Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist

I have mixed feelings about Lapsed Pacifist's contributions. I know he has annoyed many people on wikipedia and his methods of editing can be too belligerant, but I have always found him to be amenable to reason when addressed respectfully and we have been able to help each other with editing several articles. Also, LP has shown an extensive knowledge of Irish history and politics, which would be a loss to wikipedia if he was banned. Jdorney 00:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist
I'd like to appeal this ban, because it was decided upon and imposed while I was on an extended break. I was not given the opportunity to confront my accusers (whose exaggerations, distortions and outright falsehoods I was therefore unable to refute), and was presented with a fait accompli upon my return to Wikipedia.

The basis for my request is that I was tried in absentia, and I don't understand why. What is the point in restricting an editor who does not edit? By the time the decision was reached, I had not edited for two months. A further thirteen were to pass before I returned. Simple misunderstandings on the parts of the ArbCom members could have been cleared up, such as the seeming belief of one that "Northern Ireland" (referred to in the decision) is the northern half of Ireland, which it is not. Put simply, I was not given a chance to argue my case, and I would like that chance.

Statement by uninvolved One Night In Hackney
I can only assume this is some sort of bizarre joke on the part of Lapsed Pacifist, given he is a tendentious editor in virtually every area he edits.

His ban on articles relating to the Northern Ireland conflict was evaded when he made contentious edits to Black and Tans, such as adding Category:Terrorism in the United Kingdom (which he quickly changed to Category:British terrorists), then trying to add his newly-created (and since deleted) Category:State terrorism in the United Kingdom, all based on nothing more than his POV. He is single minded in pushing an anti-British, anti-Israeli, anti-American, anti-almost anything POV. For example relating to Americans in Iraq, he changes "private military contractors" to "mercenaries" (or similar) which is a major violation of NPOV and not supported by the cited source, and edit warring to retain the term -. Sourcing that "The controversial use of white phosphorus by US forces has resulted in a large increase in birth deformities in the city" and edit warring to retain the sentence and sources. It was sourced by this, this, and this none of which make the link as a 100% fact, merely that there are calls for an investigation (eg, the sources state "Families in Fallujah are calling for an investigation into the rise of birth defects after the US used phosphorus over the Iraqi city in 2004", "Families in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are calling for an investigation into their claims of a rise in the number of birth defects", "The evidence is anecdotal because there are no records from the era of Saddam Hussein to compare their stories against", "The indications remain anecdotal, in the absence of either a study, or any available official records") -. Describing Israeli settlements as "colonies" and edit warring to retain the term -    (many more diffs available for "colonies"). Claiming the Garda Síochána (Irish police) engaged in extrajudicial punishment with Shell to Sea protesters (where he has a conflict of interest) despite it being complete original research on his part, and edit warring to retain it -.

That's from a quick look at his contribs, and there's many, many more controversial edits especially in the Israel/Palestine area and articles relating to the war in Iraq. What ArbCom (or any admins reading this) should really consider is whether Lapsed Pacifist should be banned from Wikipedia as a whole, not whether his current ban from certain articles should be upheld.

Statement by GRBerry
Blocked twice in the last month for violating this restriction and in that time put on notice for problematic editing under Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. Does not to me appear to be demonstrating that they would be editing without problems in this area. This restriction is broader than the discretionary sanctions in The Troubles arbcomm case, so it is not an adequate substitute. See the WP:AE archives related to the two recent blocks: Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23 and the second section on that page with identical title. GRBerry 13:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rockpocket
My block appears to be one that precipitated this appeal, so I will comment to explain that. I noticed that request for Arbitration Enforcement at: Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive23. I concluded that his edits to were in violation of the remedy: Lapsed Pacifist banned from affected articles. LP protests that the Black and Tans article did not directly relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland. While the Black and Tans were clearly operational only prior to the creation of Northern Ireland, I interpreted that articles "related in any way to the conflict in Northern Ireland" would include about the recent history of conflict that resulted in the creation of the constituent country. If the edits had been non controversial then I would probably had overlooked it, but they content was clearly a continuation of the "habitual point of view editing" that was found during the ArbCom. If the remedy is to be upheld, I would ask that ArbCom clarify whether they meant that remedy to be interpreted narrowly, or to include articles that relate to the conflict in Northern Ireland more generally. Rockpock e  t  02:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

 * No statement by Lapsed_Pacifist saying the reason that editing restrictions should be removed. On my first review, I'm not seeing any reason for the sanction to be lifted at this time. Right now, the community is dealing with current issues. I see no reason to intervene at this time. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Per Lapsed_Pacifist's request on my talk page, I'm commenting further. I think the editing restrictions are needed so that collaborative article work can happen on this topic.


 * To answer the other question:User conduct is the driving force behind our remedy, so we need to include the articles that bring out the user conduct problems. I suggest the broader interpretation of the topic. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline per Flo. Paul August &#9742; 13:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline. User demonstrates no good reason to lift the restrictions. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline appeal; it seems fair to read the restrictions imposed as including the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline appeal, per above. --bainer (talk) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for appeal: Requests for arbitration/Lapsed Pacifist - Part II
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
 * (initiator)

Statement by Lapsed Pacifist
I'd like to appeal this ban becuase the guy was tried in absentia, and never got a chance to put his case forward. I think that three years of constructive editing is more than enough to reopen the book.

The ban is too wide a scope and doesnt make any sense.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)