Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2

Case Opened on 03:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Case Closed on 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
 * Lapsed Pacifist notified
 * GainLine notified
 * Falcon9x5 notified


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * RFAR 1
 * RFC/U 1
 * AN
 * COIN 1
 * COIN 2
 * Mediation Cabal case
 * Talk page request

Statement by Steve Crossin
I first came across Lapsed Pacifist in the above mentioned MedCab case, where I offered to take the case and help them with resolving the dispute. Later on, commitments in real life led me away from the case. I asked for opening statements from all parties, where LP stated he is involved in the Shell to Sea campaign, which is backed up by their image uploads. While this isn't normally an issue by itself, after doing some digging, I have some serious concerns, not just in this topic area, but others as well. I will keep the diffs limited, I have plenty more, but I will add more at request of the arbitrators, others I will post at /Evidence. Issues have included heavy POV pushing, adding uncited material , edit warring , original research , adding undue weight to articles , personal attacks on other editors and soapboxing. He also violated his arbitration remedy recently, however no action was taken as it was stale by the time I notified an administrator.

There's hundreds more diffs, but, but opening statements need to be brief. I'll keep it to this. If arbitrators need any more evidence, I'm happy to.

I realise that there has not been a very recent RFC/U posted, however I feel that several attempts to resolve this dispute have been made, without result. I feel that filing another RFC would merely be process for the sake of process, and I request that you accept this case. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 02:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed injunction
I've seen that LP has continued to edit disruptively, even after notified about this case. . Might I suggest a temporary injunction?

1) is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined, for the duration of this arbitration case. Any  uninvolved administrator may issue blocks, starting at 24 hours and escalating after each violation.

Thoughts? Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 01:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by GainLine
I first came across Lapsed Pacifist on the Shell to Sea (S2S) which read like a propaganda piece. Their COI declared on their userpage was only done so well after being challenged in this thread, since challenged on COIN. Cited reason for ignoring this as policy interpretation.. They also show prejudice towards the subjects they edit on. 

LPs involvement with the campaign is evidenced with images uploaded as being their own work. Images appearing on wikipedia. Eg. & appear on S2S website & Indymedia:.
 *  Involvement with the campaign

LP uses Wikipedia as a platform to promote their political ideals through heavy POV pushing; inserting soapboxing claims then edit warring aggressively eg. straight reverts for no other reason than they "disagree", reverts with personal attacks  &/or antagonistic edit summaries. This is coupled with frustration on talk pages. LP is incapable of editing with NPOV. Steve has provided plenty of examples but there are hundreds available & LP has a long history. Language is used in a subtly negative manner as it was in NI articles. The police force of the ROI is Garda Siochana however LP frequently refers to them as police, not too bad on a talk page but perjorative in an article. Multiple negative images in articles edited by LP. Articles created to attack subjects. Undue weight in others, or creating topics pointing to S2S.
 * POV Pushing

Personal attacks are common:, ,,. There is no will for dispute resolution and are now ignoring my request to stop editing on S2S topics.. Comments on the users page suggests they believe past actions taken against them were somehow unjustified. While I'm not involved I've noticed similar behaviour in other areas such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
 * Etiquette


 * The user is part of a campaign which is involved in civil disobedience so it should come as no surprise that when campaigning here they frequently ignore requests to adhere to policy:, . This shows contempt towards the project & its community. Their userpage is practically a political statement & wikipedia is being used as a platform to further this.   G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Falcon9x5
Most of the actual evidence has been aptly covered by GainLine and Steve above, so I'll keep this fairly short.

I first encountered LP back in September 2008, when after editing the Shell to Sea article to remove WP:POV, they (not sure of gender, so I'll stick to third-person plural) made this revert. Despite acknowledging several times to be involved in the Shell to Sea campaign (covered above), and being aware of the COI policy LP believes this not to be an issue and edits related articles, inserting heavy POV with impunity. There's many examples noted above, this one I feel aptly shows LP's strong bias.

Again, as noted above, this bias extends to other topics, mainly US and Israeli (where LP is negative) and left-wing/socialist (where LP is positive). Two diffs that cover this bias quite well are this edit to a Cuban spy group article, where the word "murdered" was changed to "killed", and this edit to a Jewish/Israeli paramilitary group where the word "killed" was changed to "blown up".

Yet again as noted above, while perhaps not outright personal attacks, LP often makes antagonistic edit summaries and the occasional (what I'd consider to be) massively sarcastic or massively POV comment on talk pages. Finally, that LP's POV and UNDUE editing has continued despite being made aware of this RFAR says to me they are unable to see the POV, biased, nature of their edits.

There's more of course, constant non-WP:NPOV, the occasional WP:PA, constant WP:SOAPBOXing, constant WP:UNDUE, constant WP:WEASEL, but I think they've all be covered pretty well already. LP appears to be aware of said policies and guidelines, and apparently believes they abides by them ("I don't ignore any policies"). Hope all that provides a strong case for the need for arbitration! Thanks! Fin©™ 11:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.


 * I'm not sure if the Arbs have noticed, but Steve has proposed a temporary injunction that would topic-ban Lapsed Pacifist. This has reached net four, though, so this technically can be opened in two hours (once we find a clerk). Hers fold  (t/a/c) 00:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/0/0/1)

 * Comment leaning accept on the basis of: (1) a previous arbitration case which I note had no specifications of time in it. Many remedies are maxed at a one year duration and I think reviewing conduct since that case is prudent, (2) claims on Lapsed Pacifist's userpage regarding action being taken against him by involved admins - this should be examined and either refuted or investigated, (3) contentious topic area editing may obfuscate an RfC as editors might comment along ideological lines. I will await other comments but I suspect this one needs some investigating. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept numerous long term patterns of behavior and unsuccessful attempts at resolution. — Rlevse • Talk  • 17:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept Wizardman  00:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept; I see long term &mdash; and indeed ongoing &mdash; behavioral issues that need to be examined. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Risker (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Accept. Lapsed Pacifist has continued editing since being notified, and seems to have chosen not to enter a statement. I would encourage a statement to be entered, but on the basis of what I've seen so far, accept a case to examine conduct issues here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned
1) For the duration of this case, is topic banned from articles related to Corrib Gas, broadly defined. Any uninvolved administrator may issue blocks up to 24 hours in duration for violations of this injunction. Attempts to game the injunction may also be taken into consideration.
 * Passed 4 to 0 at 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

=Final decision= All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Purpose of Wikipedia
1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as soapboxing, advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Editorial conduct
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; 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, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. Concerns regarding the actions of other users should be brought up in the appropriate forums.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
3) Wikipedia adopts a neutral point of view, and advocacy for any particular viewpoint is prohibited. NPOV is a non-negotiable, fundamental policy, and requires that editors strive to (a) ensure articles accurately reflect all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources and (b) ensure that viewpoints are not given undue weight, and are kept in proportion with the weight of the source.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicts of interest
4) An editor has a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, conflict or potentially conflict with the interests of the Wikipedia project in producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopaedia. An editor will have a conflict of interest with respect to an article if, for example, they have a significant financial interest in the subject, they are involved with the subject of the article in a significant capacity, or if the article is about them or about a business or organisation that they represent.


 * Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
5) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for propaganda or activist editing, including, but not limited to, creating articles to promote a particular point of view on a certain topic.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing of articles
6) Wikipedia articles rely mainly on reliable mainstream secondary sources as these provide the requisite analysis, interpretation and context. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most highly valued sources and are usually the most reliable. Self-published works, whether by an individual or an organisation, may only be used in limited circumstances and with extreme care. Primary sources may be used to support specific statements of fact limited to descriptive aspects of these primary sources. In the event of sourcing disputes, talk page discussion should be used to discuss the dispute and seek a resolution. If discussion there does not resolve the dispute, the Reliable sources or Content Noticeboard should be used.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring
7) Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with very limited exceptions. The three-revert rule does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
8) Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. Adding unreliable, unsourced, or unduly weighted negative material or vandalising these pages displays particularly poor conduct.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist in arbitration
1) Rulings regarding Lapsed Pacifist's conduct were previously made in Requests_for_arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist (closed April 2006), where he was found to have "habitually engaged in point of view editing, inserting the point of view labeling language preferred by Irish Nationalists, sometimes edit warring for months", and was "banned indefinitely from articles which relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland." He subsequently retired in February 2006, for a period before returning to editing in May 2007.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist's declaration of POV and COI
2) has declared he has a Point of View and Conflict of Interest in articles related to the Corrib gas controversy and Shell to sea campaign.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has edit warred
3) has edit warred, both within articles related to the Corrib gas controversy -, and elsewhere -.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has used unclear edit summaries
4) has used unclear edit summaries. This has proven problematic when done in volatile editing situations and is not conducive to a calm and courteous environment. These have included So?, I disagree, I strongly disagree, Undo whitewashing (when an editor removed material of undue weight, Undo whitewashing (again), [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Israeli_West_Bank_barrier&diff=prev&oldid=307760936 So? (again, when an editor removed content that wasn't backed up by sources], Nonsense,, ,


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist's editing has led to article imbalance and undue weight issues
5) Some edits of have led to issues of undue weight within articles


 * Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine has used two or more accounts abusively
8) Early in his wikipedia career, edited as  and


 * Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine has vandalised a BLP
9), as committed BLP violations.


 * Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine's later conduct
10) To his credit, Gainline appears to have desisted from the above earlier indiscretions in subsequent editing.


 * Passed 7 to 0 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Remedies
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.

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and Shell to Sea
1) All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and the Shell to Sea campaign are placed under probation. All fall under 1RR, and a stricter rather than laxer interpretation of addition of and removal unsourced content. Where content or its phrasing is disputed, editors are directed to seek outside opinion at the Content, Reliable Sources, Neutral point of view or Third Opinion Noticeboards, and abide by the consensus achieved thereafter.


 * Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rescinded by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

All editors reminded
2) An alternative method of dealing with undue weight in small or underdeveloped articles is to evenly expand an article so that the material in question does not take up an undue percentage of space. Not only is this more in line with the objectives of Wikipedia (adding rather than removing content), but it is less likely to antagonise other editors (Wikipedia is not a battleground).


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist admonished and reminded to be especially careful
3) is admonished for edit warring, both in the Corrib gas project and elsewhere, and is reminded to be especially careful when editing in an area where one has a conflict of interest or strong point of view.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned
3.1) is topic banned, indefinitely, from articles related to the Corrib gas project, broadly defined. Any administrator may, after warning, extend this topic ban to other topic areas, in the event of further problematic editing.


 * Passed 6 to 1, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist encouraged
4) is encouraged to use succinct and accurate edit summaries when editing in areas that could be construed as volatile or having the potential to be volatile, such as most political articles and those concerning some form of conflict. The editor is also encouraged to comment on edits rather than editors.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist restricted
5) is subject to an editing restriction for one year, namely is limited to one revert per page per week (except for undisputable vandalism and BLP violations), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. Should Lapsed Pacifist exceed this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.


 * Passed 8 to 0, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine strongly admonished
7) is strongly admonished for vandalising BLPs.


 * Passed 4 to 1 with 3 abstentions, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine admonished
8) is admonished for sockpuppetry.


 * Passed 6 to 1 with 1 abstention, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

GainLine commended and encouraged
9) is commended for desisting from early problematic behaviours and encouraged to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.


 * Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 08:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of Unused Sanctions (November 2015)

 * Passed 8 to 2 with 2 abstentions by motion at 21:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.


 * 06:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Following violation of remedy 5 (revert and discuss) by reverting on Boston Massacre and ignoring a request to discuss as required. Block noticeAE notice.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 02:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC) Following violation of remedy 3.1 (topic ban) by editing Centre for Public Inquiry. block notice, AE notice.--Tznkai (talk) 03:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 48 hours, in part due to violating the topic ban of the first case, and in part for not heeding the advice in this case.AE John Vandenberg (chat) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * has been blocked for 48 hours for violating the above topic ban after they edited Centre for Public Inquiry. Tiptoety  talk 19:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)