Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * To update this listing, [ edit this template] and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

Discussion of proposed injunction
Section started to allow parties to discuss proposed injunction(s). Carcharoth (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be better to either a) Broaden the topic ban to all parties involved in the case or b) Propose an alternate injunction protecting all the articles, for the duration of the case. Steve Crossin    The clock is ticking.... 01:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support either of those. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I wouldn't support the protection of all articles involved, as two other uninvolved users are doing decent work tidying them up while this case is ongoing. Just for my own curiosity, how strict is a topic ban? Does it cover blatant vandalism and talk pages, or is it solely confined to content edits? Thanks! Fin©™ 08:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fin, there are two other editors doing really good work on these articles at the moment. I'm removing myself from the edit war so hopefully that should help.  G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 08:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's fine with me. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please note that at or after 19:33 today I will be enacting the proposed injunction as it has met the required net four. Tiptoety  talk 16:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Progress?
I highly doubt there will be much more evidence added, and it doesn't appear other parties intend to write any workshop, could the arbs comment on the workshop I wrote or begin drafting a proposed decision? Thanks. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 23:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reason for delay?
This case has been open for around a month now. While I don't think arbitration should be rushed, the initial target date has been pushed back repeatedly, however, few if any arbs have commented at Workshop. This is a relatively low participation dispute, so if it's the input from more editors is what the committee is waiting for, well, i wouldn't count on it. Could an arbitrator please give a status update on this case, as well as provide a realistic target date? I realize the committee is busy, but at present it feels like the committee has forgotten about this case altogether. Thanks. Steve Crossin   The clock is ticking.... 11:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I second that. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The original drafting arbitrator needed to go inactive so there was a delay as another arbitrator gets up to speed. I think that the case ruling should be posted for voting by arbs within the next few days.

I left some comments on the workshop page. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 18:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, you said you'd reply to my rebuttal. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I planned to initially, but ran out of time, and I have committments elsewhere at the moment. Since voting has already begun, it may not be worth the effort now. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  08:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Pacifist's response
Link to Lapsed Pacifist's response to the evidence. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing word?
From remedy 3: "3) Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is 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." From the header, I believe the word "admonished" is missing from this sentence (i.e., he is admonished for edit warring). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you. Vassyana (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No prob, Bob. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on proposed decision
Read over the drafted proposed decision. Feedback, I assume, is generally welcome, and I can't comment on the PD page, so I'll do so here.

Some of the principles resemble the ones I wrote at /Workshop, but I do potentially see a few issues with some. I have to agree with CHL and NYB in regards to principle 4. Conflicts of interest only become a serious problem when advancing their outside interest becomes more important to them than the best interests of Wikipedia, or when it becomes more prominent in their editing patterns. Perhaps this could be an alternative?

4.1) Wikipedia editors may have a conflict of interest when their interests in editing Wikipedia, or the interests of those they represent, potentially conflict with the interests of Wikipedia. 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, and it is evident that advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia - producing a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia.

Not entirely sure about the wording here, but feel free to play around with the wording.

I think findings of fact 8, 9 and 10 should be combined into one, simply for the reason that it provides the opportunity for people to say things along the line of "GainLine uses sockpuppets [link to FoF] and commits BLP vios [link to FoF], without noting that he has indeed changed his ways. This concerns me.

I feel remedy 6 is excessive, would be heavily punitive and prevent nothing. I've seen no evidence that edit warring is a reoccuring problem with GainLine. I'd ask the committee to consider not passing this remedy. Additionally, is it necessary to have remedies 7,8, and 9? Perhaps it could be mushed into one remedy, admonishing his past behaviour, but commending the fact that he's turned his ways around.

Thanks for your time, Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Making the Committee aware..
That I have blocked User:Lapsed Pacifist for two weeks for his fourth violation of ArbCom sanctions from the previous ArbCom case. is the diff for the AE case at the time of the block. I understand that Lapsed Pacifist will not be able to participate in this case during the block, but will move any comments he wishes over as needed.

I will follow this notice up with an email. SirFozzie (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)