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

Just to note that as an Irish-based sysop, I can provide any background information the committee or clerks require relating the Shell to Sea, An Garda Síochána, etc. Stifle (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change of case clerk

I will be taking over this case from Tiptoety with immediate effect. Please direct any queries to me instead of him if you have any issues arising from the case. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 20:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification (December 2009)

Initiated by Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} at 11:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected: Lapsed Pacifist 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Remedies

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

Steven Zhang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Editor notified by initiator and me separately; mine was here (diff) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(all listed users notified)

Amendments

That the following additional remedy be implemented;

Lapsed Pacifist (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Statement by Steven Zhang

In a nutshell, the previous RFAR's remedies have done little to resolve the situation, if anything else, it has proved to be nothing but an obstacle that Lapsed Pacifist has done everything to avoid. They have been blocked twice since the RFAR [1], have had two AE threads [2][3], an ANI thread as well as several issues on their talk page. Others could detail other activities, but I am aware they have often reverted material without discussion (violation of remedy 5), has campaigned for POV material to be inserted into articles on talk pages (other editors will have the diffs). Now, I'd urge the committee to vote on a motion to implement this remedy. I'm not going to go out and say "I told you so", but you get the point. So please, think it over, and consider what the best decision would be here. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GainLine

I fully support what Steve has brought up. The evidence presented is just barely a representative sample. Further examination of the RfE and ANI threads will show plenty more examples of poor behaviour. If anything some of the sanctions such as the the reverting discusion have only served to intensify poor behaviour as LP becomes more confrontational on talk pages. User:Snappy has fallen victim in particular to this but LP seems to have reignited past confrontations such as with Steve, Falcon9x5, YNHockey to name but a few. This makes for an unpleasant editing environment and is an overall negative on the project G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 12:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned at RfE, I also would like to echo ONIHs sentiments, an indef block as well as SPI/Meat Puppet investigation may be necessary G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 15:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to ONIH ONIH makes a very good point. The problem isn't with the small number of edits made at the last RfE but more about LPs general approach to Wikipedia. One only has to look at the way in which LP dealt with their Conflict of Interest in relation to the Shell to Sea suite of articles as an example. Instead of editing with great caution LP, soapboxed and edit warred to the point where they were topic banned despite many appeals to stop and warnings. This is a very good example of how LP operates in a sensitive area and what they think of WP policy. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 14:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by One Night In Hackney

While not opposed to a one year ban, I really don't think it's going to deal with the problem only delay the inevitable. Realistically, there's been 3 AE threads since Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive51#Lapsed Pacifist deals with one block, then further violations of sanctions after that block expired, to wit violating his topic ban and failing to discuss a revert less than 18 hours after his previous block expired. LP is tendentious in virtually every area where he contributes, despite being topic banned from two areas due to tendentious editing. A topic ban is supposed to be a wake up call, saying stop being disruptive. Instead LP just ignores the wake up call, and the topic bans quite often, and just finds another area to be disruptive. He's been encouraged to use edit summaries in volatile areas, and a request was also made here. Does LP use edit summaries? Extremely rarely, as his contribs show.

I would advise everyone to look at this edit and the additional of "vassals" and also the problems with the edit to Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory detailed here, coming from an editor with a history of POV editing, two arbitration cases, two topic bans and a lengthy block log. LP cannot be reformed, he will not comply with any restriction, recommendation or even basic Wikipedia policies. It is more than past time he was indefinitely blocked in my opinion. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 14:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Vandenberg. The problem with LP isn't really any one single incident, but a persistent failure to get the point and abide by Wikipedia policies and his topic bans and other restrictions. LP has a major problem with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, for example where he wikilawyers in his unblock request that Fenian Rising is not covered by his topic ban, despite earlier being advised here that the topic ban be taken to mean the "Irish/British conflict over independence". It's hardly a huge leap of logic to realise that if someone is editing in a highly POV way in articles relating to the events in Northern Ireland post-1969, then it's obvious then they are going to be just as problematic on articles such as Easter Rising, Irish Republican Army and Irish War of Independence.

LP's flouting of his topic bans and other restrictions just never seem to stop, it's been one AE thread after another. If there's a way this can be resolved without "going nuclear" I'd support it, but I don't see a motion requiring him to use edit summaries as being sufficient to solve the underlying problems. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

I don't see any reason for Arbcom to go nuclear on Lapsed Pacifist. If Arbcom is bored, please amend the case to require LP to provide edit summaries for each edit. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by an univolved IP

I don't have the time or the patience to do a careful analysis, but it's pretty clear that LP is being targetyted for sanctions based on content disputes rather than conduct. GainLines contributions are biased, covering for real culprits such as Okedem. 86.180.59.163 (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion

Statements here may address all the amendments, but individual statements under each proposed amendment are preferred. If there is only one proposed amendment, then no statements should be added here.

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion

Awaiting statement by Lapsed Pacifist. He is currently blocked, but if he posts an appropriate statement to his talkpage, any user may create an appropriate subsection in this thread and crosspost it, or of course Lapsed Pacifist may do so when the block expires. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even where we have prior jurisdiction due to an arbitration case, community options still take precedence and must be utilized before seeking ArbCom's intervention. Absent some compelling reason that a community ban is not feasible, I am inclined to deny a request for further ArbCom involvement at this juncture. Vassyana (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Vassyana. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing reason to go this route, and I agree with Vassyana that this could be reviewed at the community level before coming here. Propose this be closed. Risker (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]