" 

 == the ""finding of fact"" == 

  
 Collect has edit-warred in US politics articles. , 
 :Passed 13 to 0 at  

 4 examples from one person who has stalked every single edit I have made for some years now ( . 

 :1. ""Oh please  no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR)  and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) "" 
 ::But several editors agreed with me that stating only one half of a claim is a BLP violation ..  and those seeking my neck included: 
 ::""As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑  "" 
 ::""The somewhat backhanded attempt to assert priority of Jr. High grammar over the statements of a notable adult is, at best, a content dispute. The statement of the subject should not be subjected to a reductionistic application of grammar, which is probably a form of WP:OR. There is a substantial difference between ""actively"" supporting something or ""passively"" not opposing it. And trying to half-way apply BLP (for exemption) to that would be twisted logic, especially if it were seen to serve as the rationale for engaging in an edit war.Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 "" 
 ::In short persistence by two ""devout followers of my edits"" as the OP never had edited that BLP in his life before.  Whatsoever - the only way to find it was by tracking my edits.    
 :2.  The famed PNAC case - and the fact is that an AfD on an ""article"" derived from that page was deleted as clear POVFORK SYNTH.   Treating this as a violation on my part - much less calling my edits a violation of WP:BLP implies the readers never even looked at the evidence - but simply looked and said ""Collect got blocked"" -   
 ::Ubikwit stated ""The only text I added to the article today was a copy edit to the lead after adding sources for the table and discovering in the processes that the lead only covered PNAC members that had served in an official capacity in the Bush administration, whereas there were also many that served in an advisory capacity. Second, a content dispute related to the table that I restored had been through the processes of a BLP/N thread with consensus giong against Collect and him refusing to defend his position at the end of the thread. I linked that thread on the Talk page today when I posted the sources for the table[221]."" 
 ::The issue was that posting SYNTH claims about living persons is expressly a BLP violation - as the AfD proved. Swarm blocked us both as having interpersonal problems - but did not examine the BLP issue which was, IMHO, settled by the AfD:  The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.  Note earlier PNAC issues included making a claim that the living persons listed supported use of genocide  through bacteriological warfare.  
 :3.  Joni Ernst reported by MastCell.    Issue was whether "" stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals"" with the concomitant statement ""Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories  is a contentious partisan claim.   I suggest the statement about Agenda 21 was a clear attempt by an editor who damn well should know better to add ""far right conspiracy theories"" as a claim which implies the living person backs far right conspiracy theories which is a BLP issue.  Did any Arbitrator actually read those edit?  Yes?  Really? 
 :4.    Yes  accusations that living persons are ""homophobic""  - ''' Panti (Rory O'Neill) alleged that some individuals involved in Irish journalism, Waters