After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 10 active arbitrators. 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned

1) For the duration of this case, Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

Enacted on 21:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Forcible ceasefires are rarely desirable, but this case appears to need it. — Coren ^(talk) 16:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Has been editing in this area recently. I am concerned though that those he is in dispute with have also been editing these articles. Ideally, all sides would stop editing the articles and present evidence instead. In particular, there appears to be a slow-moving edit war here. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply
Now support. Wizardman 19:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

~~Posting for consideration, not positive on my own opinion yet though. Wizardman 23:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)~~ reply

Proposed final decision Information

Proposed principles

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.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 23:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 23:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I like this wording - it explains "neutral point of view" well. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think I see where CHL is trying to head in his objection, but I believe that the existence of the divergence of goals is a position of conflict of interest even if it's not immediately disruptive since the risk of tainting the editing process remains. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The key in COI, in my view, is declaring it. The way Wikipedia works (with pseudonymous editors) obstructs that sometimes. If pseudonymous editors are prepared to declare their COI, or potential COI, that is fine. It is when they do not, and still edit such articles anyway, that problems can arise (they should steer clear of such articles if they do not want to declare such connections). Sometimes editing articles you are interested in can lead you towards COI without you realising it. The key is recognising when COI is possible, and declaring it, and taking steps to address it. Deliberately hiding a COI for nefarious purposes is, of course, anaethema to how Wikipedia should work. Carcharoth ( talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I don't think this is right. People often edit for reasons that conflict with our goals, but these aren't normally called conflicts of interest. Moreover, this seems overboard and likely to encourage hounding. I think we should cleave close to the text of the guideline WP:COI: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

The proposed principle is not incorrect, but I would say that it takes a broader position on what constitutes a COI than we normally have endorsed, so I agree with Cool Hand Luke that we could probably come up with a better formulation. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I'd be open for a rewording too. I found this one quite hard to nail down mentally. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

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.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Sourcing of articles

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Copyedited last sentence (and split into two), no substantive change in meaning, but Casliber please check. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 03:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Edit warring

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 03:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living persons

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 15:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Although the last sentence probably needs some rewording. If a notable person is convicted for murder, it is not misconduct to mention that fact in his or her article. It is adding, unreliable, unsourced, or unduly weighted negative material that is the problem. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Good point "unreliable, unsourced, or unduly weighted" duly added above. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 03:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

9) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Lapsed Pacifist in arbitration

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 02:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist's declaration of POV and COI

2) Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) has declared he has a Point of View and Conflict of Interest in articles related to the Corrib gas controversy and Shell to sea campaign. [1]

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Declared COI is better that covert COI, but remains a conflict. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Coren: yes, but an editor can contribute in spite of a conflict—for example, by suggesting changes on the talk page so that unconflicted editors can act on them. This case exists because LP fell short of these best practices. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Clear and admirable declaration of interest. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist has edit warred

3) Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) has edit warred, both within articles related to the Corrib gas controversy - [2] [3] [4], and elsewhere - [5] [6].

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Noting that the examples cited are merely illustrative. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 21:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Diffs here could be better. First link is to a talk page history. Several are to talk page histories rather than diffs or time-limited history diffs. But on reviewing the page histories and the evidence presented, I agree that edit warring has taken place. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist has used unclear edit summaries

4) Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) has used unclear edit summaries. This has proven problematic when done in volatile editing situations and is not conducive to a calm and courteous environment. These have included So?, I disagree, I strongly disagree, Undo whitewashing (when an editor removed material of undue weight, Undo whitewashing (again), So? (again, when an editor removed content that wasn't backed up by sources, Nonsense, [7], [8], [9]

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Some of these summaries are both unclear (not descriptive of the edit) and confrontational or argumentative. The former by itself would not really warrant an arbitration finding, so I suggest changing the adjective in the header and the text to "inappropriate" (but will support whether or not the change is made). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I am happy for either adjective and can see merits for both. The essence of the finding is to highlight the need for extra care in delicate editing situations. On their own, they are less problematic, but when one is at odds with other users, dismissive and abrupt summaries are much more likely to inflame an already volatile situation. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Care should be taken when summarizing an edit to both be accurate and helpful, especially given that they are — essentially — immutable. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 21:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Editorialising in edit summaries is an easy thing to do, but should be avoided. Edit summaries should be clear and concise, and lengthy explanations should be reserved for the talk page. I will note, while supporting this finding, that many editors use edit summaries like this. It is something that needs a culture shift to eradicate. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist's editing has led to article imbalance and undue weight issues

5) Some edits of Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) have led to issues of undue weight within articles [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes. Looking at the edits across many articles, it is evident that he is introducing a particular pov. Rather than fully developing an article, LP is interested in having the article mention something that supports a broader pov that he is pushing. This using Wikipedia as a soapbox. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Noting ArbCom's traditional reluctance to intervene in content issues, these examples diffs clearly illustrate problematic conduct. The edits reflect an agenda and strong point of view, introducing a clear bias into the articles. Additionally, the information added is not fully supported by the references, phrased with the clear intent of promoting the aforementioned agenda and a tone contrary to the reporting of the reliable sources cited. The diffs cited paint an almost textbook picture of soapboxing. Vassyana ( talk) 17:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Comparing these article versions with coverage in google news convinces me that this was undue weight. That said, this is about as close to ruling on content as I would like the committee to get. I would prefer if that finding focused on OR and POV pushing rather than declarations of undue weight. I agree with Vassyana's comments. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Changed "comment" to "content". Carcharoth ( talk) 02:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
First diff doesn't really seem to fit, but otherwise okay. Wizardman 21:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Some of the removal of the soapboxing may go too far the other way, but that is a content decision for editors to make. I agree with my colleagues that the edits over many separate articles is disrupting those articles rather than building them in the proper fashion, with attention to the whole article. Carcharoth ( talk) 02:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not sure about this one; will study these articles further, though since the remedy doesn't necessarily turn on this finding, it may not be critical either way. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Lapsed Pacifist has at times veered into ad hominem territory

6) Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) has made comments which have veered into commenting on the editor rather than the material. [15], [16].

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
The issue is arguably secondary, but the finding of fact remains accurate on its face. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Secondary, but true. Wizardman 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

First diff is unacceptable. Second is not something that would rise to the level of an arbitration finding. So on balance, I'm opposing this, per the abstainers below (also, if I abstain, this finding will pass, something I don't think the abstainers intended - it really is best not to abstain if you intend to vote later - better to put down a placeholder non-vote and comment). Carcharoth ( talk) 03:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

LP's contributions have made for an hostile editing environment on some topics. But I'm not sure this Fof addresses the problem. I might add something similar but that approaches it more broadly. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Awaiting FloNight's alternative proposal, if made, before voting. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think that Fof 4 and 6 can be combined to address the concern that LP's comments in the heat of the moment can unhelpful in settling down the situation. Looking through LP's and other editors contributions on the topic, I think that advice to focus on the content not the editor is warranted. But I'm not sure the LP's comments are worse than other editors involved in the dispute. So, I don't think that LP's comment need to be the focus of a stand alone Finding of fact that would be used to support a sanction for it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 01:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Per FloNight and NYB. The incivility seems to be a secondary issue. Vassyana ( talk) 17:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Ditto. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine has edit warred

7) GainLine ( talk · contribs) has edit warred. [17]

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

If that's all there is I'm sure we could find many other users who warred with LP that frequently. Wizardman 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Per Wizardman and to agree with the oppose that some of the abstainers seem to be leaning towards. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

This one example by itself does not rise to the level of warranting an arbitration finding. Open to supporting if additional examples are provided. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Per NYB. This appears to be a relatively isolated incident that is indicative of a broader pattern or part of a larger dispute. Vassyana ( talk) 17:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Do you mean "not indicative"? Carcharoth ( talk) 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I looked through the evidence and contributions history of the user, and most of reverting that I saw in recent months was the stuff that we identified as being problematic content added by LP. And GL was not going past 3RR, but rather removing it repeatedly over weeks. So, I'm s/w less inclined to highlight in a case. I'm open to reconsidering the matter if more extreme examples of edit warring is found and cited. If not, I'll likely change to oppose before the case closes. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this needs more, or more prominent, examples before it warrants a finding. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Same. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine has used two or more accounts abusively

8) Early in his wikipedia career, GainLine ( talk · contribs) edited as Mustycrusty ( talk · contribs) and Greenlightgo ( talk · contribs)

Support:

Important due to below infringement. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Minor copyedit (fixed tense). Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Could combine, but this is fine. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Combining these three findings should be done by the clerk when closing the case. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Suggest we combine with 9 and 10 to give a more complete review of his current status. Also see comment on 9. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine has vandalised a BLP

9) GainLine ( talk · contribs), as Mustycrusty ( talk · contribs) committed BLP violations here, here, here and here

Support:

I think that if Lapsed Pacifist was acquainted with the person whose article Gainline edited above, I think he is to be commended for not being more incivil. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I recommend that the Clerk be requested to omit the diffs from the final published decision, so as not to publicize the BLP violations further. I note that these diffs are someone older than I would normally wish to see cited in a decision other than as pure background information, but the circumstances warrant using them in this instance. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
( edit conflict) I really would prefer it if we removed the example links in the spirit of BLP. (Particularly as a permanent record of this case and with the upcoming arbitration elections that will certainly draw people to review this year's cases, it is preferable to not spread BLP violations by directly linking them.) Otherwise, I support this finding. Vassyana ( talk) 17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
NB: I strongly agree on their removal once viewed by other arbs and case heading to a close. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Noting that suppression of the diff will allow maintaining the case record without contributing to the BLP violation. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Combining these three findings should be done by the clerk when closing the case. Agree with removal or suppression of the final diff. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm close to opposing because it was so distant-over a year ago. Suggest we combine this and his other Fof based on old diffs with 10 to balance it more. It will be regrettable if an user in a dispute links to this Fof with out linking to 10. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine's later conduct

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

Support:

Important. Gainline has moved on from earlier behaviour and is to be commended for it. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FWIW, as a matter of balance in draftsmanship, I sometimes find it best to combine some of the negative and positive aspects of a given editor's conduct in a single paragraph. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
This improvement also appears to include some solid BLP work, which is an important contrast. Vassyana ( talk) 17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Important to place the previous two in context. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Could be combined, but this is fine. Cool Hand Luke 16:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Combining these three findings should be done by the clerk when closing the case. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Since 8 and 9 are so far in the distant past, I'm close to opposing them. But this helps give a more complete review of his current status. Still, I would like it better if we combined 8, 9, and 10 together to make sure that someone does not cherrypick one of them over the rest when citing the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I did muse quite seriously on combining them, but was aware we've run into problems when bundling findings, so felt it better this way, and that arbs would see the link between the three. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

11) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

All articles related to Corrib gas controversy and Shell to Sea

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
This can be relaxed at a later date on appeal. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

I think 1RR is unneeded with the topic bans. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I agree with implementing "article probation" (or one of our more-or-less equivalent more recent formulations) on these articles, but I'm not sure that a strictly enforced 1RR is needed right now if the user(s) most involved in edit-warring are to be topic-banned. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

All editors reminded

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Not appropriate in every instance of undue weight, but nonetheless, often true, and often overlooked. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
There are ways to deal with it, and this is one of the most constructive. In some cases, almost any mention would be undue weight. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Minor copyedits. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist admonished and reminded to be especially careful

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Copyedited. Vassyana ( talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 03:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist topic banned

3.1) Lapsed Pacifist ( talk · contribs) 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. (alternative offered given previous arbitration case)

Support:

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
~~FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)~~ reply
I don't want to make this indefinite. Looking through the talk page discussions, I think that LP was willing to engage in good faith consensus discussion sometimes but the controversial nature of the topic that LP edits makes it difficult for all the involved users to find a good resolution to the disputes. I'm willing to have LP engage in talk page discussions on this topic and later return to editing this topic if he is still interested after one year. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) reply
In the absence of evidence that Lapsed Pacifist understands the problematic nature of his approach and is able to moderate his conduct in this area, I feel this is unavoidable. Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I would prefer a definite period of time (I would support six months or a year) but given the apparent inability of Lapsed Pacifist to correct his behavior this is necessary. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I'm open to giving first support to a proposal with a time limit rather than indefinite, but some time for Lapsed Pacifist away from these articles is appropriate. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
He can appaeal if he thinks he can edit fairly at some future date. I assume this does not include talk pages. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

This should be time-limited and should be clearer on whether it includes talk pages. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Not sure the evidence justifies this, but if others do, I will not oppose. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Lapsed Pacifist encouraged

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lapsed Pacifist restricted

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I think this is adequate, rather than the topic ban. It also addresses concerns in other areas. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

GainLine restricted

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

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Unnecessary at this time absent evidence of recent misconduct. Will review again if more evidence is presented. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
His conduct presented here not severe enough for this. Wizardman 22:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Moved from abstain per comments below. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Needs more evidence. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

I do not see that this is needed. Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
~~Unless strong recent evidence is added to the Fof, I don't see the need. I'll likely change to oppose before the case closes. FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)~~ Move to oppose. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The case for edit warring in the findings of facts is too weak to support this. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I think he has it under control. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine strongly admonished

7) GainLine ( talk · contribs) is strongly admonished for vandalising BLPs.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support paragraph combining all three remedies concerning GainLine. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

If nothing new then can not support at this late date. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Better late than never? Given the improvement noted in the findings and the age of the past violations, this doesn't seem needed. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Per Coren. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
I would support strongly (no matter how long ago it happened), except he has improved. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine admonished

8) GainLine ( talk · contribs) is admonished for sockpuppetry.

Support:

Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support paragraph combining all three remedies concerning GainLine. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Too stale for mention in the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 00:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

GainLine commended and encouraged

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

Support:

Important as above problems are old, and editor has moved on. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 21:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC) reply

— Rlevse • Talk • 15:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 17:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
— Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support paragraph combining all three remedies concerning GainLine. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

Given that I've abstained on the admonitions, I suppose it would make little sense to support this floating by itself. If we are to address this user in the remedies section, the best thing might be to write a combined paragraph both admonishing him for the prior misconduct and commending the recent improvement. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Like NYB. Cool Hand Luke 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

10) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

11) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 13:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Prefer 1.1. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Abstain:

Proposed as a standard enforcement measure to accompany the article probation and restrictions. Abstain per my usual objection to the standard block time restrictions. Vassyana ( talk) 17:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Enforcement by block

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Lapsed Pacifist 2#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

The standard time period was one year. We started using one month for some situations where we did not feel that more than one month would be needed. I'm not sure how this got made into the new standard. We need to not tie the hands of admins by limiting their blocks to one month FloNight ♥♥♥ 18:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Per FloNight. — Coren ^(talk) 11:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC) reply
First choice, per FloNight. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC) reply
Wizardman 19:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Cool Hand Luke 14:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 13:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Per FloNight, with thanks for the explanation. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose:

Abstain:

I'm still uncomfortable with the five one-week block requirement, as well as the lack of indefinite blocks as an option, but this is less objectionable. Vassyana ( talk) 18:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Proposals which pass: Principles : 1 to 8; Findings : 1 to 5, 8 to 10; Remedies : 1 to 3, 3.1, 4, 5, 7 to 9; Enforcement : 1.1
Proposals which do not pass (insufficient majority in italics): Principles : Nil; Findings : 6, 7; Remedies : 6; Enforcement : 1

- Updated Mailer Diablo 17:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support"). 24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close. The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

The ruling has everything we need to close the case. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC) reply
— Rlevse • Talk • 02:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Notes need updating after my voting, but I'm done here. Carcharoth ( talk) 03:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Vassyana ( talk) 06:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Close. As indicated in my comments on the various findings and remedies, I might have structured the paragraphing of the decision differently; but it's not worth keeping the case open any longer just to potentially tweak the wording. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Oppose

Comment