not work here.
It is significant that CT assesses editor behavior on the basis of content. E.g., he justifies his insertion or deletion of material (or tags) as proper and correct because (in his mind) he is making the 'pedia better, whereas what other editors do is bad because they are "POV pushing
". Such self-assurance tends to short-circuit any discussion.
A yet deeper issue is CT's approach to argumentation. I can see a possibility that some of his apparent concerns could be validly argued (by which I mean valid syllogistic reasoning), but his bellicoise approach and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument. ♦ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 22:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
"...and general refusal to cooperatively engage with others rather deters a closer look at either his evidence or his argument." This just isn't true and is a sweeping, generalized statement which is not born out by the talk page. CT engaged over and over again. And we are looking at the evidence and his arguments. No one is suggesting the matter be resolved on the basis of content. The misunderstanding and or misuse of policies which deal with content constitute behavioural issues. Potential WP:POV editing impacted content but is about the editors who create content and their point of view. Littleolive oil ( talk) 13:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)