Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Proposed decision

=Proposed final decision=

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 advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Standards of conduct (1)
2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Quality of sources
3) Wikipedia content generally rests upon reliable secondary sources as these meet requisite standards for fact-checking, interpretation and context. More partisan sources may be useful for referencing individual or organisational viewpoints but are unlikely to be suitable for the sourcing of general statements in Wikipedia's "voice." Particular care is required when including partisan sources in the Biographies of Living Persons policy on the coverage of public figures, in order to avoid a misrepresentations of accuracy, neutrality or context. Controversial sourcing usually requires editorial consensus either on the article talkpage or at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Not a huge fan of "more partisan", but the meaning is clear enough. Yunshui 雲 水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think I'd prefer something like "Sources with a point-of-view" or something similar rather than partisan here. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Standards of conduct (2)
4) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * L Faraone  20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, though the first sentence is a bit odd. The first two items seem to be bad things, while I don't see "ignoring all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals" as concerning. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per GW. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Locus of the dispute
1) The case focuses on user conduct in conflicts involving and others, principally in articles associated with United States (US) politics. It should be read in conjunction with the associated American Politics case, which considers wider user conduct issues across a similar article range.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the "read in conjunction" part with a case that I can't read without a trip to tomorrow, but the rest is solid -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Moving to support now that the last sentence has been removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Clerks, please remove the struck sentence before finalizing the decision. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm really not a fan of "read in conjunction" with a case we've yet to even post a PD in. Courcelles (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would rather strike the last sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Looking at GorillaWarfare's comment, I too would like to strike the last sentence. This case should stand on its own. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed. - Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging —I changed my vote based on the recent change, and he may wish to reassess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Collect
2) Collect is a long-term contributor to Wikipedia with more than 40,000 edits over eight years. Despite many positive contributions they have often been involved in disputes involving two-way accusations of battleground conduct, misuse of sources, personal attacks and hounding. Collect was briefly topic-banned from a subset of US politics articles in 2013. Since this topic ban, Collect has engaged in a pattern of disruptive conduct including:
 * edit-warring ,
 * attributions of bad faith , subsequently denied.
 * forum-shopping (linked examples #1, #2 and #3), and
 * refusal to "hear" other editors during the consensus-building process.
 * disrupting Wikipedia to make a point:
 * Example 1 - Lodging a nonsense RfC
 * Example 3 - lodging a vexatious 3RR complaint.
 * Example 2 - lodging a different nonsense RfC


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * With minor tweak to numbering,  Roger Davies  talk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Yunshui 雲 水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not convinced this is enough hard evidence to support a finding of this breadth. There's some misconduct here, but if this is the best the evidence can produce, I'm not convinced. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Support parts 1 and 2; oppose parts 3 and 4. Two of the three forum shopping links go to the same discussion. The third link shows Collect linking to the BLP/N discussion 6 days after the RS/N discussion. As for the IDHT examples, they don't rise to the level of an arb finding; worse things appear on ANI each day. Since opposing parts isn't an option, I am in the oppose column. However, my votes on the remedies will follow my broken vote here. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Even with the changes, I find myself dissenting in part. There are two to three FoF here jammed into one. The edit warring, assumption of bad faith and POINT making are supported here and at the evidence page. The forum shopping and the IDHT does not rise to the same level -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Guerillero, just add support for 5. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * I'm somewhat on the fence here, but I'm not fully convinced that the examples provided are sufficient to support this finding. Yunshui 雲 水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * thanks for the detailed response - I considered breaking these into sections but too late now people have voted. Re the issue itself, I believe the evidence across so many areas indicates a pattern of disruptive behavior sufficient for the remedies that follow. Any one element is insufficient in isolation. But taken as a group (edit-warring, NPOV, BLP issues, IDHT), they indicate the reason why this case has ended up here, and the proposed solution. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Euryalus, I will take another look at this after I put a dent in my last 20 page paper -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  19:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It might be worth splitting these out into separate findings, although I agree with some of my colleagues that most of these are pretty weak for the remedies suggested. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Molly, this is two or three FoF's slumped together, some stronger than the others. Courcelles (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Collect (2)
2.1) is a long-term contributor to Wikipedia with more than 40,000 edits over eight years. Despite many positive contributions they have often been involved in disputes involving two-way accusations of battleground conduct, misuse of sources, personal attacks and hounding. Collect was briefly topic-banned from a subset of US politics articles in 2013.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Collect (Edit Warring)
2.2) Since the 2013 topic ban, Collect has edit-warred in US politics articles. ,


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Some are worse than others, but, yeah, true. Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * per Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Collect (Disruption 1)
2.3) Since the 2013 topic ban, Collect has engaged in disruptive conduct regarding US politics articles, including assuming bad faith (, subsequently denied.) and abuse of process. (Lodging a nonsense RfC, lodging a different nonsense RfC, lodging a vexatious 3RR complaint) )


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In association with 2.4,  Roger Davies  talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To the points raised in opposition: not the happiest choice of phrase, but the point is valid. AGK  [•] 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * I'm not terribly convinced by the ABF diffs, especially the second. Although the comparisons to McCarthyism were unwarranted, those diffs all refer to a single instance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like us labelling RFC's as nonsense, and I largely agree with GW here. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 08:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * Taken as a whole, the pattern of his conduct has been disruptive, so I cannot oppose this. However I don't agree with the labels applied to all of the individual edits, and I agree re calling RFC's "nonsense" so I cannot support it either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Thryduulf. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comments:

Collect (Disruption 2)
2.4) Since the 2013 topic ban, Collect has engaged in disruptive conduct regarding US politics articles including forum-shopping (linked examples #1, #2 and #3) and refusing to "hear" other editors.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, accurate. I'm glad to see the fourth clause about nonsense RFC's did not make it into this breakout of FoFs. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * An editor is, of course, welcome to file whatever RFCs they choose, though the choice of topic often speaks volumes about their approach and attitudes.  Roger Davies  talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In combination with 2.3,  Roger Davies  talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 08:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Per my earlier comments. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

BLPs
3) Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view, including:
 * added poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons -
 * example 1 sourced to blog, example 2 sourced to blog;
 * while removing reliably sourced material from other BLPs -
 * Example 3, sourced to metro newspapers
 * Example 4 - sourced to widespread metro media coverage
 * Example 5, sourced to mainstream newspaper and
 * Example 6 - sourced to Huffington Post and NY Times
 * Example 7 - Sourced to New Yorker.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * AGK [•] 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to strike "incorporated a personal point of view" and make it read "Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view" We can prove there is an NPOV problem.  We cannot prove that the POV is personal, or go into motivations.  Revert if you disagree. Courcelles (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Courcelles, though I'd go further in saying that Collect has issues identifying when to apply BLP to statements. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  20:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With Courcelles' change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With Courcelles' change. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:
 * These aren't examples of good sourcing, but I'm not convinced they show enough to state that this is Collect's "personal point of view". It's leaning that way, so I'm not going to oppose, but it's not conclusive for me. Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC) Struck following Courcelles' change. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Thryduulf. NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Still thinking -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

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.

Collect topic-banned (option 1)
1) Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, for 18 months, in any namespace. '


 * Support:
 * first choice  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)  -- In view of the general preference for the second option, I'm joining the support for it.   DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose I object to the concept of a fixed-term ban. AGK  [•] 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Usual objection to a fixed term remedy.  Roger Davies  talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Per AGK and Roger. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * $StandardObjectionToFixedTimeBans also 18 months from today is 1 Nov 2016, a little under a week before the 2016 election. If there is a problem that a topic ban would remedy, sitting in the sin bin for a single election cycle will not solve it. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Time limited bans just don't work. So oppose this one on general principle. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As my colleagues state. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * To anticipate a question, do we mean this to apply to articles only, or to anywhere in WP?  DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual formula is "Any page relating to or any edit about". Would that be clearer here?  Roger Davies  talk
 * Clarifying that this applies to all on-wiki spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Collect topic-banned (option 2)
2) Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.


 * Support:
 * Euryalus (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * second  choice  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) revised  DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This seems to be the minimum sanction called for in the case of this editor, whose conduct in this topic was examined in American politics and who is also a party to another current case, American politics 2. However, I suspect Collect of being fundamentally unsuited to the collaborative editing environment of Wikipedia and would therefore additionally request the drafter to consider bringing further sanctions to the proposed decision. Regrettably, history has demonstrated that the only sanction effective in cases of systemic incompatibility with Wikipedia's editing environment is a ban from the full project. AGK  [•] 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support the site ban AGK suggests, but a topic ban does seem necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this will be enough. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like it, but I think this is necessary. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think this is, regretfully, necessary based on the evidence -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either, but Courcelles says correctly that this is necessary. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * To anticipate a question, do we mean this to apply to articles only, or to anywhere in WP?  DGG ( talk ) 19:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The usual formula is "Any page relating to or any edit about". Would that be clearer here?  Roger Davies  talk
 * Clarifying that this applies to all on-wiki spaces. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

One Revert restriction
3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.


 * Support:
 *  DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Compelling this editor to engage more readily in discussion and move towards reverting less hastily would probably do some good. AGK  [•] 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Roger Davies talk 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak support. I get that there haven't been many issues outside US politics, but at the same time, DGG's point below carries weight with what we've seen. -- DQ   (ʞlɐʇ)  20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1RR really shouldn't be seen as an onerous sanction, and in this case, it is a useful one. Courcelles (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose:
 * Yunshui <sup style="font-size:90%">雲 <sub style="font-size:90%">水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Salvio Let's talk about it! 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing evidence of extensive reverting outside the US politics topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:
 * Is there any particular reason for this?  Roger Davies  talk 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Bumping this,  Roger Davies  talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the material for the BLP section above, and considering the manner of participation in this case, I think that if Collect is banned from his preferred topic area, he will edit similarly elsewhere if he  edits at all. Remedies are intended to be preventative, and 1RR is pretty effective with editwarring. If this is not adopted, I think the probability is  that the individual will be back here. It would be better to prevent the disruption than to wait for it. The purpose of sanctions in general is not punitive, though it can look that way to the individual. The purpose is to prevent or at least modify uncooperative behavior so problems do not arise.  1RR does not prevent constructive editing by anyone on any topic. It doesn't stop all forms of disruptive editing, but it does decrease their intensity. There is no way whatever this proposal can do damage to Collect. It may prove to be unneeded, but it cannot be unduly restrictive of anything useful.   DGG ( talk ) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) (expanded  DGG ( talk ) 08:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC) )
 * Fair enough,  Roger Davies  talk 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support a suspended 1RR, that could be imposed at AE if problems do occur, but not one that is imposed now. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Slight copyedit, the wording was ambiguous about whether one-revert per page was allowed, or one revert across all articles. Courcelles (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclined to oppose. His editing outside of the area has been fine although limited. Still on fence. NativeForeigner Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed enforcement

 * Comments:

Template
1) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
2) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
3) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

Template
4) {text of proposed enforcement}


 * Support:


 * Oppose:


 * Abstain:


 * Comments:

General
A general comment on the Findings and Remedies: Happy to discuss any of the above, and suggest the PD talkpage may be the best location. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Brevity : these Findings and Remedies are brief, and narrowly focused. This case was designed to focus on a subset of user conduct within the wider field of acrimonious editing in US political pages. It therefore examined user conduct involving Collect and those he directly interacted with in these articles since 2013. Wider editor conduct issues are addressed in the American Politics 2 case, running concurrently.
 * What's not here : the Findings and Remedies are significant for what they do not include. Allegations of non-neutral RfCs, calling other editors "anti-semitic," hostile essay writing and (to some extent) abusing the concept of synthesis to advance or reject specific viewpoints, were in my opinion insufficiently supported by evidence. They have not therefore been included in the first cut of the Proposed Decision. Of course other Committee members may disagree with this view and add their own material to this page.
 * Who's not here : while some evidence was advanced against other editors besides Collect, these allegations were in my opinion a) insufficiently supported by evidence to rise to the level of Arbcom Findings or Remedies, and/or b) already effectively dealt with elsewhere. Findings were considered against two other editors, but were not included for one or both of these reasons. Again, other Committee members may disagree and add their own material.
 * Talkpage quote : a quote is listed on Collect's user page, which implies a criticism of another editor and is not being preserved for any imminent dispute resolution process. This issue was raised in /Evidence, and mentioned in the Workshop. It has not been included in this first cut of the Proposed Decision, because addressing it is a matter for routine administrative action and does not require an Arbcom Finding.
 * Delay in posting : my apologies on behalf of the drafters for the delay in posting this Proposed Decision.

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 (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority needed to close case. The Clerks will close the case immediately if there is an absolute majority voting to close the case or all proposals pass unanimously, otherwise it will be closed 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast.''


 * Support
 * Move to close. AGK  [•] 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Euryalus (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 *  DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Courcelles (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  22:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Comments