Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard +  Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics ( Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks +  Talk Clerk procedures
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Lapsed Pacifist has not maintained NPOV, and has a conflict of interest

OK, someone should get started, I guess. I've gone through LP's contributions, and looked at their article creations, and they seem to be skewed. 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. Their uploads suggest they either have direct contact with members of the Shell to Sea campaign, and they have indeed stated they are involved in the campaign.

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 [1] [2] [3] [4].)

There's a lot more, and I'll elaborate later, but I'll allow for others to contribute here. I'll add more at Workshop.

Lapsed Pacifist has edited disruptively

While having a conflict of interest, when handled well by the editor in question, is not normally a problem, Lapsed Pacifist has failed to do so, in multiple areas, such as heavy POV pushing [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], adding uncited material [13] [14], edit warring [15] [16] [17] [18], original research [19] [20], adding undue weight to articles [21] [22] [23] [24] [25], personal attacks on other editors [26] [27] and soapboxing [28] (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, I strongly disagree, Undo whitewashing (when an editor removed material of undue weight, Undo whitewashing (again), 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 might have exceeded my limit, but I hope my evidence, and the evidence that other editors will present, will demonstrate a long term pattern of problematic editing, one that needs resolution. I'll post some suggestions on /Workshop soon, after I've seen others present evidence. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

LPs Conflict of Interest

Declared only after being challenged. [29] & investigated at COIN. Evidenced by uploads as their own work, many different camera types used suggesting copyvios. Images appearing on wikipedia. Eg. [30] & [31]appear on S2S website [32] & Indymedia: [33]. Disregard COI concerns as interpretation of Policy: [34]. Here too: [35] has this file [36]. Many articles edited by LP read and look like Campaign pieces with multiple negative images against WP:MOS, eg. Maura Harrington & Shell to Sea. Huge amount of articles affected by S2S, some tangentially with Undue material. Eg, Garda Articles Garda Public Order Unit, [37], [38].

LPs POV

Prejudice shown towards subjects LP edits on [39]. Pattern of heavy POV shown in many areas. Tactic normally entails inserting text into article in breach of any number of WP:Undue [40], Wp:Soap [41] WP:V [42] , WP:OR [43], WP:RS [44], WP:Weasel [45] and more [46], [47] then edit wars to keep it in place eg: [48] Revision history of Integrated Risk Management Services 23rd - 27th March 2009. The police force of the ROI is Garda Siochana however LP frequently refers to them as police [49], not too bad on a talk page but perjorative in an article [50] ( A similar tactic was used in the NI articles and is still being used in Israel articles, replacing settlements with colonnies). Discussion pages are used to frustrate attempts to reach concensus, arguing on small points to detriment of main point such as this thread on the [51] talk page. Continues to push POV with subtle language changes of settlements to colonies in Israel related articles [52] despite having being warned about this about a year ago by an admin [53]. More failure to maintain NPOV here [54] where LP suggests the United States "celebrates" entering WW1. Is continuing with Anti Israel/US POV [55], this diff may be true but it is certainly not phrased in an NPOV manner.

Edit Warring

LP engages in edit warring constantly.

• [56] Revision History Corrib Gas Controversy see Sept- OCtober 08
• [57] Joe higgins talk page
• [58] Rossport Revision history
• [59] Shell Exploration Ireland history
• [60] Garda POU March-April '09
• [61] I-RMS March & April 2009

Personal Attacks

Personal attacks are common: [62], [63] , [64], [65], [66], [67] & [68]. Even as this RFAR is ongoing, attacks continue. [69].

Dispute

It sometimes seems as as LP seeks out conflict, edtiting on contentious issues. Ignores warnings on behaviour as a matter of course. [70], [71]. Failed to engage on second COIN, coupled with lukewarm response to last Medcab case. Here [72] LP moved a page that had been PROD'ed to remove the tag. No change in content although edit summary said it was to give article "more scope". Page was susequently deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project.

I feel like I'm only scratching the surface here, I'd be happy to provide more diffs to back up any claims, Theres an AWFUL lot of history here. GainLine ♠ _♥ 15:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

A lot of this has probably been covered by Steve and Gainline, but I might aswell go through it again.

WP:COI

LP has a direct conflict of interest with the Corrib gas controversy, as they are involved in the main protest group that wishes to see an end to construction of a refinery. Despite acknowledging this COI several times, LP believes they do not "slant" edits and that the COI is not an issue (second paragraph - despite edits like this just prior) and may believe that it helps in their editing ( implication here of no longer having bias).

WP:POV

Following on from this, the majority (if not all) of content edits LP makes to articles related to Corrib gas are distinctly anti- Shell, anti- government, anti- police, pro/sympathetic- Shell to Sea. Despite this, LP believes they are editing with WP:NPOV and that edits to combat their own are invalid. As an example of how blind they are to WP:NPOV, LP claimed this edit was actually to fix neutrality issues.
Their POV editing extending to other areas too, most notable topics related to the US, Israel/Palestine and socialism (LP is anti-US, anti-Israel, pro-Palestine, pro-socialism). The most obvious example of this part of LP's POV editing (which I've already noted in my opening statement) is this edit to a Cuban spy group article, where the word "murdered" was changed to "killed" combined with this edit to a Jewish/Israeli paramilitary group where the word "killed" was changed to "blown up". Others are present though, such as referring to Israeli settlements as "occupation" and changing "settle" to "colonize", moving a page involving the IDF to include the word "massacre" and moving a page about an IRA bomb to remove the word "massacre" (the IRA edit is very old, just prior to the previous RfA). LP also made a blatant POV addition to the Iraq War article more recently, on September 3, along with this POV edit to the Gulf War article, which contained WP:OR and WP:WEASEL ("many", "some", "sources", "may have").
They also made a POV change of language to the Drone attacks in Pakistan article - changing of "claimed" to "asserted" when referencing a UNHRC report and changing "provided assurances" to "claimed" when referencing an American diplomat, in the same edit. Same tactic ("claimed" to "asserted") in other articles too.

WP:SOAPBOX

LP has created multiple articles that (do or did) exist solely to soapbox and push pro- Shell to Sea POV. These include Shell to Sea Fleet (AfD'd), Mary Devins (AfD'd), An Bord Pleanála and the Corrib gas project (AfD'd), Integrated Risk Management Services, Maura Harrington, Pobal Chill Chomáin, Glengad and Policing of the Corrib gas protests.

WP:PA/ WP:CIVIL

Twice indirectly compared editors to Nazis. Many many antagonistic, sarcastic, deliberately misleading and totally obtuse edit summaries. Some fairly nasty blatant attacks.

WP:EW

LP often edit wars to ensure their viewpoint is the one that's maintained in Wikipedia (I've been involved on the opposing side in some of these)
There's loads more, basically edit wars on every page I've encountered their Corrib gas-related edits.
(Whoops, I've just read that we're not supposed to link directly to page histories - not sure how else to show edit warring though)
Over inclusion of an anon ip's talk page comments
Over the police using "violence" instead of "force"
Over whether Rush Limbaugh's nationality is "United States" or "American", despite it being explained thoroughly on their talk page
Over the inclusion of references to the Corrib gas controversy (the Water unit is just an example here, edit wars occurred on most, if not all, Corrib-gas articles)

General Conduct

LP's style of discussion on talk pages is often characterised by focusing on minor details, while ignoring larger issues. They often bring up tangetially related comparisons in order to push their WP:POV. Often assumes people disagreeing with their edits have ulterior motives (second paragraph again). Often reverts wholesale changes by focusing on minor areas (that a POV image wasn't moved along with text content). Reverts large edits based on issues with single words. Implies that editors with less knowledge in a subject should not edit that subject's articles. Requests users to discuss changes on talk page, after being asked by an opposing editor to do so.

Other issues

Addition of content unsupported by accompanying source, despite acknowledging the source doesn't back up the content. Has a habit of restoring sections users have deleted from their (user's) own talk (or user) page. Continued to do it despite being warned multiple times, templated and warned again.

Notes

There's lots more evidence, but I've tried to just stick to the main issues. I can provide more if necessary, of course. Thanks! Fin © ™ 13:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I am an uninvolved editor, who has never edited or even previously read any of the pages cited here (that I know of). I have never communicated with or edited with or against any of the involved editors. I came here because I have run across a couple of Lapsed Pacifist (LP)'s edits in the past, and thought they were careful, well-researched and contributed to WP, so I was very surprised when I saw he was being considered for sanctions. I have done some research based solely on the links provided by those making charges against LP. Hopefully LP will answer these charges directly since I'm sure he can do a better job than I.

These editors have made many arguments and many, many links. I do not have the room (or free time) to research and respond to every one of their links so I will combine their arguments to respond. Please note that the links I discuss that they have cited are not the only ones that could be disputed - in fact based on my research all of their arguments could be similarly disputed if one had the time and space required.

These editors have claimed that LP (1) has a "COI"; (2) engages in "soapboxing"; (3) makes "POV pushing" edits; (4) adds "uncited material" and "original research"; (5) engages in "edit warring"; and (6) makes "personal attacks" on other editors. Because I need to limit the following to 1000 words it will be thinly argued, but I will gladly respond to any questions asking for more details if I have time to respond.

COI is irrelevant

I think this is so obviously true that it is not even worth arguing. I will simply point out that LP apparently freely admitted his involvement with Shell to Sea as soon and as often as he was asked.

SOAPBOX is unproven

Creating multiple articles about related subjects is not against WP policy and is not a sign of SOAPBOX. The list Falcon9x5 gives contains articles about protest groups, judges, notable (due to news coverage) protestors, private police firm, an Irish village, and a controversial corporate action. These are not articles about the same thing disguised as different article - so this allegation is clearly not proven.

"POV pushing" is untrue

I will consider one of the edits that LP made that is apparently so aggregious that Crossin cited it twice to show a "negative POV" and "heavy POV pushing", and Falcon9x5 cited it in both his opening statement and evidence to claim "the most obvious example" of "POV editing". The change is this edit. So what is included in this edit exactly?

Most of the changes LP made with this edit are what I have seen in the other LP edits I have looked at - they are undeniably to improve grammer, readability, and add links. And these are of course always welcome and encouraged. The remaining changes consist of the following:

"miniscule" -> "smaller": when speaking of quotas in WP's voice. The ones faced with the quota probably considered them "miniscule", but they are not being quoted here - WP's voice is being used, and WP should be NPOV.

"homeland in the land of Israel" -> "homeland in Palestine": at the time being written about (1939) there was a Palestine, but there was no land of Israel, so this is both a correction of fact and an improvement in NPOV.

"police were killed from a hidden mine explosion" -> "police were blown up ... when a hidden mine exploded": this must be the change that has Crossin and Falcon9x5 so worked up. But what is so extraordinary about this change? First there is no disputing that the police who were killed when the mine exploded were killed by being blown up - both ways of saying it are factually correct. And stating that a death occurred by being blown up is not unique to this page in WP: I quickly found a few other examples in other WP pages: soldier was blown up by a mine, Doctor was blown up in his car, soldiers got blown up, and Lord Mountbatten .. was blown up by a bomb. What exactly is wrong with this change then? If this "heavy" "most obvious example" of POV pushing is nothing of the sort then this allegation is apparently untrue as well.

OR is untrue

Crossin asserts LP original research here But in fact LP was correct - the material he wanted to add in a later similar exchange was finally added with a citation to irishtimes.com. The argument of the editors (GainLine and Falcon9x5) opposing LP claimed that a WP:RS stating Shell Security had done something was not sufficient to say that IRMS had done it, even when IRMS was the only security service that Shell had hired, was Kafka-esque and very thin at best. Since LP eventually prevailed in this argument (GainLine finally accepted it after having deleted it many times), how could it be original research?

Edit Warring is true only to the extent that GainLine and Falcon9x5 also Edit warred

There are of course two sides to every edit war, and it is of course impossible to prove who was "right" without looking at content. Suffice it to say that GainLine and Falcon9x5 were on the other side of the cited edit wars, so if LP was edit warring then clearly so were they. And in at least the OR example above, LP was ultimately found to be correct in his assertions. It is of course good that GainLine and Falcon9x5 ultimately accepted these edits by LP - but for them to put him through that harassment in the first place (they deleted his changes dozens of times before accepting that he was correct) - and to then file charges here against him is really not good form.

Inflated charges of PA are untrue and similar to PA made against him by involved editors

Examples of PA against him by an involved editor:

• Falsely accused of edit warring after making a single change to an article and after having made no other changes to it for the preceding five months
• Labelled as "vandal lapsed pacifist" in an edit history for a decidedly non-vandal edit,
• Again falsely accused of vandalism in another edit summary
• Falsely accused of harassment when asking a new editor whether he is a sock puppet (who is later indeed proved to be a sock puppet)
• Charged with having a history ... of unreasonable and sometimes agressive behavior

And what about inflated charges of PAs that he supposedly made? As to the most insidious claim that he "compared editors to Nazis", it is only necessary to read the links to see that this charge is inflated hyperbole: HERE and HERE, where the latter reference requires one to know about Goering's possibly misattributed quote "when I hear the word culture I reach for my revolver" - LP isn't comparing anyone to Goering - he's just saying it makes him angry when someone blanks his contributions. Or another of LP's supposedly worst PAs; accusing an editor of "lying" HERE. But in fact the other editor DID lie to the extent that he describing a hotly contested word change as a "spelling correction" in an edit history HERE and then denied it HERE.

Vandalism by GainLine aka MustyCrusty aka Greenlightgo

GainLine seems to think it important that LP didn't bring up his COI until he was asked about it. In fact LP never hid his COI after being asked, and has been very forthright about it. In contrast GainLine has a history of creating multiple accounts for himself, and he initially hid this fact, pretending to be a different editor. This diff shows that when LP asked him pointblank whether he was the same editor as MustyCrusty, his response was that LP should be kind to him as a newbie and assume good faith here and he falsely accused LP of harassment for asking the question and then removed LP's questions from his newly created account's user page HERE. Only later after his new account was researched and found to be a sockpuppet "indef blocked for inane edit-warring" HERE did he admit to being the same editor, at which point he created a whole new identify for himself (GainLine) where he this time admitted to his previous identities. The fact that GainLine had two simultaneous accounts begs the question whether there were others? And what name (if any) was he using before the Mustycrusty one?

GainLine's failure to abide by policy while editing under a different name wasn't restricted to hiding his multiple identities - see this particularly obnoxious edit where he added a link to Weightwatchers for an BLP article with a picture of an emaciated woman taking part in a hunger-strike here, and again here. Or these examples, inserting snide POV and completely fictional, uncited and indefensible original research here and here and here. And note that it was LP who was undoing these vandalism edits that GainLine was repeatedly inserting.

Or how about these examples where GainLine even more directly vandalizes pages that LP has created here and here.

It's great that this editor GainLine has apparently now (as of seven months ago) seen the light and is promising to abide by WP policy in his edits. But it should be remembered that he was playing these games through the time that is being reported against LP; and one can hardly expect LP or any editor to AGF in the face of such clear (and admitted) bad-faith editing. For GainLine to seriously think he can now report and seek sanctions against the editor who was trying to keep the articles sane in the face of GainLine's vandalism is frankly ridiculous.

I will be happy to answer any questions or analyze any particular allegation made against LP, since I think the ones that I have researched that are enumerated by other editors above are essentially worthless. But please be patient since I have limited time and a sometimes very busy real world. Thank you, Jgui ( talk) 02:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.