Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Robert McClenon (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk)

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
t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop

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, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Under no circumstances may this page be edited by anyone other than members of the Arbitration Committee and the clerks. Please submit comments on the proposed decision in your own section on the talk page.

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:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Courcelles (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose:

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Courcelles (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Comments:

Not a huge fan of "more partisan", but the meaning is clear enough. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 21:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. LFaraone 20:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. 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)[reply]
13. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
14. Per GW. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

1) The case focuses on user conduct in conflicts involving Collect (talk · contribs) 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:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. [•] 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. 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 | Parlez Moi 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Moving to support now that the last sentence has been removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
13. Clerks, please remove the struck sentence before finalizing the decision. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. 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)[reply]
2. I would rather strike the last sentence. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Looking at GorillaWarfare's comment, I too would like to strike the last sentence. This case should stand on its own.

talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Removed. - Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Courcelles:—I changed my vote based on the recent change, and he may wish to reassess. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

Collect (2)

2.1) Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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:

1. Euryalus (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Courcelles (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. [•] 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Some are worse than others, but, yeah, true. Courcelles (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. DGG ( talk ) 03:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. per Courcelles. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
12. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 15:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. [•] 18:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. In association with 2.4,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. talk) 16:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. To the points raised in opposition: not the happiest choice of phrase, but the point is valid.
   [•] 18:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Oppose:

1. 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)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]
3. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 08:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. 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)[reply]
2. Per Thryduulf. --
   (ʞlɐʇ) 15:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. 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)[reply]

   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)[reply]

3. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. In combination with 2.3,  Roger Davies ^talk 03:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. talk) 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 06:24, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 15:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. [•] 18:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose:

1. Per my earlier comments. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

BLPs

3) Collect's article edits are indicative of

• 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[27]
  • Example 4 - sourced to widespread metro media coverage [28]
  • Example 5, sourced to mainstream newspaper[29] and
  • Example 6 - sourced to Huffington Post and NY Times[30][31]
  • Example 7 - Sourced to New Yorker.[32]

Support:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3.  Roger Davies ^talk 22:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. [•] 23:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. talk) 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. I'm going to strike "incorporated a
   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)[reply
   ]
7. Per Courcelles, though I'd go further in saying that Collect has issues identifying when to apply BLP to statements. --
   (ʞlɐʇ) 20:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. With Courcelles' change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. With Courcelles' change. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. NativeForeigner ^Talk 20:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Per Thryduulf. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Still thinking --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. 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)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. I suppose I object to the concept of a fixed-term ban.
   [•] 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Usual objection to a fixed term remedy.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per AGK and Roger. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. $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 | Parlez Moi 16:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Time limited bans just don't work. So oppose this one on general principle. Courcelles (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. talk) 13:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. As my colleagues state. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 20:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. Euryalus (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. second choice DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC) revised DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. 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.
   [•] 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. I wouldn't support the site ban AGK suggests, but a topic ban does seem necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Hopefully this will be enough.
   talk) 16:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't like it, but I think this is necessary. Courcelles (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think this is, regretfully, necessary based on the evidence --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't like it either, but Courcelles says correctly that this is necessary. --
    (ʞlɐʇ) 15:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Oppose:

1. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. DGG ( talk ) 19:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Compelling this editor to engage more readily in discussion and move towards reverting less hastily would probably do some good.
   [•] 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 07:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. talk) 13:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. 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. --
   (ʞlɐʇ) 20:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. 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)[reply]
9. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Yunshui ^雲_水 07:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
2. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm not seeing evidence of extensive reverting outside the US politics topic. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Comments:

Is there any particular reason for this?  Roger Davies ^talk 22:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Bumping this,  Roger Davies ^talk 05:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) )[reply]

Fair enough,  Roger Davies ^talk 10:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

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:

• 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.

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)[reply]

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 to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by --

]

Proposed Principles
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Purpose of Wikipedia	14	0	0		·
2	Standards of conduct (1)	14	0	0		·
3	Quality of sources	14	0	0		·
4	Standards of conduct (2)	14	0	0		·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Locus of the dispute	13	0	0		·
2	Collect	6	5	0		Cannot pass	Superseded.
2.1	Collect (2)	11	0	0		·
2.2	Collect (Edit Warring)	12	0	0		·
2.3	Collect (Disruption 1)	7	4	2		·
2.4	Collect (Disruption 2)	10	1	0		·
3	BLPs	10	2	1		·
Proposed Remedies
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
1	Collect topic-banned (option 1)	0	11	0		Cannot pass
2	Collect topic-banned (option 2)	11	2	0		·
3	One Revert restriction	9	3	0		·
Proposed Enforcement
Number	Proposal Name	Support	Oppose	Abstain	Status	Support needed	Notes
0	Enforcement of restrictions	0	0	0		·	Passes by default
0	Appeals and modifications	0	0	0		·	Passes by default

Notes

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

1. Move to close.
   [•] 18:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. talk) 18:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Euryalus (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5. Courcelles (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6. Thryduulf (talk) 22:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments