Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions&mdash;the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Template
1)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned
1) Pending resolution 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Certainly feasible since he's still editing rather frequently. I'll look over for a possible injunction. Wizardman  03:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed on RFAR, fleshing it out here. Proposing this simply to prevent further disruption to the articles for the duration of the case, as a resolution would hopefully be made at the end of this case. The fact that LP has not entered in a statement and continued to edit after being notified about this case might suggest they do not want to participate, I'm not sure. But I feel this is necessary. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 09:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, If LP is topic banned at this point, they may cry foul saying they have been a victim of a kangaroo court and fail to engage. Perhaps a request for the user to voluntarily stop editing would be a better approach?  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to withdraw this comment, repeated requests to cease editing voluntarily have been met with no response. Engagement with this process hasn't been great and editing has carried on in normal pattern, with aggressive edit warring, tangental debating & personal attacks G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic ban is fair and has brought stability to articles. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note that they have edited the case, and are fully aware of its existence. (Clerk note) Tiptoety  talk 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
2)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
4)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Questions to the parties
=Proposed final decision=

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard principle. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 01:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LP has used Wikipedia to further their own ideoligies, they have used it as a sopabox for their campaign against Shell. Other articles have also seemed to be affected by their editing.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LP has displayed poor conduct and sometimes behaved contemptuosly towards other editors. Persoanl attacks are common, Disruptive pointm,aking is used on talk pages to bring debate away from original points and spoil or slow consensus gaining. They have displayed unreasonable behaviour making reasoning with them, by definition, impossible. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Somewhat standard principle. I've taken bits and pieces from other cases, such as the Obama articles RFAR and Prem Rawat 2. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 01:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LP has consistently failed to edit with a NPOV. Their views have been given undue weight in some articles and they have ignored repeated attempts to gain consensus.  Frequently edit war when an attempt is made to bring NPOV to article or remove UNDUE material from others, making accusatyions such as "whitewashing"  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.

The prescense of a conflict of interest, if well-managed, can lead to productive contributions to articles. An editor merely having a conflict of interest is not enough reason to remove their contributions to the topic.

However, conflicts of interest can explain problematic edits, such as inserting POV material. For this reason, an editor who has a conflict of interest with respect to an article is generally discouraged from editing that article, but encouraged to otherwise contribute to the editorial process, for example by contributing to talk page discussions.

Editors who are unable to manage their conflicts of interest in an appropriate manner, and who edit articles in a way contrary to the policies of Wikipedia, may be sanctioned, at the discretion of administrators or through Arbitration remedies.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, I was musing on wording something similar to this one as it balances pragmatism and policy quite well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I've mushed together a few old COI principles, and changed it a little. I'm trying to demonstrate a) How an editor can have a COI, b) How an editor with a COI can contribute to articles they have a COI in, 3) suggested ways to do this and 4) the consequences of failing to manage a COI in an appropriate way. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * LP has a massive conflict of interest. Only declared after being pulled up on it by an admin and posted on COIN.  Since then they have ignored requests to adhere to COI guidelines, continually inserting campaign material into articles (eg, campaign photos), Undue material into others and their POV into all the S2S/corrib gas articles.  Ignore request to stop editing saying that they shouldn't have to stop editing this topic because of others interpretation of policy and guidelines  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, though maybe expand slightly, "to an article is generally discouraged from editing that article [and associated articles]"? Just a thought, I'm not too pushed. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Somewhat standard, but I've emphasised the fact that soapboxing includes creating POV articles, as appears to be the case here. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Soapboxing is rife. POV & Undue material continually inserted into articles, Articles created with purpose of either promoting or pointing to S2S pages.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Maybe add a little bit about adding undue weight to articles in order to soapbox? Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

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 source disputes, talk page discussion should be used, failing that, RSN should be used.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Somewhat goes hand in hand with the OR principle below. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * not their Worst area of offence, have in the past used S2S website and Indymedia as references. Sometimes use marginal sources such as an Phoblacht. Have in the past used articles as references where the topic they are referencing to is only mentioned in passing.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Original research
7) Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Information which has not been published in a reliable source may not be included, regardless of whether it may be "the truth".


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Original research has been an issue in this dispute, as noted at /Evidence, and it does come into play here, so I feel a prinicple is appropriate here. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a larger problem where uncited text is introduced into articles on the basis that "they know it is the truth" or "because it is something they have seen" Talk pages of Willie Corduff & Integrated Risk Management Services bear witness to this. Frequently ignore Wp:V G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Edit warring
8) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Somewhat goes hand in hand with the OR principle below. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatley I have allowed myself to be drawn into this after attempting to cleanup up articles to meet various policies and guidelines, I have found them reverted and have in turn reverted them back. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:20, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Copyright violations
9) As per Wikipedia policy, content that is not either in public domain is protected by copyright, and requires permission to use on Wikipedia. A failure to credit the source of copyrighted content, including text and images, may be considered plagiarism.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, as it seems uploading of copyrighted images has also been an issue. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:48, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would seem that this may be true but may not be provable. Various cameras used and uploads licenced as their own work while appearing on other pro S2S sources.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Lapsed Pacifist has failed to maintain NPOV
1), in topic areas related to Israel/Palestine , as well as topics related to Cuba and the United States , has failed to maintain a neutral point of view, and has continued to edit in this fashion, even after concerns were raised to them, in multiple forums.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This needs to be clarified and quantified - which areas. He has edited in different areas, and I am getting a sense that Lapsed Pacifist is more moderate in some than others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum: I know - tricky these. I have begun looking over some of the edits in question - I am also interested in some of the middle eastern edits and how the depth of POV compares with conduct in previous arb cases. Although some edits one can tell the POV, my initial impression is that they are milder than some others i have seen. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Addendum again - did you mean to have an NPOV finding for both within and outside the gas project area? Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As per the evidence presented by myself and GainLine. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple diffs suggest that LP is myopic to any point of view other than their own. Seems almost incapable of editing with NPOV  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree. LP has consistently edited with their own POV, ignoring concerns raised and continuing to do so after this RfA was filed. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply to Casliber - I really just am scratching the surface here. I had to put my evidence together in a short space of time, as well as assembling the workshop in a short space of time. The editor's contributions log should demonstrate a pattern of disruptive editing, but what GainLine, Fin and myself have assmebled on the evidence page is a sample of poor behaviour. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 23:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also this recent edit, as well as this and this, which was removed by another editor, but readded here. If that helps at all. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 00:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Twice reintroduced text into Iraq War article that other editors removed for POV concerns here &   G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 14:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also add Corrib/Shell to Sea to the topics, along with this edit (that's just one of many though). Thanks! Fin©™ 22:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Lapsed Pacifist has edit warred
2) has edit warred.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. Clearly evident. Are there more like the above? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are more here, and there were more cases of edit warring, but these were the worst cases, at least in recent times. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 23:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The difs support the Finding of fact. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As per evidence. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * LP has edit warred to try and maintain their POV in articles. Unfortunately I also have in an attempt to maintain policies and guidelines. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * EDit war possibly brewing here, Another one here, unfortunately I was the other half of EW here. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 15:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. LP often edit wars to ensure their version of articles is that which remains on Wikipedia, even when consensus is against them. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly have edit-warred, but I find it deeply hypocritical of two such aggressive edit-warriors as 9x5 and GL to get up on their high horses about it. Edit-warring is never desirable, and this was a last resort; the complete disdain of this pair toward even making a token defense of their edits was the cause. This was extremely frustrating; dealing with shoddy editing is bad enough, but when its causes act as if they are above it all, that's too much. Both have acted as if they owned articles, and 9x5 declared it his right to ignore consensus. I've lost count of the amount of times I've been left hanging on talk pages. For examples, see Talk:Garda Síochána, Talk:Rossport Five, Talk:County Mayo, Talk:Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission and Talk:Maura Harrington. Steve has also picked up this bad habit; he edits Willie Corduff but refuses to defend his edit at Talk:Willie Corduff. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just like to point out that I did not "declare it [my] right to ignore consensus", I simply pointed out on a talk page (I don't recall which one) that I didn't consider two people agreeing, in a discussion of three, to be a definitive consensus. Also, that I didn't agree that consensus to disregard policy was an acceptable consensus (though this might've been in a different discussions). I initially did participate in talk pages, but eventually withdrew per what I said here. I don't think (though I may be incorrect) that I edited significantly in the area of Corrib gas after this. Thanks! Fin©™ 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And of course, I disagree with LP's characterisation of me as an "aggressive edit-warrior". Thanks! Fin©™ 16:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As do I, I fail to see how LP can call us aggressive edit warriors when they have engaged us in two separate wars making them a lot more aggressive than either of us plus there's evidence of EWs in other areas with other users while I can safely say I have never warred in any other area. There is evidence to show that Fin & I do not act as if we wp:own articles in that we both objected pages being protected for this RFAR while other users were working on cleaning them up and we both engaged with these others users at some point during this process. As can be seen on the talk pages of the affected articles, I have engaged in no small way with LP in attempts to work things out.  Talk:Integrated_Risk_Management_Services & Talk:Garda_Public_Order_Unit  shows examples of a great deal of engagement with LP. Unfortunately LP employs a tactic (either deliberately or unwittingly, I'm not sure) of arguing on tangental points  & Talk:Rossport which ends up dragging discussions off point which is ultimately unconstructive and frustrating, I brought this up with LP here .  I have tried to follow conversations through to their conclusion with the exception of the Michael Dwyer thread on talk IRMS and here on Talk:Glengad (few PAs here too) as at this stage RFAR was ongoing and I thought discussion was best carried out here.  There may have been other times but I cant recall specifics it just may have been that I grew tired of negative comments being directed at me ,,,    G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 19:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by others:

Lapsed Pacifist has engaged in other poor conduct
3) has engaged in poor conduct, including, but not limited to, personal attacks on other editors  and soapboxing, adding undue weight to articles , soapboxing , and adding uncited material to articles.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * This section needs diffs, preferably the worst/most illustrative. I am looking at a few. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the diffs are located at /Evidence, however I will add them here, as requested. There are more cases, but I figured only a sample is required to demonstrate problematic behaviour. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 23:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * All of these are not as strong as I might want to see for the Fof. I'll re-read the evidence page to see if I see anything else to add. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is generally prudent to split findings out - often combined statements like this lead to problems if arbs support some and question others. Given this is a workshop, it is okay to discuss and comment on individual segments here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The other issue is that arbcom as a rule does not make rulings on content, hence this precludes findings of undue weight and adding unsourced material. These should be dealt with by the normal community processes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * As per the evidence presented by myself and GainLine. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have been on the receiving end of personal attacks as have other users. Makes for a stressful editing environment.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The talk page here shows a lot of problems
 * Don't think the uncited material is quite a big a problem as the others mentioned here, but still agree with the statement as a whole. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That'd be finding #3. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist has violated copyright
4) has uploaded images to Wikipedia, stating they were his own work, however, some of these images were owned by an external site, which requires credit in order for the image to be used on Wikipedia.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * As per the evidence presented by myself and GainLine. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't actually say the evidence conclusively states LP has violated copyright - given the benefit of the doubt (combined with the fact they're involved in the campaign), LP could have taken the photos and supplied them to both websites. That's just my opinion though, nothing conclusive. Thanks! Fin©™ 13:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, perhaps you could be right. We can't assume this though. Perhaps we shouldn't assume anything wrt the images. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 00:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a fair assumption, tho on close examination of the files, there are multiple camera types tagged, suggesting to me at the most innocent, photos were supplied to LP for use here G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Professional photographers would always have a few cameras though, so again, not quite black & white. Thanks! Fin©™ 09:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Some are cheap enough digitals like fuji finepix. I take your point, I know its not black & white though using occams razor, I'd still contend my explanation is the most likely.   G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those pictures I haven't taken myself, I've been given permission to use. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, the licences have to be changed accordingly unfortunately. Having been through this process, it can be a pain in the neck but is nevertheless necessary. sorry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No sweat. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That'd be finding #4. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

GainLine has edit warred
5) has edit warred.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I did have to think about this carefully, as while the appearance is that they have Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and are trying to enforce Wikipedia's policies, edit warring is still edit warring. It'd be much the same if I edit warred. This may not be a necessary finding, but I felt it might be unfair to point out user's slip ups while turning a blind eye on someone else's, whatever the degree of slip up it might be. I don't think this will re-occur, so I have suggested a softer remedy below. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologise, I shouldn't have allowed myself to be drawn into this cycle of behaviour. I'm going to remove myself from this edit war now.  In my defence I would like to point out that I attempted to remedy this before the RFAR:, evidence of my engagement is clear on talk pages of most of the affected articles and I have requested an editor review. I recognise the problem and like I said, I'm now removing myself from this situation to allow the RFAR to run its course.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That would be finding #5. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 00:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed 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.

Lapsed Pacifist banned
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * My initial thinking is this is too harsh. Still looking at contributions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. I initially considered a topic ban, simply from the Corrib Gas articles, but their problematic editing has extended to other topic areas. Additionally, they have recently violated there current topic ban, at least once in recent time (See /Evidence). I feel they may attempt to game a topic ban, or that their problematic editing may extend to new topic areas, so I feel this may be the best solution. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 08:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Due to problematic editing in other areas, I would support this as a cooling off period seems necessary. I initially thought this was a bit harsh but seeing shorter blocks have not been a sufficent deterent in the past, it seems just.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While I initially thought this might be a little harsh, that LP has continued their editing style despite multiple concerned being raised, and this RfA, I think it'd probably be appropriate. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * A one year project ban is too severe. I'd be minded to suggest a topic ban and mentorship arrangement. AGK 10:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Initially, I considered simply a topic ban, but he is already under a topic ban from the previous RFAR, which he has violated at least twice in recent times, and is also topic banned as part of the temporary injunction, but I think article creations like Resource nationalism are somewhat pushing boundaries, in my opinion. It seems like an attempt to game the injunction, which in fact is covered as part of the injunction. I'm afraid in light of things like this, I can't seer how anything less than a siteban, or perhaps a broad siteban, would work. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned
2) 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.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Agree with the idea that topic ban is needed. The topic might need tweaking. Not as sure about it being indef. Also need to decide if this includes the talk pages or other discussions on the topic. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe a topic ban is needed? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In an arb case, a remedy has to be supported by a finding. In this case, the way for this remedy to be supported would be by a finding or series of findings in the FoFs section where Lapsed Pacifist's edits had violated policy and mapped out as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Somewhat an alternative, but I note, if remedy 1 were passed, this would run concurrencly with the siteban, as I assume that after one year, they may return and resume editing. This may be an alternative to remedy 1, but as I noted above, this may not solve the issues adequately. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd probably expand this slightly, maybe to articles related to Royal Dutch Shell aswell? That might be a bit too broad though... Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Most of the problem with LP is that they simply fail so see or acknowledge the problem with their editing and behaviour. As they have ignored repeated requests to moderate their behaviour with relation S2S topics, I sould fully support topic ban.  I would suggest that merely banning them would be seen as punitive for the sake of being punitive and that a if they aren't site banned then perhaps they should be assigned a mentor or a mentor assigned if they chose to return after any ban  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As above, this is too severe. A more reasonable way of dealing with Lapsed Pacifist's behavioural problems might be to adjust this remedy to run for one year only and to replace remedy (1) with an arrangement conferring a mentor upon him. AGK 10:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Topic bans generally have a fixed duration, generally a year. I potentially see this as a problem, as Lapsed Pacifist has an involvement with the Shell to Sea campaign, outside Wikipedia. I'm not overly bothered, either way, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the outcome of this case doesn't worry me too much, but I am in favour of providing a lasting solution. If softer remedies would do that, then great, I'd be happy to support alternatives. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 11:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

GainLine reminded
3) is reminded to pursue appropriate dispute resolution methods, and seek administrator intervention when required.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Nothing more than a reminder is needed, agree. I'll check the most recent contributions to decide if this is needed right before I vote on the PD. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 17:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Was off to a bad start on WP with the socking and vandalism, but that is a year ago and you appear to have settled. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * A remedy such as this should suffice. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 04:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, sometimes when you put some time in effort into something to have it straight reverted, its very frustrating. I'll be more careful in future. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * That would be remedy #3, not #1. Mythdon  ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. I've renumbered (and do hope that Steve doesn't mind!). AGK 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Block and ban logging
1) Topic bans and blocks should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Log of blocks and bans, to provide a central record for administrators and the community.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Standard. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 05:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of Proposed principle}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed finding of fact}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Proposed 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.

Template
1) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Analysis by Lapsed Pacifist
Steve Crossin says:

"Article creations such as Touch Fuck All policy, Protest camp, Maura Harrington, Lock-on, IRMS (at creation) and Corrib gas controversy (at creation) and Fight the Pipe, as well as many more, and redirects such as No-arrest policy (one of many, but I'll leave more for others) suggests that this user has an "anti-Shell POV."


 * Fight the Pipe, Protest camp and Lock-on have nothing to do with Shell. If Steve has a problem with the existence of these and the other articles (and the redirect), he has been free to request their deletion. He hasn't.

''"He also appears to have a POV in other areas, such as Israeli articles, where it seems he has a negative POV (See this edit, and these redirects .)


 * I find the use of the word "negative" interesting; would a "positive" POV be preferable, and what form would it take? The first diff sees me removing anti-British POV; I can't see anything else in the edit that could be contentious. The first redirect sees me redirecting Resistance of the Palestinians to Palestinian political violence; a logical enough redirect, I would have thought, given that Palestinian resistance already redirects there. The second has me redirecting Israeli soldier to Israel Defence Force; again, I fail to understand how this could be contentious to Steve. The other two are similarly neutral redirects; I can't for the life of me understand why Steve has brought them up.

''"...Lapsed Pacifist has failed to do so, in multiple areas, such as heavy POV pushing, adding uncited material , edit warring , original research , adding undue weight to articles , personal attacks on other editors and soapboxing  (Copied all of these from the main RFAR page, but may not have been reviewed by the arbs.) They have often edit warred to keep in changes they want in, using edit summaries such as So?, I 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 (when an editor undid an edit they believed to be POV) and so on."''


 * I dispute that the eight diffs described as "heavy POV-pushing" are that; again, I fail to understand exactly what problem Steve has with them. Perhaps he could elaborate. Many are months old, and involve disputes that have already been largely resolved (e.g. the thorny question of whether police are capable of violence). As for the diffs described as "uncited", the first refers to information from a newspaper article that had already been cited. I am unclear as to how often the same article must be cited, and would be grateful for guidance on this point. The second was my mistake; I thought the magazine article describing policemen mixing with masked assailants was the already referenced July/August 2009 Village magazine; in fact it was the June edition. Mea culpa. I am involved in an edit war with an unusually taciturn editor at Talk:Joe Higgins; this concerns on what grounds comments can be blanked. Again, I would be grateful if a third party could help. The second diff described as "edit-warring" concerns the unilateral change of one editor of an article to a redirect without any consultation. The third diff does not, in my opinion, come under the definition of edit-warring. I often come across editors who refuse to defend their edits in any meaningful way on talk pages; this can be very frustrating (for example, see Talk:Garda Síochána). The "I'm right, so nothing more needs to be discussed" attitude really annoys me. The diffs described as "original research" really crack me up; the first is referenced, the second is from a talk page where, by definition, practically everything is original research. "Adding undue weight" is a pretty subjective topic; I'm afraid I sometimes come across editors who have a propensity to whitewash (sometimes totally blanking) that which does not suit them. Again, some of these diffs are months old, of disputes that have long been resolved. "personal attacks on other editors" really gets my goat; intentional or not, I consider these the least honest of Steve's assertions. I disagree with Steve's assertion of "soapboxing"; many Irish villages that have never been in the news have their own article. So why does the inclusion of this one offend him so? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Yes, numerous small villages worldwide have articles, hence a notability tag was somewhat egregious, and better ways to address that issue exist. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Comment: I believe some of the diffs are old so as to establish a long-term pattern of behaviour.  Whats really interesting is why being accused of Personal Attacks gets your goat? You constantly make personal attacks on me and have ignored repeated requests to stop, in fact you made one here just before your analysis of the evidence:  where you called me a hypocrite and an edit warrior.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 16:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of Jgui's Evidence by Falcon9x5
Just like to point out that most of Jgui's comments are rebuttals of the evidence given against LP - shouldn't they have been here instead?

COI
At no point did anyone say LP was deliberately trying to hide their COI, the evidence was simply making clear that one exists, which it does.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * That's not quite true. GainLine's evidence includes the statement "Declared only after being challenged & investigated at COIN" which implies that LP should have somehow declared it first (although it isn't clear how), and implies that he was "investigated" when in fact the "investigation" was simply because one or both of you complained there, is that correct? For yourself, can we agree that this is irrelevant as "evidence" since there is no "evidence" of wrongdoing here? Jgui (talk) 05:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well then, LP could have declared it on their talk page earlier, couldn't they have, before being asked? The evidence is important as it shows LP has a definite COI, is aware of the policies, and believes their editing is not compromised by it. I think that's important. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is most definitley not irrelevant, LP has a COI, thats beyond doubt. WP guidelines suggest that a user shouldn't edit on a topic they are involved in or if they do, that they exercise great caution,  Soapboxing, inserting unsourced material, POV editing & edit warring are certainly not the traits of someone exercising great caution  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Soapboxing
Creating articles on related subjects is not soapboxing. Creating articles on related subjects in order to "passionately advocate [a] pet point of view" (from WP:SOAPBOX) is. All of the articles created were related to Corrib Gas, and all were created to mention Corrib Gas, the protests, Shell to Sea, the affect on the environment etc, and to push the associated POV.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * No WP editor is paid to edit; like it or not we are all here because of our passion. And passion is not a bad thing for an editor - WP grows when editors channel that passion to expand, improve or introduce pages about topics they are familiar with. If LP knows about the Corrib Gas Project and Shell to Sea (neither of which pages he created, by the way) then why should he not write about them? You have made close to 200 edits to the videogame "Killzone 2" page. I assume you have played the game (a lot). Do you think that you should be kept from editing videogame pages because you are too "passionate" about it? Jgui (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You've missed the point. Being passionate is one thing, but creating articles solely to push a POV is another. Since you mention it, no, I haven't played Killzone 2, I don't even own a PS3. I edit the page a lot just because I like games (and it's on my watchlist). However, if I was employed by Guerilla (the people who made Killzone), then I shouldn't be editing the page at all. I encountered another editor last night who dealt with his COI in the correct way. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Two hundred edits on a WP page for a videogame you've never played? I don't know what to say, so I'll just say good night. Thanks, Jgui (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to have an involvement with a topic to edit it on it, I would agree that passion is useful as long as it doesn't get in the way of editing with an NPOV. This essay: WP:ADVOCACY could have been written about this situation as a whole.   G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 11:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

POV
First of all, the issue is with "blown up" and "killed" - "killed" is more neutral language than "blown up". To say it's still factually correct is irrelevant - "killed in an explosion" and "had limbs torn off in the explosion before dying due to blood loss" are both factually correct, but are most certainly not both neutral. To say "blown up" has been used elsewhere is also irrelevant. Just because a POV term has been used in other articles does not mean it's ok to use it again. The issue is that LP deliberately changed the neutral "killed" to less-neutral "blown up". Now, if this had been a lone case, it may have just been a mistake, that it was made to an Israeli article, and a similar edit to a Cuban article where the less-neutral "murdered" was changed to neutral "killed", that suggests a deliberate change based on POV. (It may have been semantics which led Jgui to miss the second link in my evidence (it said "and" instead of "combined"), I've fixed it now)

(Also fixed my evidence so the above examples are the most obvious example of POV related to Israel etc, I'd actually consider this edit to be the most heavy pov overall)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * I will give a more indepth explanation here which I feel is called for especially since you edited your evidence to stress your perceived linkage of the Irgun and Cuban articles.
 * First, let me reiterate what I said in my Evidence page, where I noted that LP had made some dozen other improvements in grammar, readability, links and NPOV in this one edit HERE aside from the phrase change that you are questioning.
 * Second, the sentence as it was written was incorrect and LP was doing his job as a WP editor when he changed it: it is not gramatically correct to say "killed from a hidden mine".
 * Third, I disagree that "killed" is significantly more neutral than "blown up". The innocent and the guilty are both "killed", and the innocent and the guilty are both "blown up" (you've heard of suicide bombers blown up when their bombs exploded, yes?). Blown up is more graphic, but it is clearly not out of bounds - as I showed with the links to other WP pages that freely use the term in an identical fashion to the usage LP chose of "blown up when a hidden mine exploded".
 * Fourth, your straw man about "limbs torn off" yada, yada, is not worthy of a response.
 * Fifth, there is in fact no relation between the Irgun article and the Cuban article, except that you are attempting to tie them together since they were both edits by LP. They were edited months apart on clearly very different subjects.
 * Sixth, just as the Irgun article was substantially improved by LP's edit (as noted above) so was the Cuban article HERE, where he made another half dozen improvements aside from the one you are questioning.
 * Seventh, his change here from "citizens were murdered" to "citizens were killed" was a change to make the WP text consistent with the cited RS here, which states "the Clinton administration decided to crack down following the killings of four Miamians".
 * Eigth, unlike "blown up" and "killed" which have similar POV, "murdered" is decidedly more POV than "killed". Both the innocent and the guilty are "killed", but only the innocent are "murdered". So whoever initially wrote this text and put it in WP's voice was the one who you should be reporting for POV writing. And not LP, who was correcting the text to make it NPOV and consistent with the cited RS.
 * In short, LP improved both of these articles, and he improved both of them by making them more NPOV. The context, it turns out, is very important. Jgui (talk) 07:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Other edits LP made are not relevant.
 * 2) "was killed by a hidden mine". Problem solved, NPOV maintained.
 * 3) I disagree, I think "blown up" is significantly more POV, because it is more graphic, like you say. Again, not relevant what other pages say.
 * 4) I was making the point that factually correct and neutral are not the same thing, as you implied they were.
 * 5) The relation between the articles is that LP made edits to both, one introducing POV, one removing it.
 * 6) Yet again, other edits do not mean the POV edits are ok.
 * 7) Consistent to a source, but still the removal of POV, when the other edit was the addition of POV.
 * 8) I disagree again, I consider "blown up" to be closer to "murdered" in POV terms. The issue isn't that LP made the article more NPOV, it's that they made the article more NPOV while making another article POV. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So he makes two edits months apart, he improves NPOV in both of those edits, corrects a dozen errors of grammar and readability in those edits as well as adding several ref's, he makes the text better match the citations, and you don't see my point? Because he uses the phrase "blown up" which is in common usage already on multiple other WP pages? And you think he should be sanctioned and prevented from editing pages here at WP because of this horrible act? Hello??? Jgui (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ... Like I just said, I consider "blown up" to be POV. I stated that I felt LP had an anti-Israeli/American and pro-Cuban/socialist POV. The addition of (what I feel is) POV material to a Israel-related article, and removal of POV from a Cuban-related article is something I felt illustrated this accusation clearly. For the third time, just because other articles use the same language that does not mean it's ok. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

OR
Again, questions of whether the information was right or not are irrelevant. If a source doesn't state something, then it can't be included, especially with something contentious like (as LP was trying to add) that employees of the organisation (IRMS) were deliberately filming children. Saying you know something to be true, regardless if it turns out to be or not, is irrelevant. That it did turn out to be true does not mean it wasn't OR in the first place - I could say that Sony's next games console will be called PlayStation 4. Sure I'll probably be right, but that doesn't mean that it's not OR.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * Sorry, but that sure sounds like circular reasoning to me. If a RS says that Shell security is filming children, and if IRMS is known to be the security service hired by Shell, then it seems to me that a reasonable editor would not repeatedly delete an attempt to add this cited information to the article, and then amazingly use this as an example of OR on the part of the editor who is trying to add this correct information to the article. Let me put it another way - how would you feel if you were that editor trying to insert this text cited to a RS and it was repeatedly blocked because the article said "Shell security" instead of "IRMS"? Don't you think you would get frustrated? How do you think LP felt? Jgui (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The news article did not include the name of the company. I wouldn't try to add the information, because it was not supported by the source. Again, using the PlayStation 4 example above, it would like a news article saying "Sony to release next console in 2010!", and then I go and add "Sony to release PlayStation 4 in 2010!". The source didn't say that, I'm making an assumption, which is WP:OR. Thanks! 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I can only interpret this as you defending your side's edit-warring to keep factual RS-cited relevant information from an article - even after it was eventually added with your acquiescence that it belonged. So be it. Jgui (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I dont understand the issue with this, WP:V says The threshold for inclusion is verifiablity not truth so while the info may have been true it wasn't verifiable. I can understand why there might be frustration, I've come across situations where I knew something to be true but couldnt find a source to back it up, this doesn't mean the info should be added regardless. G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the core point I keep making. From the very first line of WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Now, the information LP added may have been true, but it was not supported by a source. Explain to me how the addition of information that is not supported by a source is not WP:OR. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I've said a few times (and as LP said MANY times in Talk only to be ignored and reverted), it is supported by a source - the RS that says that "Shell security was videotaping children", and the information that IRMS is the company Shell hires to provide security at this location. You say: The news article did not include the name of the company - but that does not matter as long as the name of the company is unambiguous as it was in this case. WP editors aren't allowed to do WP:OR, but they are allowed to think. Jgui (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would contend that this wasn't suitable enough support. While LP and parties here may know that Shell security & IRMS are one and the same, those not so familiar with the subject wouldn't know this.  They would read the article (on IRMS) and then if they read the source would find it saying what would apear to them to be a different entity responsible. Its easy to get zoned in on one small point, there are plenty of Diffs that show OR and in fact LP was temporarily blocked last year for this:-
 * 22:02, 28 January 2008 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) blocked Lapsed Pacifist (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (repeated re-insertion of unsourced material)  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 10:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gainline, I must say I find it odd that you are resorting to a 24 hour block made eighteen months ago to prove your point, when elsewhere you seem to be arguing that any evidence older than seven months ago is old news and not relevant here. Jgui (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary,I used this example (and others) to show that LP has a long established history of the sort of behaviour that you are asserting they are innocent of. In this case, the offence was serious enough to warrant a block. The evidence that you are making a great deal of is quite old but more importantly since rebooting, I have not repeated this behaviour, this is evident in the lack of diffs presented on this account. I have served my punishment on this, receiving a block. I've made no secret of my past and have tried to move on positively from it. On a slightly similar topic, I addressed a question directly to you here:  and I'm wondering of you could answer it please? Thanks  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 21:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly Gainline, I had intended not to respond to you since I have found your behavior here and in the past to be very unfortunate, and I felt that there was nothing to be gained by responding. But since you have asked, I will post some proposals above, and a response to the question you asked about below. Let me also add that in fact some of the PA's that I noted were made by you recently with your new chosen name GainLine (and not "quite old" from one of your previous lifetimes as you are suggesting). Jgui (talk) 06:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit Warring
I admitted in my section in Evidence that I have edit warred in the past. However, this was back last year - when I eventually saw it wasn't going anywhere, I engaged on talk pages (though I did so from the start), went to the COIN, asked for Mediation, asked for Mediation again when the first one stalled, considered RFC when the second one stalled. At no point did LP approach other users for help. Also, I don't think I've edit warred since then (at least, I don't think I've edit warred since then, I might be mistaken - I've generally abstained from editing Corrib Gas articles since the start of the first Mediation). LP on the other hand, has continued, and edit wars on unrelated articles.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

PA
The only thing I've said remotely resembling a personal attack could be when I nearly lost my patience in this comment on LP's talk page (which in turn was a response to these comments left on mine), in which I told LP to "cop yourself on" (I'm not sure if that phrase is in use outside Ireland, but it basically means "have a a bit of common sense").

Just a quick update on the section Jgui added:

When Gainline made that comment, LP was indeed edit warring on Corrib-related articles, though perhaps not on the Policing article; I would agree LP is not technically a vandal; again, as above, harassment is harassment regardless of whether the charges made are true or not, it doesn't excuse it; I would contend LP does have a history of unreasonable and aggressive behaviour.

Perhaps I misinterpreted his reference to Goering, but it still seems bad form to bring up such a topic in a discussion. In the other diff, LP deliberately misinterpreted GainLine's comment to mean one should respect dead Nazis, I don't see how that's hyperbole.

Again, I agree Gainline's comment on the POU was misleading, but again, LP was antagonistic in the edit summary.

I note that Jqui made no reference to any of the PA diffs I provided, other than then two indirect Nazi references.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * To say he is "not technically a vandal" is a vast understatement. Clearly I have only looked at a limited number of his edits, but as far as I can tell LP has never vandalized a page, and he has certainly never vandalized a page as obviously or repeatedly as GainLine did (as shown in my Evidence). As far as I can tell his edits have always been in good faith - you may disagree about whether they are OR, POV, etc. but that is far different than vandalism. And I think you missed the major point here - namely that these are all Personal Attacks made against LP. The fact that they are so obviously unjustified PA only adds to their unfairness. And would it be possible for you to do better than "Perhaps I misinterpreted" when you so clearly did - why is it so hard to see this from the other editor's point of view? As I said in my original evidence, the three of you threw a very large number of citations around, and I did not have the time or space to try to analyze all of them so I selected the ones that you all seemed to agree on or that seemed the most inflamatory. Jgui (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * LP is not technically a vandal, but does engage in disruptive editing (which I'd file under the same editing behaviour as vandalism). Yet again, because there may have been personal attacks against LP, that does not give them the right to make personal attacks back. I've had loads of personal attacks made against me, but (to the best of my knowledge), have never made one myself. I still feel the reference to Goering was unwarranted, and a violation of WP:CIVIL, and do believe LP was indirectly trying to compare me to a Nazi. The diffs you mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg really, if you look at the others, you'll see a long term pattern of personal attacks and violations of WP:CIVIL from LP. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've looked at the diffs, and I simply do not see it. And I think it would be worthwhile for you to read the WP:VANDAL page again. You all keep talking about "tip of the iceberg" as if just saying that makes it true. Sorry, but if you want to prove your case you need to present some strong arguments, and not just keep waving your hands about how horribly bad it is. And if you continue to insist that he was trying to compare you to a Nazi, then you really aren't analyzing the data with an open mind and I'm afraid it speaks volumes about your apparent bias in this process. Jgui (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *sigh* At the time, I felt he was comparing me to a Nazi. I still do. I said "tip of the iceberg" because I provided ten other diffs. If you look at them all and can honestly say you don't think LP has made any personal attacks, or has been uncivil, then I'm afraid we have two different interpretations. Thanks! Fin©™ 08:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you won't let this go so let me explain it in greater detail than I allowed myself to in Evidence due to size constraints. This is what LP wrote:
 * Any time you excuse blanking of both content and links with talk of "tidying", I feel like Goering hearing the word "culture".
 * This is the quote that is often attributed to Goering:
 * "When I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver"
 * So LP was saying that when you blank content and call it "tidying", it makes LP feel like Goering hearing the word "culture" - i.e. it makes him (LP) want to reach for his revolver because it makes him mad. So in fact, LP was using a well-known (to WW2 history buffs) statement, comparing himself (not you) to Goering, in order to say that it made him really mad when you blanked content. Notice LP said "I feel like Goering ...". He was clearly NOT comparing you to Goering. I guess you can now report him for comparing himself to a Nazi - is that better or worse than comparing someone else to a Nazi?
 * I hope that is now clear. Thank you, Jgui (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the context of the quote, I assumed he was likening my attitude to removal of content to Goering's attitude to culture. Thanks! Fin©™ 15:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Gainline's Vandalism
Won't really comment on this, just to say that all the vandalism linked concerned a previous account.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:
 * How does it being a previous account make it excusable; when it was the very same editor? And especially when part of the evidence being presented here against LP was occurring at the very time that the previous account was in use - and in fact GainLine's vandalism using those previous accounts actually started the disagreements and bad faith between these two editors? Jgui (talk) 07:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gainline has been forthright about his previous accounts (much in the same way LP has been about their COI), has admitted he was in the wrong, and has apologised. As I've stated several times above, other editors' behaviour is no excuse for LP's actions. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Fin©™ 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

COI
I don't think anyone would contend that LP is trying to conceal their COI, quite the opposite, since declaring it. However the issue here isn't if a COI exists, but how that COI was dealt with, they have failed to exercise caution and repeated requests to modify their editing. They failed to engage on the COIN the 2nd time it was brought up there depite requests.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Soapboxing
I would agee with Fin that creating articles on related subjects is not soapboxing. Creating articles specifically to raise awareness of a cause that you are advocating is. Glengad is a good example of this, the place hasn't even appeared in the last 3 census. Continually inserting WP:UNDUE info also is, take for example Rossport where an image of a man who has never been within thousands of KMs of the place was placed in the article as he is the figurehead of a campaign based there. They have been warned about this in the past:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

POV Pushing
The analysis here seems to have been based on just one or 2 diffs, there are literally hundreds of examples of this just in the recent past alone. There is a long established history of this behaviour and were warned here by an impartial admin (who blocked my GLG account) last year about all issues (Soapbox, POV pushing COI, edit warring etc.)  currently being discussed at this RFAR.
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Original Research
I also agree with Fin in saying that questions of whether the information was right or not are irrelevant as per WP:V. The threshold for inclusion isn't truth but verifiability. In the case of IRMS the text here just wasn't backed up by sources. When a reliable source became available in the context of the assault on Willie Corduff then it was actually me who reintroduced this back in where possible. This has also been an issue in the past:


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit Warring
There has been a lot of editwarring, particularly on the Corrib Gas articles. There are no innocent parties on the Corrib gas articles(Steve hasn't really edited so I dont count him). However in all these edit wars, LP is the factor in common. Sept/October 08 with Fin and in July/Aug 09 with me. There are other cases also, such as on the Joe Higgins talk page. Again past warnings on this by users not involved here &. They have also been involved in minor edit wars on this page between 16 - 21 August  &  here   (where they were warned ) between 26 - 29  May and none of the editors here from this arb are involved. The revision history here between 26/02/08 & 17/03/08 shows LP edit warring before I was active on wikipedia & Fin was active on this topic. Looking through the revision history of War on terrorism for this year there is also a lot of evidence of reverts and semi edit warring. This small sample shows that LP has edit warred in other areas. I'll let Fin speak for himself as regards other edit wars but from my contributions it can be seen that I have not been involved in an edit war anywhere else. It is incorrect to say that we are the cause of LPs edit warring as they have edit warred on other occasions/topics where there was no involvement from parties involved here.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Personal Attacks
I think evidence here clearly shows there have been personal attacks, again even against editors not involved here on other issues (although this example could be a breach of WP:Civil rather than WP:NPA.)  I know this section hasn't been completed but I would like to see diffs that show PAs against LP. There have occasionally been remarks borne out of frustration (not limited to involved users in the RFAR ) but nothing that could be construed as a PA.
 * Update


 * LP wasn't edit warring on this article, however it has already been established that they were in an edit war on topic across other articles. This was merely a request to stop this behaviour and engage on this RFAR.
 * . This was almost a year ago, I wasn't as familiar with policies at the time and I considered this action to be vandalism, another editor put me right on this. It would appear that I am not alone in believing that LPs actions sometimes to be a form of vandalism.
 * Again, a very old diff. I wasn't aware of sockpuppetry and was at the time making a mess of starting over. I did consider this to be harassment, LP could have provided a link to the sockpuppetry policy, reported me on the SP noticeboard or to an admin but instead chose confrontation. LPs history of harassment is also evident in reverting peoples talk pages.
 * LP does have a history of unreasonable behaviour, thats why we're here at this RFAR. Engagement with them on talk pages quite often leads to frustration and stress.


 * I'm glad this diff came up.  This was a commentary on the recent situation where an irishman who had worked for IRMS was killed in Bolivia.  LP was in this section carrying out a character assasination on Dwyer whom he called a gun nut with a Nazi tattoo  (This link  shows the tattoo was some form of tribal design).  I have no idea what happened with Dwyer nor does anyone else seeing as there hasn't been an official report out of Bolivia yet but on the day of his burial I suggested that he show the dead man some respect to which they replied: "Respect for Hitler and Goering because they're dead? You have some strange notions".  I would count this downright disrespectful and antagonistic to the extreme. I believe my response "Grow up" was  fully  justified.   For me this section marks a particular lowpoint in LPs behaviour, look at the bottom of this thread and you will see  where LP accuses Gardaí of deliberately hospitalising old men and calls IRMS neo-Nazis:-  There's only police force putting old men into hospital in Erris. There's only one security company putting old men into hospital in Glengad. No others are referred to in any reliable sources, and unless Shell jettisons these Neo-Nazis for another crowd, none will be. I don't understand what your problem is. I am now going to address this question directly to Jgui; Please tell me how an editor who has a COI can make a statement like this and still say they are editing with a NPOV and staying within COI guidelines and others such as WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND?.


 * As for the "spelling" summary, this stemmed from me changing this line "This unit is trained to monitor and deal with events that could lead to force, often using force." . This simply didn't read right so I changed it to "This unit is trained to monitor and deal with events that could lead to violence, often using force" which I believe is a fair summary of what a unit such as this does.  I probably should have used the edit summary "wording" over spelling but I was in a hurry at the time if I remember. LP was at this point myopic to the point where it seemed they believed that the POUs only engagement ever was with S2S protesters, where I was coming from the angle that the POU sometime meets violent situations which they must deal with using force. (BTW LP inserted this  accusing the unit of being deliberately violent as well as an un-sourced claim).  This Force v. Violence was a huge argument, I asked for input from another editor who specialises on police topics who backed the use of the term force, when this failed I completely rewrote this article to remove a need for this sentence at all.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Jgui has again presented some very old diffs. I know some of the diffs that were presented on LP were old but were to show a long established pattern. Evidence presented on the GLG talk page certainly doesn't constitute PAs, I have suffered the consequences of those actions by being blocked.  Since rebooting using this account and correct protocol, I have never repeated this behaviour and have made no secret of my history (to the contrary, I have declared it openly while seeking input on the corrib gas articles.) Presenting these actions as evidence seems tenuous especially when there has been no attempt to show evidence of LPS careful well researched contribution.  This is, in my mind, more like an attempt to discredit my input into this RFAR.   G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 20:41, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * GainLine has pointedly asked for me to respond to his question above, so I will do so here. He has asked how an editor could write very negative things in an article Talkpage and still claim to be NPOV. The answer is obvious - because the thoughts expressed by an editor in a Talkpage are irrelevant as long as his edits to the article are NPOV. The only restrictions that I know of on Talkpages are when addressing comments to and about other editors - there is otherwise (thankfully) a great deal of freedom of speech in Talkpages. If I think Obama is a neo-Nazi and put that on a Talkpage no one should care. If I put it in an article, then of course everyone should care. But LP wasn't writing this in an article - he was writing this on a Talkpage - and his edit to the Article itself was NPOV - and that is the critical difference that GainLine seems to have missed. Jgui (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The problem is that LP has not edited in a NPOV on these topics, They have constantly introduced negative POV on Gardaí and have a history of doing so (warned here 18 months ago ), Created Policing of the Corrib gas protests which led to comments here only recently and referred to Gardai as " the police" in the articles which is highly perjorative.  Calling an entire company neo-nazis based on the private actions of a few individuals displays prejudice. Coupling this with a COI and the  introduction of negative material not backed up correctly as per Wp:V  shows where the problem lies.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GainLine, I find it interesting (to say the least) that you are once again relying on a link from 18 months ago to make your point. And when I follow that link I see a Talkpage discussion from 18 months ago concerning a dispute about this change here, where the dispute is whether the degree of force used by police could fairly be described as "extrajudicial punishment" based on films of a protest. I also see that as soon as this issue was raised on the talk page, that LP engaged in dialog and stopped inserting his verion of the document and let the opposing editor's version stand for eight days. When that editor stopped responding he tried inserting it again, again met resistance from other editors, so finally dropped that version to insert a different change. It happens that I understand his point but ultimately disagree with LP with this particular change, but I don't think there is anything wrong with him making the change or his stating his opinion that it was a valid change. Nor do I find the fact that the opposing editor made an accusation against him particularly compelling - after all we are all free as editors to place whatever accusations we want in talk pages any time we want and whether valid or not.
 * GainLine, I also find it bizarre in the extreme that you claim that referring to "the Gardai" as "the police" is "highly pejorative". Let me refer you to the very first sentence in the lede of the article here, in the version you approve of: "... the Gardaí is the police force of the Republic of Ireland". As someone who has never visited Ireland and who has therefore never heard of "the Gardai" I hope you that will appreciate that (as LP argued) the vast majority of English readers of the disputed page have no idea what the "Garda Siochana", "Garda", "Gardai", etc. refers to, but all of us understand the term "police" since every country has a police force that is commonly referred to as "the police". That you would edit war over removing the term "police" from an article trying to refer to a nation's police force seems to me really quite bizarre. That you would then use this as an indication that your opposing editor is making highly POV edits is unfathomable. Jgui (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of newer diffs of LP introducing negative text, but these have been shown already. Again, only samples but if you want more I can dig them up though I'm not sure its really necessary. I used that one to bring something new to the party and show a history.
 * The Gardaí or Garda Siochana is the police force of Republic. It sounds like you've read the article so you will know that this is an Irish language term. Now to simplify things imagine this were an Irishman called Sean which as you may or may not know, has the angliscised equivalent, John.  So imagine I start inserting the name John into articles that I have wrote to highlight an aspect of Seans life that I perhaps have an ideological disagreement with.  Now can you see how its a problem?   If you were to insert this into the articles, I could understand it and excuse it as a mistake, but LP is Irish and has claimed to spent time in irish language (the part of Ireland where the pipeline is coming ashore is one such place) areas so they know exactly what they're doing. By the way, I'm not the only editor to have noted this as a problem . Its subtle but its still problematic.  I see similar behaviour was noted on Israeli articles, where they replace "settlements" with "colonies" and it was also highlighted in LPs last RFAR where they were engaging in replacing very subtle POV terms in articles on Northern Ireland.    G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your analogy just doesn't work. This is the English language Wikipedia, not the Irish language Wikipedia. As such, descriptions should be chosen to make the most sense to English readers of all countries, and not just those who understand another language. "Garda" may be the proper noun for a specific police force; but "police" is still the collective noun that describes all police forces including the Garda. Furthermore, your contention that "police" is pejorative is not borne out by the free use of the term when describing the "Garda" - you even repeated it yourself when you wrote that "The Gardai ... is the police force of Republic." It is this kind of allegation against LP that caused me to write in my Evidence that those allegations are essentially worthless - because none of the allegations I looked at made any more sense than the ones discussed in detail here. Jgui (talk) 05:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You will find that I was in fact paraphrasing the intro to the Garda Siochana article. If you read this section of the article: you will see the correct terminology and that Police isn't really used.  I believe articles should be wrote to reflect the terminology of the locale, the wonderful thing about WP is that you can link terms to an article on an explanation for them so its not a problem for anyone to understand. The term police in itself isn't perjorative, just how its used.  Please don't dismiss allegations just because you dont understand them.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

My Vandalism as Mustycrusty
As I have declared, I edited as user:mustycrusty in the past. Some of the stuff I did on this account was pretty shameful, I've apologised for this in the past and I will do so again here, I'm sorry, I reacted to the situation in front of me poorly and now I have to live with it as in this situation where its been thrown back in my face. Obviously this damages my credibility, I decided that my energy would be best spent taking things seriously so I rebooted as GreenLightGo unaware of the rules on sockpuppets. I never vandalised using this account but its hard to check as it was protected and deleted as LP was edit warring on the talk page. I can confirm that apart from these accounts I have NEVER edited under any other name apart from possibly some anon edits before creating any account. If any arbitrator wants to check, I will happily email them IP details for them to confirm. I believe that LPs aggressive attitude towards me stems from this. I have used this account since the begining of the year, editing on areas that interest me such as Ireland and rugby related topics which I get a great deal more satisfaction from rather than being involved with conflict in this situation. Jgui has made a great deal of behaviour on theses accounts but if anyone cares to look through my contribs here they will see that I have made good inputs on many topic areas. I did a major clean up of several articles such as the Garda POU, I and have created a number of articles as well have improving several rugby bios (I have had to long finger this process as most of my time on wikipedia lately has been spent here, something which I'm not all that happy about). I have reverted vandalism, patrolled new pages (a very tedious task) and tried to help new users. I have put myself up for review to get feedback from the community. I do believe that I have atoned for past misdeeds but If anyone thinks that I have repeated behaviour on this account, I will happily answer it at an RfC.


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Summary
Jguis evidence is, other than the section on my vandalism from about a year ago, pretty much a rebuttal of evidence from myself, Fin and Steve without the provision of anything new. With this, Jgui has actually probably just put more input into this process than LP themselves who has to this point apart from a rebuttal of Steves evidence, failed to make a statement, provide evidence to support their actions or engage in the workshop. Meanwhile LP has continued to edit in other areas and only ceased editing on corrib gas topics just before an injunction was put in place. This is similar behaviour as that encountered in the previous MedCab, the main difference being they voluntarily ceased editing as did all of us (thus locking articles) but failed to engage in any meaningful way. G ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 13:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * I am an uninvolved editor, who has never edited or even read any of the pages cited here (that I know of). This is the opening of Jguis evidence They have weighed in to dismiss evidence without any clear understanding of the context that it was presented in without even reading the articles involved? G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 22:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Analysis of Jgui's Evidence by Steve Crossin
I apologise for the delay, and I may not respond to all of Jgul's points, but I will do so where I feel my attention is needed most. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 23:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

COI
You state that COI is irrelevant. It generally is irrelevant, as long as the editor who has a conflict of interest manages their conflict of interest appropriately. An editor merely having a conflict of interest is not reason enough to isolate their edits, yelling "You have a COI!!!", but when the editor with a conflict of interest edits the related topics problematically, that's when it becomes a problem. As I have demonstrated in my evidence, Lapsed Pacifist has not handled their conflict of interest appropriately, and for this reason I have pointed out this issue. Conflicts of interest are only relevant when they become an issue, and in this case, it has, hence why it has been raised here. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 00:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Soapboxing

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

POV

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

OR

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Edit Warring

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

PA

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Gainline's Vandalism

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

General discussion

 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others: