I hope it's clarified. The ideas were connected in my head, but I did not mean to imply that you want PHG banned solely or even predominantly because of incivility. I agree that PHG needs to better accept criticism and learn a thing or two about reliable sourcing (hence my emphasis on OWN and RELIABLE), but I have yet to see the evidence (which isn't to say it doesn't exist) that he "pour[s] bad information and fringe theories into Wikipedia". Also, to say that your main focus is not his incivility, while true, ignores the fact that it was brought up enough at ArbCom to generate a "reprimand" and it has been brought up since at various talk pages as he re-invigorates old issues. And another thing, you must realise that he personally targets you because he feels personally targeted? I have tried to advise PHG to leave this whole topic area well alone for a while (~a year) until heads have utterly cooled. This won't work, however, if you follow him around tagging his articles, like the France-Japan one. Whatever the merits or value of that (I'm unsure either way yet), it demonstrates the need for a better and broader solution than the current ArbCom one. Frankly, I like your sourcing amendment, I'd even consider lessening the length of the ban if PHG were willing to comply with your amendation for the good of the project, since I think sourcing is the major issue here.