Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Elonka

Proposed findings of fact

PHG has not acknowledged the reasons for his original topic ban

1) PHG (talk · contribs) has still not acknowledged the legitimacy of the community's concerns that led to his original topic ban in the area of medieval and ancient history.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, per PHG's statement.[1] --Elonka 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. This is the heart of the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In view of this acknowledgement of PHG, I believe that this "finding of fact" no longer stands true.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This proposal seems to be very much grounded in fact. "Legitimacy" is excellent word choice to use here—PHG has advocated for the removal of his restrictions not because they are not warranted, but because they were placed under means viewed by him as illegitimate ("WikiLayering," if you will). The wording and the title of this will probably need preening if it is to become a Committee decision, however. Support at this point, though. AGK 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but I am also tempted to say "So what?". Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup is still ongoing

2) Extensive damage was caused to the project from PHG's previous biased editing in the topic area of medieval history, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles. After several months of work, cleanup efforts are still ongoing. (evidence)

Comment by Arbitrators:

(Future arbitrator) I'm not certain of the purpose of this finding. Is it to emphasize that the original sanctions were well-justified? Cool Hand Luke 19:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is to indicate that the damage caused was extensive, and that it's been taking a lot of time from other good editors to implement repairs. If the restrictions on PHG were to be lifted, it is likely (based on his talkpage comments) that he would simply go through the repaired articles and revert them to previous versions. It is also likely that he would then proceed on a rapid expansion drive, creating more biased stubs, and adding more biased information to other articles. We (the editors engaged with repairs) would then get even further behind the curve, since PHG causes damage at a rate much faster than other editors can move in for cleanup. We're not talking about a few biased comments here and there, we're talking about large amounts of content creation, in ways that make the biased information difficult to identify, and difficult to remove. For example, PHG tends to do a lot of copy/pasting, to make WP:COATRACK articles. Take a look at the similarities between Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia. He also tends to copy/paste lists of reliable sources into an article, even if those sources have nothing to do with the article. We would often find places where he would simply do a Google search for a hobbyist website on some topic, then he would write the Wikipedia article based on (incorrect) information from that website, but he would copy/paste in a list of reliable sources that he got from books.google.com, even though those books had not ever been used to source any of the information in the article. These kinds of actions make cleanup very difficult and time-consuming. It's not just about removing bias, but about checking the sources used, removing the sources that have nothing to do with the article, and other things which require a great deal of time and effort. --Elonka 19:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I see. In that case, I think this finding should be combined with a finding based on your evidence here. What would you think about two findings like this:

1. "When PHG editing was unrestricted, user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles; cleanup efforts are still ongoing."
2. "PHG's behavior on several talk pages suggests user would resume adding POV to certain articles if unrestricted."

Thoughts? Cool Hand Luke 02:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added such findings in #Proposals by Cool Hand Luke. Cool Hand Luke 21:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. The damage caused has been substantial and has consumed a large amount of volunteer resources. Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What is of concern here is the future contributions of PHG and not his past behaviour before his ban. That part of his contributions has been examined in the past. Now we should examine his contributions since that time and try to guess to what extend he has improved or not.--FocalPoint (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to "two findings" proposed by Cool Hand, Proposal no 2. It appears from evidence that PHG's behaviour has changed. Is it not fair to give him a chance? Let us make an analogy: "This thief will probably go on stealing after he is released, so ... let us keep him in jail for ever, to make sure he does not steal again": Effective, but unfair.--FocalPoint (talk) 15:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Inexact. What Elonka claims as "cleanup" is actually the deletion of large amounts of referenced material without discussion (cf. [2]). When such actions are especially questionable, I simply mention them on the relevant Talk page, in an extremely cool and civil manner, as specifically allowed to me by the Arbcom ruling. I also strongly dispute Elonka's claim of "Extensive damage" which is really her own interpretation and nowhere to be found in the findings of the Arbcom ruling. PHG (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose This statement is disproved by the independent review of the evidence made by Arbitrator Cool Hand Luke [3]. The review shows and states that my representation of the sources is essentially proper and my contributions are not undue weight. Elonka's claims of POV-pushing, Undue weight or "massive damage" are therefore unwarranted. Since the Arbcom March 2008, Elonka has set up her own interpretation of the Arbcom findings, establishing a supposed "cleaning list" [4], from which supposed "POVs" had to be eliminated in order to repair alleged "damages" that would have been made, but this is absolutely not grounded in the 2008 Arbcom finding, and certainly not the application of an Arbcom mandate. It seems Elonka has been using the Arbcom as a pretext to set up her very own policing operation, and has been using it to constantly misrepresent my contribution: especially, insinuatory list-building seems to be one of Elonka's favourite techniques and has already encountered huge opposition on Wikipedia [5]. The actual perusal of Elonka's interventions shows massive deletions of properly referenced material, which CHD has kindly qualified as being faithfull to sources and not undue weight [6]. In many cases, valuable, referenced, not undue weight information is thus altogether eradicated from Wikipedia [7]. PHG (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As the previous. I have the feeling that PHG wouldn't be welcome, even if he did try to help, which he hasn't of course. Perhaps I'm wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) [Fortunately it was quite simple to correct my comment. My apologies. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)]

Too strong: PGH should stop writing articles the sole aim of which is to add credence to interactions between the French and the Mongols circa 1300. There are no problems when it comes to the Armenians and their Mongol or Malmuk overlords, provided the articles steer clear of this idée fixe. PGH should add historical material encyclopedically rather than as spin-off articles to prove one point. There is no "black and white" here - the revelation of "truth" on wikipedia - because of well-known difficulties medieval historians have with the evaluation of primary sources (particularly the use of Arabic sources). Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the problem with such an "idee fixe" is, that the affected person is unable to put it aside. I doubt that PHG introduces bias on purpose (in bad faith). He simply doesn't notice how distorted his perspective on history is. That makes him unable to put the information found in sources into the correct context or to give it an appropriate weight. But it doesn't change the necessity to protect Wikipedia from such bias. --Latebird (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

PHG's topic ban is extended indefinitely

1) The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history, which was set to expire in March 2009, is extended indefinitely.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, due to the fact that cleanup is still ongoing, that PHG still does not acknowledge the things he did which led to the topic ban in the first place,[8] and that PHG is still being combative on the talkpages of articles which are undergoing cleanup (evidence). The ban should remain in place to protect both PHG and the project, until PHG acknowledges the concerns that led to the ban, and agrees to adapt his future editing practices accordingly. --Elonka 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Support the sentiments. However, the Committee has been loath to place sanctions extending more than one year. If necessary, this should be passed as a one year sanction with a mandatory review rather than automatically being allowed to lapse. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend to support this; but my latest evidence leaves me little choice. He has twisted my words enough; please keep him out of our hair. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Definitely not. An extension for a definite period, say six months, followed by further review would be reasonable, if combined with a reduction in the current very broad scope. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I had many (if infrequent) encounters with PHG in articles about Mongolia related topics, and over several years his activities were always consistent with the reasons that led to his topic ban. Over the last few months the encounters were fewer, but other than that I see no change in his approach, and that he still doesn't acknowledge the problems is obvious. My current interpretation is that he may simply be unable to change, so it's probably safest to extend the ban indefinitely. This is kind of unfortunate, because he seems to have a pleasant personality, and would probably be nice to work with under other circumstances. But the goal must be to protect Wikipedia from further damage, not to provide a training environment for individual editors. --Latebird (talk) 10:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

PHG's editing patterns have changed, as various people have observed. Pmanderson's emotive statement "Keep him out of our hair" has no place on this page, particularly since many of the users commenting here are, like me, not professional historians. Several editors, including Akhilleus, have suggested that there were problems with Indo-Greek kingdom and its companion articles, Indo-Greeks (sources), History of the Indo-Greek Kingdom, Religions of the Indo-Greeks, Art of the Indo-Greeks and Legacy of the Indo-Greeks. Proposals so far have suggested a topic ban on editing articles related to Crusader countries and the Mongol empire in a broad sense. Perhaps this might be extended to cover this other specific topic, i.e. articles related to interactions between Ancient Greece and India. On the other hand - unlike speculations concerning the presence of Hethum II of Armenia in Jerusalem circa 1300 - this particular topic, which PHG started already 5 years ago, is not hypothetical and does cover actual events in history, even if a lot of the evidence is numismatic. Blanket topic bans on ancient or medieval history do not seem to be under consideration any more. Mathsci (talk) 08:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG restricted

2) PHG is restricted from filing further ArbCom requests or motions on this matter, unless such requests have first received the approval of his mentor.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Elonka 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Restrictive clause is pointless. If Angus approves of the filing, he can file it; I would expect him to trim the paragraphs of recrimination in the process. But I'm not sure this is appropriate with an indefinite ban. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea. WP:RFAR is a busy page and the Committee often takes too long to hear important matters. PHG has filed too many meritless appeals. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not believe it should be up to me to say yes or no to PHG. My role, as I see it, is advisory. If PHG wants my advice, he can ask for it. I cannot promise an immediate response, especially over the coming three months when I will undoubtedly be very busy in the real world, but I will reply when I have time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Septentrionalis

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not governed by legislation

1) WP:NOTLAW says: "Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. Editors and administrators alike should seek to uphold these rules only when doing so would produce a better result for the encyclopedia, never simply because they are "rules". Insisting that something must (or cannot) be done simply because of policy is a form of wikilawyering."

Similarly, ArbCom's decisions are preventative, not punitive; they are not, and do not claim to be, "justice" or a legal proceeding, but are the restrictions on behaviour necessary to producing an encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed in response to this statement by PHG, which appears to regard this modification as a Good Conduct medallion. Perhaps if ArbCom says this is not a legal proceeding, PHG will listen> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

Ban extended

1) PHG's topic ban is extended for a year. Towards the end of that year, a clerk will remind all participants in the present discussion that the ban is due to expire, and invite requests for modification.

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we renew any kind of editing restriction, I think the "toward the end of the year" clause would be prudent. I've proposed a different editing restriction at #PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended. Cool Hand Luke 21:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This seems more suitable to Elonka's proposed silencing of PHG than an indefinite ban. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "silence" PHG, but neither do I think it's a good idea for him to return to unfettered editing in this topic area unless we are sure that he has turned over a new leaf. Before the ban should be lifted, PHG needs to acknowledge the community's concerns that led to the ban in the first place. He must also be able to articulate how he is going to improve his editing practices in the future. For example, he needs to promise that he's going to stick to modern secondary sources, rather than continuing to engage in original research based on medieval primary sources, or cherry-picked quotes from sources in the 1930s or earlier. He also needs to acknowledge that there is consensus for the article Franco-Mongol alliance to exist in its current 70K state, rather than the 200K state he kept trying to revert it to. And he needs to provide assurances (and hopefully demonstrate by example) that he is able to work in a cooperative and collegial manner with other editors in this topic area. To protect the project, and PHG, we need to be comfortable that if future disputes arise, he will proceed slowly and carefully and work with other editors to try and find a consensus, rather than trying to insist that he is right and that other editors are wrong and/or "out to get him". When the problems occurred that led to the case in the first place, PHG's disruption was literally exhausting the other editors in this topic area -- he would create a "fringe history" stub, other editors would move in to try to fix, and PHG would react by creating three more stubs. When sources were challenged, PHG would start reaching into more and more obscure sources to try to prove his point, and create thinly-sourced stub articles on obscure historians of limited notability, to try and make it look like the historians were reliable, even when they weren't. PHG's editing was like a runaway train, that was leaving a wide trail of damage in its wake, and we're still not done with cleanup from the last time. So that's why it would be best to extend the ban to indefinite. If PHG does state (and prove) that he can change his ways, then we can look into lifting the ban. There's no need to put an automatic renewal on it each year, since that will just keep stirring things up again, and waste the time of good editors who could be working on other things in the meantime. --Elonka 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant your silencing his appeals to ArbCom. While repetitive and futile, it is his only remedy. I see the point of not doing this every year; but what middle point is there between one year and forever? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The middle point is, "PHG acknowledges the concerns and promises to adapt his behavior accordingly". The ban is not in place as punishment, like a prison term from which someone will be released when they've served their time. Instead, the ban is in place to protect the project from biased editing, and to protect PHG from more severe actions on his account (such as a block). If PHG wanted the ban lifted early, or even to avoid the original ArbCom case altogether, all he would have needed to do was make a few conciliatory statements, and indicate that he was willing to adapt his behavior to work in a more collegial manner in the future. Instead, he has continued to remain combative, and to insist that he never should have been banned in the first place.

One of the things I strongly disagree with about the way that Wikipedia currently handles disruptive editors, is that we too often put these automatic expiration dates on their blocks, and let disruptive editors right back into the project, even when they never promised that they were going to do anything differently. Short-term blocks are appropriate in some situations, perhaps for the first couple of problems with an editor, but after that, my feeling is that we should indef block the disruptive editor until they indicate that they understand what they did wrong, and are going to voluntarily change. Otherwise we just keep setting ourselves up with a revolving door, where we keep "hoping" for change, even though an editor has not given us any plausible reason to believe that they will change. With PHG, so far I have not seen anything from him to indicate that he is going to change his editing practices in the topic area of medieval history. Until he indicates that he will change, the ban should remain in place. --Elonka 05:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wasting ArbCom's time

2) ArbCom has now considered this matter; ArbCom expects any petition on this matter during the duration of the sanction, to arise from a substantial change in the facts. ArbCom recommends that PHG request his mentor consider filing petitions for him instead of filing them himself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I can't see us adopting wording that indicates that PHG should not be filing petitions for himself. We want to have open communication with users that are under our sanctions. If the situation is not working well, we need to know. That said, if the mentorship is working well, a mentor would not be surprised by the ideas in the filing and hopefully would agree with them. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And when you get such a volume of communications that you cannot respond to them promptly, what then? Some people demand more than their fair share of attention. There should be limits. Jehochman ^Talk 15:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Then the Committee duly ignores—or pays little attention to—them. This proposal could be very easily adopted on a de facto basis; a full principle such as this, which has the unfortunate impression of causing the Committee to appear as though it "can't be bothered" with banned user appeals, is not necessary. AGK 21:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Needs rewording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. --Elonka 19:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Again, I don't see this as reasonable. Mentorship involves advice and support. If he wants advice or support I am willing to help PHG in any way I can, but it's not for me to make decisions for him. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

3) PHG's mentor may request that PHG be permitted to edit any page otherwise covered by the topic ban, on its talk page. If a consensus of at least three editors agrees, he may edit it; if any editor objects to PHG's editing, he shall cease.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I like the intent of the proposal. But I'm not sure that we want to micromanage the mentorship this closely. Getting into this level of detail has its problems because it may not anticipate the unintended consequences of this approach and we are locked into using it. I might offer wording that lets the mentor make exceptions to the topic ban for a particular article. Suggestions welcome. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(Future arbitrator) I also like the intent, but the "three editors" rule seems like rules creep. Mathsci's evidence suggests that there are topics of medieval history—particularly French history unconnected to the Mongols—where PHG is an asset to the project. A finding like this could be a good tool for him to focus his efforts in those unproblematic areas. Cool Hand Luke 19:21, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The two halves of this are intended to be the same restriction: if nobody objects to what PHG is doing with a page, we should have the advantage of his energy and sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like this one, as it would allow PHG the opportunity to phase back into work in the topic area. I would be especially interested if PHG and his mentor would be willing to participate in the cleanup of some of the remaining articles in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review. For example, the PHG-created articles Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia are still heavily duplicated, and it would be good for them to be either cleaned up to be more distinct, or completely merged. Also, Pmanderson's "consensus of three editors" may not be necessary... For example, if both Angus and any actively involved editors on that article agree that PHG should be allowed to edit an article, and no one disagrees, I'd say that PHG should be allowed to edit, even if it's not a "three-editor" consensus. --Elonka 18:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm just trying to avoid a consensus consisting of PHG and PHG, which would justify another stub explosion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if Angus and PHG both suggested that he should edit an article, and no one else responded at the talkpage within a week, I'd say PHG should be allowed to proceed, until/unless another editor objected. But I agree that it should be more than just PHG -- at a minimum, his mentor would have to be in the loop. --Elonka 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Invitation

3.1) PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, may waive his editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

If we decide to reword PHG's mentorship and topic ban, I could support including similar wording. It might not be a stand alone proposal but be part of a longer proposal about the topic ban, ok? FloNight♥♥♥ 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed per FloNight's concerns on 3 above. after consulting the talk page concerned would be an alternative wording. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any such idea, however phrased, would be fine - as long as it is not a means by which PHG can evade the ban altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

I like this one too, with one modification, that it shouldn't be solely up to the mentor. If there's a consensus at the talkpage that PHG should stop editing that page, then that should be enough. Alternatively, we might phrase it like other discretionary sanctions, as "any uninvolved admin may re-impose the editing restriction", guided by the consensus on the talkpage? --Elonka 18:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any good faith objection at the talk page should be enough. It should take a consensus to ignore the general sanction, and absence of consensus to restore it; but FloNight is right that ArbCom shouldn't get into that detail. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support the sentiment here, but would, per Flo, prefer the prose of this proposal and the text establishing a fresh mentorship to be amalgamated. (Such a course of action has the advantage of entailing a simpler decision, too; by the looks of Piotrus 2, the Committee's decisions are getting very long. Let's keep it short where we can. :-)) AGK 21:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Hellenistic India

The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles on Hellenistic India, although he is permitted to comment on talk pages, for a period of one year, after which this ban may be reconsidered.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, for the record. I think my evidence shows that he still holds an extreme position on this, although he may not hold it with the extreme intensity that he does on Franco-Mongol relations. If (4) and (5) are enacted together, it need not be a severe restriction. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Restriction flexible

5) Any uninvolved admin may extend PHG's editing restriction to other subjects as needed.

PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, may waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, as a way to adapt the editing restriction in both directions. This could in principle result in PHG's editing restriction being extended to a new topic, and then waived for all articles in that topic, but that would be acceptable; presumably this would only happen if someone objected to PHG's editing and then later all objections were withdrawn, which would be a great sign of progress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I support this generally, but the wording appears a bit muddled. Perhaps a better wording would be: "Any uninvolved administrator may extend PHG's editing restriction to other pages within the topic area of medieval/ancient history, as needed. These kinds of discretionary sanctions may also be placed or otherwise modified by PHG's mentor." --Elonka 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I intentionally did not restrict this to a given period. If a Renaissance or Emlightenment topic proves to be the next trouble ground, an admin should be free to use it. Letting the mentor do it is fine by me; but I don't think Angus wants to, and there is a conflict of interest involved. The mentor is an advocate for PHG, not a jailor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, over the last several months, PHG has been able to edit in other topic areas without any serious problems. Aside from the issues with non-English sources (which were addressed by previous motion), PHG's editing has been reasonable. So it might be best to go with the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy here. If his edits have never been problematic in the post-medieval topic area, then there's no real need for restrictions. As for medieval and prior though, there definitely have been problems in the past, which is why providing for a safety net of authorized sanctions from uninvolved administrators is a good idea. --Elonka 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If PHG continues not to be problematic, the uninvolved admin should not be called in, and will never agree to an extension if he is. But whichever way ArbCom goes on this is fine by me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Enforcement

Logging

1) All changes in PHG's editing restriction more extensive than a waiver from his mentor should be logged on this page. Waivers from his mentor should be clearly indicated on the talk page of the article concerned, although the mentor is welcome to log them here also.

Comment by arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed, largely boilerplate. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others

Proposals by Newyorkbrad

Proposed principles

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.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From our decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I offer my support for this. I suspect a synonym for "camaraderie" suitable for the layman could be used in this proposal's prose (with this as the thinking). Well-written, though, and impressively succinct. AGK 23:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reliability of content

2) Maintaining the reliability and accuracy of article content is extremely important. Where the accuracy or reliability of an edit or an article is questioned, contributors are expected to engage in good-faith, civil discussion and work toward a resolution of the concern.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From the Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sourcing

3) Statements in articles should be supported by citation to reliable sources and may not constitute original research. Appropriate sourcing is particularly important where the contents of an article are controversial or their accuracy is disputed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From the Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Accuracy of sourcing

4) The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From the Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Bingo; support. AGK 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Very appropriate and accurate. Mathsci (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

5) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From the Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sadly I cannot foresee this principle having any practical effect on the writing of the encyclopedia. Theoretically very sound, however, and well-written. The Committee would better serve the community through formulating some useful tutorial-type assistance on NPOV—or something. :-)

I simply fear that churning out haughty and waffly principles is just not working any more.… AGK 23:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

While WP:NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia, we should be cautious here. NPOV is a tool to determine content when there is a dispute. It is not reasonable to expect that the early versions of any new article will approach the ideals set out in NPOV, any more than we expect every new article to meet the goals set out in WP:V, WP:MOS or any other policy or guideline relating to content. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and it is only as that work progresses that we can expect NPOV and WP:UNDUE to become more and more relevant to the content of a particular article. The best any one editor can be expected to achieve is to fairly represent the sources which they have to hand at the time of writing. When new sources become available, either to that same editor or because new editors work on the article, then, and only then, NPOV and UNDUE become of critical importance. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Problematic editing

6) Contributors whose actions over a period of time are detrimental to the goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia may be asked to refrain from those actions, when other efforts to address the issue have failed, even when their actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. From the Franco-Mongol alliance decision. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sound in theory, but what makes this pertinent to this case? Some evidence links—even only whilst this is in workshopping (they could always be dropped in the final decision)—may assist in providing the community with some background reading on how this fits in with PHG. AGK 23:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

AGK asks for diffs. Elonka's evidence pointing to Talk:Jacques de Molay#Deletions, Talk:Guy of Ibelin (died 1304)#Deletions, and Talk:Armeno-Mongol alliance#Deletions seems relevant here. Sample diffs strongly suggesting that PHG has not changed his position as recently as this past month: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, not directly relevant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Compliance with sanctions; learning from mistakes

7) Users who have been justifiably criticized or formally sanctioned for improper or unhelpful conduct, especially in an Arbitration Committee decision, are expected to avoid repeating that conduct. Continuation of the problematic behavior can lead to an extension of sanctions or more restrictive sanctions. Conversely, sustained improvement in editing may lead to the lifting or narrowing of sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Emphasis on the word, "may". Because if the situation is stable from the editing restrictions, perhaps the editing restriction should stay in place. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would observe that that point is self-evident: if restrictions are necessary to maintain stability, it would suggest there has been little improvement in behaviour. In practical terms I don't think it's possible for a situation to exist whereby an editor's behaviour is no longer an active source of disruption and yet those specific restrictions (on that editor, at least) remain necessary for the stability of an article. AGK 23:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Mentorships

8) Users who have placed under mentorship or entered into a mentoring arrangement, whether voluntarily or pursuant to a committee or community sanction, should consult and take guidance from the mentor or mentors when issues arise concerning their editing. Inability to work constructively with a mentor or series of mentors may be a sign that a user has continued difficulty in collaborative editing and stronger sanctions are required; successful editing during the mentorship may demonstrate that the opposite is true. The time and effort of editors who volunteer to assist as mentors is appreciated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the idea in this proposal. It is also important to note that sometimes mentoring relationships are not successful for other reason than uncollaborative editing, such as the mentor not being available to work with an user. I don't anticipate that being the problem in this situation from the evidence that I've seen, but we need to keep an open mind as we evaluate the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Well-written, yes. Softly worded and doesn't explicitly state that in most cases editors who fail to work well with their mentors will be evaluated with a view to whether stronger sanctions are necessary, which is very much the case. (In fairness, I am one who often utilises warnings and written messages to punch the message across—in stark contrast, curiously enough, to my leniency in practice as an administrator. :) Colour me all words and no action, I suppose!)

Perhaps a little more backbone could be written into this? AGK 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:FocalPoint

Proposed findings of fact

Compliance with sanctions

1) Users who have discontinued behavior for which they have been sanctioned by an Arbitration Committee decision, should be given the opportunity to prove whether they have permanently modified their behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

They do anyway; I therefore don't think the Committee needs to pass this principle. The Committee is not bound by precedent either, so this would effect little practical change (if that is indeed what you are seeking). AGK 22:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I do not understand what you are talking about. "They do anyway" means what? Who are they? Do the users, should the users have a chance to demonstrate learning new ways? Or you mean something else? Furthermore, I have no clue what you refer to when you are talking about precedent.--FocalPoint (talk) 17:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't being clear; I'll break it down:

They do anyway

Editors who have discontinued behaviour for which they have been sanctioned by the Committee are given the opportunity to prove they have reformed. The Committee conducts periodic reviews of all sanctions.

Precedent

The Arbitration Committee is not bound by rulings it has made in previous cases; such has been the nature of Arbitration since the Committee's inception. (The thinking therein is that, if the Committee passes a poor decision, it can easily move on without being hampered by an earlier misjudgement.) Cf. Wikipedia:No binding decisions, Case law, Precedent (law). You seem to be proposing this principle in the hope that the Committee will, in the future, ensure that all users will be given the chance to demonstrate they have reformed; that will not necessarily be the case—as the Committee is not bound by precedent.

Make sense? I can provide further explanation if you so wish.

AGK 19:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. I had no intention to propose the principle for future cases. I am not accustomed to the idea of binding precedents. I believe that this principle is pertinent to this particular case.

I believe that if a user has behaved well, he should get a chance to prove he can do better. If you can phrase it better, please do.--FocalPoint (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, your thinking makes sense to me. Yes, I would probably therefore support this principle, I suppose. AGK 21:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by Cool Hand Luke

Proposed findings of fact

Prior damage in topics related to Mongol alliances with European nations

1) When PHG's editing was unrestricted, user caused extensive damage, which resulted in strong bias being introduced into dozens of articles related to Mongol relationships with European nations. Cleanup efforts are still ongoing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, this finding is based upon one of Elonka's findings, #Cleanup is still ongoing, and her evidence cited there. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK with possible wording change to "medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East". FloNight♥♥♥ 21:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Frankly, basically nothing existed on Wikipedia on the subject of the relations between the Mongols and the West before I started contributing in that area. I provided as much information as I could, focusing on documented instances of Franco-Mongol collaboration. I even created the Franco-Mongol alliance article and related articles to document these exchanges. Calling this "extensive damage" and claiming "major cleanup efforts" is highly unfair. PHG (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Cool Hand Luke's finding, with the nit-pick that "Mongol relationships with European nations" would probably be better worded as "medieval history of the Mongol Empire and related events in Europe and the Middle East". Not all of the Mongol relationships we're talking about were with Europe. The affected areas stretched from Cairo northwards through Palestine to what we know today as Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Georgia, as well as Cyprus, Turkey, and Greece. Though some of the Crusader states could be called European, it would be a stretch to extend that definition to all of the Armenians, Turks, and Egyptian Mamluks. --Elonka 02:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Continued likelihood of POV pushing

2) PHG's behavior on several talk pages suggests user would resume POV editing on topics related to Mongol-European alliances if unrestricted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Inspired by Elonka's finding #Cleanup is still ongoing, and based upon her evidence Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#PHG is continuing to engage in POV-pushing. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Elonka calls "POV pushing" the fact that I challenge her massive and unexplained deletions of the referenced material I contributed to various articles. First, I do so in a very cool manner: I simply mention the deletions, and suggest that other editors look at whether the deletions are appropriate. Second, I am perfectly allowed by the Arbcom to make such comments on Talk Pages. I don't think challenging deletions in such a civil and factual manner has anything to do with "POV pushing". PHG (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Cool Hand Luke's principle, though again with the caveat that "Mongol-European alliances" is inexact. Perhaps just "... would resume POV editing on Mongol-related topics"? --Elonka 02:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

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.

PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended

1) The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire or medieval relationships between the Mongols and European nations. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. I think this follows from a synthesis of Elonka's evidence and Mathsci's evidence. User adds valuable content—even in medieval history. User's sole Achilles' heel appears to be placing undue weight on possible Middle Ages relations between the Mongols and European nations—particularly France. I'm undecided whether the topic ban should be narrowed as in this proposal, or if new topics should be allowed one-by-one as in User:Septentrionalis' proposal #Invitation, or both. Cool Hand Luke 21:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

A minor point: the Crusader states are not, strictly speaking, European nations (nor is Armenia, and so forth). I'd suggest using angusmclellan's wording ("the intersections of the Crusades and Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, broadly defined") instead. Kirill 23:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. This increases the precision of the remedy. PHG has acknowledged that he has been "over-enthusiastic" in some of his work, and, contrary to the assertions of some, has responded to criticism, see his testimony on the Evidence page. There is little or no harm in the continuation of a more precise remedy, which still allows Talk participation even in that area. Further, increased community attention and support should ensure that future problems do not arise in other areas. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I believe I have "served my time" in a highly proper manner, including by making suggestions and comments on Mongol-related Talk Pages as specifically authorized by the Arbcom. The fact that I contributed on these Talk Pages (in a rather sparse fashion and in a very civil manner) therefore should not be used against me as a pretext to lengthen topic restrictions in that area. Of course, relations between the East and the West (including Mongol and Crusaders) is a continued interest of mine, and I will be glad to contribute and interact on this subject through regular editing. PHG (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a punishment where time is served. Our goal is to protect the encyclopedia from possible bias. Although you have admirably behaved under the editing restriction, some evidence suggests you continue to have a problem with undue weight in this one area. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Would prefer an extension to Hellenstic India as well. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, though I'd like the wording to be massaged a bit, as I'm concerned that "Mongols and European nations" is too narrow a definition. For example, one of PHG's pet POVs is to claim that the Cilician Armenians (vassals of the Mongols), along with Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, captured Jerusalem in 1300 (though mainstream history is that such a battle never occurred, and Jacques de Molay was nowhere near that area at the time anyway). We have also had battles with PHG about other points of history that were only loosely related to the Mongols, such as whether or not Bohemond VI of Antioch was or wasn't present at the Siege of Baghdad (1258).[15] So, better wording for a restriction might be: "PHG is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, medieval relationships between the Mongols and Christian nations, and/or any articles relating to medieval history of the geographic area of the eastern Mediterranean and Middle East (broadly interpreted)." I'd also like to see a clause that allows uninvolved admins to expand the restriction if needed, so that we wouldn't have to keep running back to ArbCom for changes. Perhaps a "Discretionary sanction" clause, something like WP:ARBPIA, which says, "Any uninvolved administrator may place further restrictions on PHG's editing in the topic area of medieval/ancient history, as needed to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." --Elonka 01:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)`

These comments by Elonka are either misleading or untrue. I already wrote a long time ago, back in October 2007, that "We all agree the event described in the painting (Jacques Molay Takes Jerusalem, 1299) probably did not happen." [16]. My only point is that mainstream historians such as Alain Demurger, the leading French specialist of the Knights Templar, hold that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1300: "In December 1299 he (Ghazan) vainquishes the Mamluks at the second battle of Homs and captures Damascus, and even Jerusalem" ("En décembre 12999, il [Ghazan] vainc les Mamelouks lors de la deuxième bataille d’Homs et s’empare de Damas, et même de Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, 2007 Les Templiers, p.84)). I am only asking that these views be properly reflected on Wikipedia, and, if there are views to the contrary, that they be balanced, in accordance with Wikipedia’s NPOV policy. The presence of Bohemond VI of Antioch at the Siege of Baghdad (1258) is none of "my pet POV", but also an opinion of Alain Demurger .Cheers PHG (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV does not apply to opinions that are patently ridiculous; and have we not also lengthily debated just how much of a "mainstream" and "leading specialist" Demurger is? Adam Bishop (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. This seems like a fair way to proceed (with "Mongol Empire" replacing "Mongolia"). Mathsci (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Cool Hand Luke 18:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

PHG's topic ban is narrowed and extended v. 2.0

1) The original topic ban on editing articles related to medieval or ancient history is hereby rescinded. PHG (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing articles relating to the Mongol Empire, the Crusades, and intersections between Crusader states and the Mongol Empire, broadly defined. This topic ban will last for a period of one year. He is permitted to make suggestions on talk pages, provided that he interacts with other editors in a civil fashion.

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed as an expansion over the previous suggestion to cover the Crusades entirely, and with the better term "Crusader states." To Septentrionalis: no evidence has suggested a continued problem with Hellenistic India. I think PHG's sourcing has been more rigorous and neutral in topics outside Mongol relations, but I am curious about whether there is contrary evidence. If other topics are implicated, this may need to be broader, or a remedy for uninvolved admins adding topics might need to be added (as Elonka suggests above). From what I've read so far, I think this is sufficient to protect the encyclopedia. Cool Hand Luke 19:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, unless evidence appears soon that a broader topic restriction is needed. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, though in terms of expiration, I'd rather see wording such as "indefinite, but may be brought up for review after one year." --Elonka 17:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Mathsci (talk) 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

This is largely what I asked for at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG/Evidence#Stale evidence. [Pondering whther to add more.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Mentor invitation

PHG's mentor, guided by consensus on the talk page concerned, may waive PHG's editing restriction for any particular article, and may restore the restriction as the mentor sees fit, especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits.

Comment by arbitrators:

Proposed, by Rlevse's suggestion. Possible implementation of #Invitation proposed above. Might allow PHG to edit on topics at a pace where other editors can confirm accurate sourcing. I suspect there will not be consensus to lift restrictions on core topics, but this provides an avenue to incrementally broadening PHG's editing. Cool Hand Luke 22:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support. --Elonka 01:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Though I'm a little confused on the "especially if an editor objects to PHG's edits." Consensus vs one editor? However, the mentor has the right to interpret this and apply it sensibly. --Abd (talk) 01:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

On many articles, especially the obscure ones PHG likes, one editor objecting breaks consensus anyway; 2-1 usually isn't "consensus". But the mentor has the power to decide whether the objector is a lone crank. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. Mathsci (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals by PHG

Let me remind that this request to appeal my case was initiated by me, barely 3 months before the end of my 1-year editing restrictions [17]. I could have simply waited for the 1-year restrictions to finish naturally in March, but wished to share with everyone that in my opinion these very restrictions were based on rather inadequate findings and procedures and seemed quite disprotionate, and therefore justified a symbolic shortening of the 1-year period. PHG (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

PHG makes high quality contributions

Over the last 9 months during his edit restrictions, PHG has continued making a huge amount of quality contributions, creating more than a hundred high-quality new articles [18].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. Self-praise may stink, but that it's necessary may stink more. The statement is generally true, though, I'll admit, I haven't personally counted the articles! --Abd (talk) 01:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

When I was a little kid, a standard saying between friends and family was: "Self praise stinks"... --Latebird (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG improved in civility

Most of PHG's edits have always been extremely civil, despite some very aggressive attacks, and most of time he managed to respond in a cool manner.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I disagree that PHG has always maintained civility. Especially where I am concerned, he seems to have no trouble accusing me of harassment[19] and slander,[20] and even saying that I had no right to list Franco-Mongol alliance on my userpage, as one of the articles that I had expanded, since PHG's view was that all I did was cut through PHG's research and try to discredit him on Wikipedia, so that I "could claim ownership of most of [PHG's] work".[21] PHG has also made inappropriate sexist comments, such as implying that I and some of the editors disagreeing with him were doing so simply because we were "Christian females from the US Midwest".[22][23][24] He has also said that since he is a "European Christian", that this somehow makes him more "tolerant".[25] --Elonka 01:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

PHG improved sourcing methods

PHG's sourcing is generally quite rigorous. The Arbcom also recognized that he is editing in good faith [26]. His sourcing methods have also improved over the past 9 months.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

While on a technical level, his sourcing may be somewhat easier to follow and verify now, I don't see much improvement relating to content. Information is still picked from sources very selectively to support a personal POV, and the context of the information found (the "big picture") is often ignored. --Latebird (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And the evidence for this sweeping claim is ... well, missing I'd have to say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at the evidence page, then (unless you prefer to just dismiss my statements there as incorrect, of course). --Latebird (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I looked at the evidence, and then at a talk page discussion that it pointed to. Latebird has mistaken his own POV regarding the evidence with a balanced one; PHG argued cogently -- but also tenaciously, for he is convinced he's right. The behavioral question isn't that he thinks he's right, it is how he deals with other editors who don't agree. Does he insult them or edit war with them? I don't see a problem in what was pointed to; all I see is that PHG is very knowledgeable on the topic and tries hard to present what he knows. He was civil, as far as anything I noticed. He could be right, he could be wrong; if anyone thinks he's going around damaging articles, they can watch his edits and revert: but, of course, if they do so recklessly, they could find themselves in trouble for harassment; but done with care and discrimination, there shouldn't be a problem. It is work to edit the project. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This very section offers some light on PHG's sourcing; he uses the RfAr statement "Although we continue to assume good faith with regard to the intent of PHG's editing" as recognition that he is editing in good faith. These are not the same assertion, are they? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Continue to assume" in the context does recognize that the evidence didn't show otherwise. The Committee did not encourage editors to view PHG's edits as improperly motivated, rather it focused on what might be an imbalance in his opinions that could lead to biased interpretation of sources by him; my contention is that judging this is extremely difficult, because it involves making a content judgment, and we already know that content judgments in the area involved can be quite difficult. However, ArbComm's topic ban was reasonable, and left open Talk page participation. ArbComm doesn't do that when it suspects improper motivation. --Abd (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, except in the sense that bad practice can be benignly motivated. Please click on the diff, and you will find Arbitrators' independent review of several of PHG's sourced edits versus the content of the original sources confirms that several sources have been cited in a misleading or distorted fashion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an interesting subject, thank you for mentionning it. The supposed "Arbitrators' independent review" you are mentionning remained hidden throughout the proceedings and during several months after (what is justice without transparency of the evidence?), and only recently came to light following the insistent request of a friendly contributor. The discovery of this report actually motivated my request for appeal. Here it is: Report on use of sources by Sam Blacketer. The actual reading of it reveals that Sam's analysis (acting as scrivener for the Arbom) is based on either gross misunderstanding of the French source material (such as Sam making a case of misrepresentation against me based on his confusion of the French noun "pendant" (=counterpart) with the preposition "pendant" (=meanwhile)), or errors in English vocabulary (claiming for example that "timing an offensive to coincide with another" (=on purpose) would actually mean that these offensives are "coincidental" (=a chance occurence)), or even misrepresenting my contributions, putting into my mouth things I never said or wrote (See: Response by PHG). Although I otherwise respect Sam deeply, it is a case of some basic misunderstanding of the facts and sources, and it seems quite worrying that an Arbcom ruling could be passed on such wrong premises. I actually believe such mistaken analysis of the facts should void any ruling based on it. All my contributions have always been done in good faith, and beyond the possibility of variations and accidents in the interpretation of the sources to which any individual is vulnerable, I believe nothing like voluntary misrepresentation of sources on my part has ever been shown. I think it is this understanding which led the Arbcom to kindly continue to assume good faith with my editing. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer's report was thorough and accurate. It aligned with the information that I had already been collecting at User:Elonka/Mongol historians, and my list of areas where PHG had been misinterpreting sources from the prior case. Sam also provided a further cross-check by reviewing additional sources which had been brought up by neither myself nor PHG. For PHG to accuse Sam of "basic misunderstanding", simply reinforces that PHG is unfortunately unable to review these sources with the necessary neutrality. PHG, as many editors and arbitrators have been trying to tell you, the basic misunderstanding is yours, not that of everyone else. No one agrees with you. Multiple highly experienced editors have been telling you, in a variety of ways, that you are suffering from idée fixe. I wish that you could acknowledge that you may have been mistaken on your own interpretation of these sources. You are an excellent editor in many ways, but you just seem to have this blind spot when it comes to information about the Mongols. I wish that you could realize this.  :/ --Elonka 21:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You are making unproven general statements and hypothetical characterizations. On the contrary, I am showing concrete proof that Sam made accusations of misrepresentation against me based on his mistaken understanding of French vocabulary (and on occasions, even English vocabulary), besides numerous other approximations. This has nothing to do with opinions, and this has nothing to do with an hypothetical idée fixe: accusations have been made, and a ruling has been passed, based on a falty analysis of the material. How can it be acceptable?? Cheers PHG (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Although there is no black and white in medieval history, Elonka does have a point. Many spin-off articles were written with one sole purpose in mind concering one hypothetical event that might or might not have occurred around 1300; in any event it has not been recognized since as being any kind of historical turning point. It's best to leave this mess behind and move on to other articles, making good positive contributions in mainstream history, not speculative fringe history. Mathsci (talk) 21:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am indeed quite ready to "leave this mess behind" really, as the subject is of rather little importance. I would just like not to be attacked and unduely treated just for mentionning in the relevant articles the various opinions of historians about the Mongols in the Levant: "some authors think that... some others think that..." in an non-POV manner. As far as I know, referenced material from mainstream, reputable, historians deserves representation on Wikipedia whatever the ideas of some individual Wikipedia contributors about whether an event may or may not have happened (such as the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols for a brief period in 1300). If major historians such as Alain Demurger and others affirm that the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 indeed happened, then this is not fringe theory at all, but something that rightly reserves mention. Overall, this is just a matter of objectivity and respect of the work of historians. Cheers PHG (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, as you say, bad practice can be benignly motivated. However that finding by ArbComm doesn't conflict with what is said above. You have here cited a comment by PHG which was, in fact, reasonably supported by the source (the ArbComm decision) as if his reference to it here was evidence of misbehavior. It wasn't. It was a reasonable interpretation of the source; I made the same interpretation myself, the better part of a year ago. Yes, he was found to have misinterpreted some sources (that's the only explanation given the good faith finding), and so he was topic-banned, but not from Talk. That indicates to me that ArbComm continued to consider his contributions, even in the problem field, to be valuable. Or else they would have banned him completely, as I've seen more commonly done. Further, the ArbComm finding of misinterpretation of sources may have been mistaken; he's tried to get that cleared up, and was pretty roundly slapped down, but without investigation of the evidence. I'd say that we should let old dogs sleep, but when they are called upon to reflect on current behavior and an assumed "continuation" of same .... --Abd (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

One more point. PHG is a voluminous contributor. What does it mean that he is found to have misinterpreted a few sources, i.e., a few examples can be found where it was concluded that he did this? Out of how many articles and edits? --Abd (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It means he is misrepresenting the FMA decision, which is available to us all. It is possible that this, and many of the issues here, are misunderstanding; but they still mean he is seeing things though the spectacles of his PoV, and is untrustworthy at least to that extent. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:45, 12 January 2009 (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.

PHG is freed from editing restrictions as scheduled (March 09), or 2 months early

Given the quality of PHG's contributions during the last 10 months [27] and his compliance with the Arbcom restrictions, it is suggested that restrictions should be lifted, 2 months ahead if the initial deadline (mid-March 2009). Alternatively, he will be freed from edit restrictions as scheduled (March 08 Arbcom decision), in March 2009.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

My edit restrictions are supposed to end altogether after one year, mid-March 2009, that is, two months from now: this is the original Arbcom decision. Nullifying this decision and obtaining a prolongation of the restrictions (however narrowed) is anything but an "improvement", and on the contrary contitutes an aggravation of the restrictions that have been placed on me. Such actions would have at the very least to be justified by serious issues since March 2008, which I don't think is the case at all: my contributions since March 2008 have been top-notch [28]. The reason why an extension is otherwise proposed (although for a narrower editorial area, as a compromise) is essentially because Elonka and a few others are still making the same old complaints about old edit wars and claiming hypothetical future problems. If the rule of law is to be followed and my rights are to be respected, such complaints should not be legitimate reasons to restrict me beyond the original Arbcom ruling: after my 1-year restrictions end, I believe I should be "presumed innocent" again, and given the chance to resume normal editing. If content disputes arise, per Wikipedia's rules, they should be handled through the proper editorial channels and dispute-resolution procedures. If major "behavioural" issues arise, then Arbcom should play its role. Established facts and a fair application of decisions should guide Arbcom' actions, not the expression of lingering enimities by a few editors, or hypothetical claims about future issues. PHG (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

PHG is encouraged to keep working with his mentor

Mentorship is a good thing, and I will be glad to continue working with a mentor when issues or disputes arise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support. But: PHG would have been advised to consult his mentor before filing this case! --Abd (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Elonka is warned

Elonka is warned not to delete PHG's work without good justification and proper discussion (cf. [29]), and to avoid making slanderous accusions towards PHG (cf. a "Freemason" (???) or "probably a Buddhist cultist" (???) [30]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

The personal attacks are clearly inappropriate, but seem dated. Considering that PHG is restricted from editing on Mongol alliances, and that many of his previous work in this area was undue weight and possibly OR, I'm not sure Elonka's removals are problematic. If the material is justifiable, I would be much more comfortable if PHG used the talk page to convince a third party to re-add it. Cool Hand Luke 18:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

It would be helpful if Elonka could explain her extraordinary comments in the second diff: do her allegations musings have any basis in fact? On the other hand regrettably PHG seems not yet to have understood the problems with his edits on relations between the Mongol empire and Crusader countries.Mathsci (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The context of my own comment was that at the time (January/February 2008), an off-wiki website was generating a large number of personal attacks in my direction, entwined with large amounts of praise in PHG's direction. The page does not appear to be around anymore so I can't link it, but as I recall, it was related to a "Free Tibet" political activism group and an editor that was pushing POVs on the English and French Wikipedias. The name Geir Smith (talk · contribs) comes to mind, as well as Dr Boubouleix (talk · contribs). For entertainment value, you may wish to review Geir's attempt at editing the "Battle of Baghdad" article before it was reverted,[31] and he was indef blocked on both EN and FR. On the article, the top part looks okay, but scroll down a few sections and you'll quickly see the problem. Anyway, getting back to the Tibet site, there was a fair bit of ranting including accusations that I was an undercover CIA operative, that I was anti-Buddhist, and that I had other questionable habits in hygiene and sexuality. ;) I don't know for sure if PHG was associated with that website or any of the other article changes, but Geir Smith was definitely in communication with him.[32] It was as part of the Geir Smith situation that Folantin dropped by my talkpage to let me know that my name was being dropped at the talkpage of the Baghdad article.[33] I therefore had a brief conversation with Folantin about the events, which conversation included the one diffed comment that PHG included above. I can provide more context if anyone wants, but that's it in a nutshell. --Elonka 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although this was probably beyond PHG's control, it is clear that off-wiki campaigns (organised meatpuppetry) are not to be encouraged. Sometimes it's very hard to work out when they are happening - ancient history, fringe science, etc. Mathsci (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The full text and context of that diff make it very obvious that those were just hypothetical considerations and not accusations of any kind. PHGs fanatical behaviour around the relevant topics does invite speculations about his motivation, although my own guesses would have gone in different directions. But then, I also didn't have exactly the same encounters with him as Elonka did. --Latebird (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, "allegations" was the wrong word to use. I'm not sure that "fanatical" is a very helpful word to be using here. Folantin's comments [34] on Elonka's talk page had very little to do with PGH, unlike her replies which seem to have been making fun of PGH. Mathsci (talk) 03:08, 4 January 200a9 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulties finding a better English word for a mind overly focused and obsessed with a specific topic. --Latebird (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Frankly Latebird, I have tons of other interests, just look at my user page and contributions :)) Have you seen my last contribution Jesuit missions in North America? I just happen to have developped an interest about the relations between the Mongols and the West about a year and a half ago, and happily contributed to Wikipedia what I could find on the subject. I must say some people do seem to have quite a focus everytime I happen to bring forward more stuff about these relations though (even if just on Talk Pages)! I sometimes have the impression that speaking about contacts between the Franks and the Mongols is like a huge taboo, some sort of unbelievable monstruosity nobody wants to mention, for reasons which, honestly, are beyond me (religious prejudice, preconceived notions about the Mongols?)... As Thomas T. Allsen writes:

"Equally fascinating and far more contentious is the vexing question of the Mongolian legacy in Eurasian history. To some historians their expansion was an unmitigated disaster, that brought only destruction, death and cultural decline, a "Tartar Yoke" that constituted a regressive force in human history. Others on the contrary have argued that the Chinggisids' political ambition led to a pax mongolica that facilitated and greatly intensified communications between East and West and thus afforded important opportunities for cultural contact, exchange and enrichment." Thomas T. Allsen Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire, p.4 [35]

These relations are, in my opinion, among the most fascinating events of the Middle Ages (but I'll grant that's probably because I am more interested than most in instances of cultural interaction), and although I recognize some might hold the reverse opinion, I believe both view should be represented on Wikipedia. Cheers PHG (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It is taboo to write about a subject you have no knowledge of, to use sources to advance your own narrow opinion of something you barely understand, and to claim you have done nothing wrong when you are caught. True, Mongol interactions with Europeans are very fascinating, but in some cases (specifically the crusader states) they are not the most overwhelmingly important event that needs to be minutely documented on every tangentially related article. There is no racism here; there is no neglect of medieval cultural interactions. This is not about what happened 700 years ago, this is about you. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam! I am just an amateur contributor, like most of us here, and I think this is the way Wikipedia is being built. I basically select subjects I have an interest in (I do a lot of cultural interaction stuff), try to gather as many sources as I can (I bought about 20 books on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance alone!), and then try to give a proper account of what I have learnt. I am certainly not an historian, and am not immune to criticism, but I do my best in giving as detailed a picture as possible. I am quite an enthusiast of my subjects, and I agree my contributions to some related articles might seem too detailed and giving undue weight sometimes. Cheers PHG (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Your diverse interests make it only more surprising why you might suffer such a lack of perspective just in this specific context. But the unfortunate reality is that you do. Apparently, too much fascination can distort your perception. This forces people to focus on you, because the resulting activities, even with the best of intentions, present a substantial danger to Wikipedia. --Latebird (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

PHG, it is perfectly acceptable for an amateur to write about a topic of interest. In my own case, I have struggled through German submarine U-853 and am now working on Gamma-ray burst. In both cases I found somebody who was much more expert than I, listened to their feedback, and followed their advice. If you take that approach, I am sure your work will be higher quality and many concerns will be resolved. Jehochman ^Talk 03:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: