Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

• Request a new arbitration case
• Request clarification or amendment of an existing case

  This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed

• Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
• Arbitrator motions

  Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	Motion	(orig. case)	21 June 2024
Amendment request: Suspension of Beeblebrox	Motion	none	10 July 2024
Clarification request: Desysoppings	none	none	12 July 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Current requests

{ABCCL Page Deletion and Refusal to Comment "Why?"}

Initiated by pkapsales

Involved parties

• pkapsales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• KrakatoaKatie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

The following is a cut and past of the notice I pasted on the admin's talk page. Notice of Arbitration Please note I submitted a notice for arbitration due to your abuse of power from the inappropriate deletion of a submission and failure to respond to multiple inquiries for your reason.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KrakatoaKatie"

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by {party 1}

I have posted two messages on talk for the admin and she refuses to respond even though she responds to other messages posted on the same date.

It is my opinion this editor is not qualified to edit that subject area and also is not qualified to be an editor since she does not respond to inquiries. She is simply involved in a power play where she enjoys using Wiki to arbitrarily force her opinions, whether ignorant or not, upon the Wiki audience.

The original page I entered on the ABCCL was deleted twice. It was simply an information entry with nothing controversal. As an executive board member of the ABCCL, I have the authority and right to make such entries. This editor has no business wasting my time playing games with deletions.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

---

Chuck Marean - Gwernol

Initiated by Chuck Marean at 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Chuck Marean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiating party)
• Gwernol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• On Chuck Marean’s talk page.[1]
• On Gwernol’s talk page.[2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• On my (initiating party’s)talk page.[3]
• On Gwernol’s talk page. [4]
• On Request for Mediation.[5]

Statement by Chuck Marean

Gwernol was uncivil to me: rather than giving me writing advice or rewriting the piece[6], Gwernol accused me of bad writing [7][8], including by blocking me for a week[9] and then threatened to block me longer.[10] For that reason, Gwernol’s account shouldn’t be allowed to block. [11] -- Chuck Marean 19:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Gwernol

I respectfully ask the committee to decline this request. Chuck Marean has a long history of point of view pushing in articles. The block he is disputing resulted from this series of edits to Republican Party (United States): [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] and [17] which were reverted by multiple editors, including myself. These edits are clearly original research and are equally clearly designed to push Chuck's point of view of the Republican candidtes, as he acknowledges: "they are nuts" "telling my personal opinion" "I was trying to figure out who to vote for in the primary election... I thought it would be a good idea to share the results of my research" etc.

His approach to editing is, I think, well summarized by his own words here: "I also think politely expressing a point of view does not harm Wikipedia or its editors.". This is his second block for POV-pushing. Most of his edits to articles have been reverted or had to be significantly reworked due to a failure to comprehend and/or follow the basic policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. I won't bore the committee with a full recitation of them - his contributions, going back nearly two years, speak for themselves.

The block was preceded by appropriate warnings and his unblock request was declined by Trusilver. The validity of the block was confirmed by admins Mangojuice ZimZalaBim and editor Oniononion. Despite these multiple attempts to help Chuck understand NPOV by myself and other editors, he continues to insist that I am removing his comments to "support (my) own side in an editorial dispute" which I find an offensive mischaracterization of the situation and one entirely unfounded in reality.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/6/0/0)

• Decline. The block was reviewed by multiple administrators and upheld on sufficient grounds. There is no evidence of misuse of administrator tools, much less of serious or repeated misuse that could warrant arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline. Chuck Marean was appropriately warned, and the unblock requests were properly heard. Even if that had not been the case, arbitration would have been inappropriate: it is the last step of dispute resolution. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per Newyorkbrad. Perfectly worded, as ever. --Deskana (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject per above. --bainer (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. No evidence of misuse of admin tools which is the primary reason that we would take this type of case. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Interchange Fee

Initiated by stymiee (talk) at 14:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• stymiee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GBYehuda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by {party 1}

There are two users who are engaged in a link spam and propaganda campaign in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee article. Biased information with no sources cited is repeatedly placed there despite its removal. They violate the 3 revert rule and then call others who undo their changes spammers. This article needs to be locked until a resolution is established.

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/5/0/0)

• Decline. Arbitration is the last step in our dispute resolution process, and prior avenues have not been exhausted. Pro-active assistance from uninvolved administrators or a mediator would be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Decline per Brad. Kirill 19:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject. Very premature at this stage. You should try things like getting a third opinion or informal mediation. --Deskana (talk) 14:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• Way premature. Reject. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reject as premature. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Franco-Mongol alliance

Initiated by Jehochman ^Talk at 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Involved parties

• PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Elonka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WJBscribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Other parties may need to be added.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

[18] [19] [20] [21] [22]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Formal RfC (RfCHist), at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment

• ANI thread, and multiple sub-threads: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/POV-pushing by User:PHG
• ANI thread WP:ANI#Editorial and procedural abuses by User:Elonka
• Mediation: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance
• Current ANI thread: [23]

Statement by Jehochman

This is long festering dispute about the addition of ahistorical information to Middle Ages articles. Not unlike Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot we have a longstanding editor who appears to be publishing original research in Wikipedia, misrepresenting sources, and frustrating the deletion process and consensus by tendentiously reinstalling content that the community has decided to remove.

Mediation of the content dispute was attempted, but User:Tariqabjotu closed the case because the process was failing. PHG has now decided to increase the drama a notch by calling for Elonka to resign,[24]. The claims of bad faith are flying. Before this degenerates further, I request that the Committee scrutinize the behavior of all parties. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am very concerned that severe damage is being done to the encyclopedia through the addition of unverifiable, ahistorical information to a large number of articles. The community has been unable to control the problem. This has been going on for half a year. Rather than blocking PHG, which would be highly controversial, though justifiable in my opinion, I am bringing the matter here instead. ArbCom has sharper tools, and hopefully can craft a less restrictive remedy. Previous discussions in other forums have failed to produce any sort of resolution. The problem appears to be getting worse, not better. Arbitration sooner rather than later will help reduce the amount of disruption and bad blood. Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a deleted article: [25] Mongol raids on Jerusalem

Here's a listed source: [26]

How does this source, which makes about five passing references to Jerusalem, the most on point one being, "the Frankish Crusaders, clinging precariously to a narrow strip of Syrian coast, both hoped and feared that the Mongols might drive the Muslims from Jerusalem and restore the holy places to Christian possession.", support an article that starts out with, "In 1260, the Mongol ruler Hulagu conquered vast parts of the Holy Land, usually in alliance with the Franks and the Christian Armenians."? Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Rlevse

I have full protected this page for two weeks. This seems to be a content dispute. It also appear Elonka did not use her admin bit in this issue and therefore is a regular editor in this matter. I posted a notice on the talk page to encourage peaceful resolution by all on the talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Tariqabjotu

It's tough for me to say whether this case is a content dispute (which ArbCom doesn't usually address) or a conduct issue. However, I'm inclined to encourage the ArbCom to treat this as a conduct issue and look at it as such. I know many editors who have not been following this page will immediately declare it as a content dispute, but this has long outgrown that description. Nearly every other available avenue of dispute resolution, including a mediation which I led, has been tried and -- particularly in the mediation case -- failed miserably. The article and its talk page, for the most part, can speak for themselves; we see repeated accusations of ownership, a slow-motion edit war, assumptions of bad faith, continuous allegations that sources are being misrepresented -- all the elements that together make a resolution to the now five-month dispute impossible by any other means. Additionally, the actions of certain editors on the article have made the conditions for less involved editors that want to contribute to this article just about unbearable. We have a serious problem here, one that calls into question the integrity of this article, and perhaps dozens others. Investigating the sort of behavior alleged here is not unheard-of, and I request that ArbCom do so again. -- tariqabjotu 16:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to something Justin said: there is an Evidence phase within arbitration cases and this is not it. I assume Jehochman, and any others with specific allegations, will present such evidence when the appropriate time comes. -- tariqabjotu 18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Justin

I, like User:Tariqabjotu am having difficulty deciding whether this issue is truly a content issue or a behavioral issue. However, I tend to lean towards the former and the evidence presented by User:Jehochman are all examples of content disputes. I'm extremely troubled by Jehochman's accusations (provided without dif's) of original research, and disagree with his assertion that there was a consensus to remove the content PHG added back into the article. I believe the Sadi Carnot arbitration isn't a particularly good analogy to this problem. The primary issue in that dispute was admins reverting each other, which hasn't been the case for this dispute.

I would also note, that I made a request for page protection for the article some time before User:PHG was given a 24 hour block. It was ignored until the block took place, and then denied after input from an involved admin. [27] I applaud User:Rlevse for the two week page protection, as I do believe this will resolve the issues at hand. I have absolute faith that all of the editors involved will work toward a consensus, and eventually that consensus will be reached (with or without User:PHG agreeing). I consider User:Jehochman's suggested remedy of indef blocking an editor with nearly 30,000 edits completely beyond reason. The page protection should offer more than enough time for involved editors to find a consensus version of the article. Justin ^chat 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to Tariqabjotu: Granted, the ArbCom request doesn't require posting evidence, but an admin made some pretty extraordinary claims about a longstanding editor. By failing to give any evidence to his accusations, it appears that the motive was to poison the well. PHG's disruptions of the article in question were definitely inappropriate, but the sentence "publishing original research in Wikipedia, misrepresenting sources, and frustrating the deletion process and consensus by tendentiously reinstalling content that the community has decided to remove," is a fairly heavy-handed accusation. Jehochman followed up these accusations with a suggested remedy of indef blocking.

Given all of that, I think that since both the accusations and suggested remedy are fairly extreme, it would have been prudent to back up his accusations with evidence. Perhaps PHG has some behavioral problems outside of the article in question, and if that's the case, I'm sure the ArbCom members (and those of us that are unaware of other problems) would like to see evidence of it. In lieu of that, all of us are forced to assume Jehochman made his claims in bad faith or that PHG is indeed a bad faith editor as his claims assert. Neither case is preferable, hence my original point. Justin ^chat 20:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Shell Kinney

This case should most definately be accepted; while an underlying content dispute was the catalyst, the behaviors of the editors involved, in particular those of PHG, have spiraled out of the community's ability to control. For example:

• Since the abortive FAC last September, numerous attempts have been made to improve the article; all significant changes (and even some minor ones) have been reverted by PHG [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] who displays rather clear ownership issues [36].
• The minority POV which was originally under dispute has now sprawled to more than 50 paragraphs in this article (even though the edit summary said "revert" [37]) and has been systematically inserted into scads of other articles creating more than a little bit of disruption that is requiring some rather serious cleanup efforts. (See this talk page post for the list of articles known to have been affected) The behavioral side of this issue stems from PHG is abusively edit warring, subverting myriad other articles and creating numerous POV forks in an attempt to "win" a content dispute.
• PHG has also canvassed in an attempt to skew the consensus. [38] [39] [40] [41]
• At least 6 other editors (myself included) are currently working productively on the article via talk page discussion; this was especially apparent during the 24 hours when PHG was blocked from interfering. These editors do not all agree, so this is not about one side winning the dispute.

The committee also needs to be aware that this dispute has attracted certain editors who, for one reason or another, wish to disrupt Elonka's activities on wiki such as editors from past or current Arb cases which she was involved in.

We're not asking ArbCom to intervene in a content dispute and, in fact, don't need any intervention since absent one highly disruptive editor, talk page discussions are resolving the content issues. However, I would strongly urge the Committee to review the clear behavioral problems that stemmed from this dispute. Shell ^babelfish 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yet again, PHG has started reverting the moment the article is unprotected. He is continuing to wikilawyer on the talk page and has started yet another misleading article which skews reliable sources to support his original thesis of a mongol alliance. At this point, it seems that he has no intention of engaging in dispute resolution to resolve the issues and is a classic example of a tendentious editor. If the committee is not going to review his behavior, I would strongly suggest a community ban from this topic area. Shell ^babelfish 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Orderinchaos

This seems to be yet another argument between those promoting fringe theories or views and those holding a mainstream view on historical issues. Elonka appears to have been trying to defend the NPOV on this and related articles against what seems to be some odd behaviour on the other side. The dispute has gone on so long now (several months) that it's way beyond whatever it started out being about and now is essentially an issue where consensus has failed, and it may well be that some of the individuals on one side never had any intention of accepting a consensus removed from their own view. I would agree with Jehochman and Shell Kinney's points above, and WJB's points below. Orderinchaos 23:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

I have deleted and protected Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance, to protect the privileged nature of Mediation Committee mediation (see also Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Hearing). Daniel (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Elonka

My statement is going to be about two views here, one in how I see this on-wiki, and another off. On-wiki, I don't think it's appropriate to have an ArbCom case on this at this time. I see ArbCom as something that is needed for complex user conduct cases, where the community has not been successful in dealing with them via other means. In this particular case, the community has been successful. We had one editor, PHG, who has been camping on an article in violation of WP:OWN, who has been using bad sources and has been misinterpreting good sources, and has been creating multiple POV forks. See User:Elonka/Mongol quickref for a few paragraphs that give context about the history involved, and the related content disputes. The proper way to handle this via Wikipedia procedures (without ArbCom) is to identify problems with the article(s), build consensus on the talkpage(s), and proceed with cleanup. Which is exactly what we've been doing lately. Now, it is true that in the early part of this dispute, meaning Fall 2007, things were exacerbated because we didn't have very many participants who understood the history involved, so we ended up with a kind of stalemate between me and PHG, with him saying, "Here's the history," and me saying, "No, that's not history, that's you cherry-picking and misinterpreting sources." Over the last month (January 2008) though, we have gotten more editors in to look at the situation, and consensus-building has been much easier (except for PHG). So, in a case where we have one editor who is not willing to work in a cooperative and collegial manner with other editors towards consensus-building, we already have Wikipedia procedures in place -- we have uninvolved administrators who can look into the situation, and warn and block as necessary. There is no need for ArbCom, as all that ArbCom would be able to do would be to confirm the same thing that any uninvolved administrator would: "PHG is being disruptive, PHG is reverting obsessively, PHG should be blocked if he continues to disrupt." We don't need a multi-month ArbCom case that wastes dozens of hours of time on the part of multiple good editors, to come up with that same conclusion.

And now, the off-wiki aspect. There are times in my life that I've got lots of free time for Wikipedia, and there are times that I don't. This coming month is going to be a "don't" time, since I've got a major tradeshow coming up in a few weeks. So if it's decided that there is going to be an ArbCom case on this, I just won't be able to participate much. Which will put ArbCom and the other participants in an awkward situation where they're forced to decide on either proceeding without me, or by further extending the case to allow time for me to assemble my own evidence. Which (my free time availability) I know is not one of the major factors on "should a case be accepted or not," but I wanted to make the Committee aware.

My own off-wiki time constraints aside though, I still recommend that this case not be accepted. The community is already dealing with the situation, and I can't see as any ArbCom decision would really change much about how the situation is proceeding. What would the result be? "PHG has been disruptive, PHG is cautioned to work in a collegial manner with other editors. Anyone engaging in disruptive behavior can be blocked by any uninvolved administrator." Which is what we're already doing. --Elonka 09:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PHG

I have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2004/03/06, with over 23,389 edits to date, all referenced from reputable published material. I created more than 200 articles, and 8 articles which I created or unstubbed reached FA status (Boshin War, Imperial Japanese Navy, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Indo-Greek Kingdom, History of Buddhism etc...). I also have contributed hundreds of photographs from Museums around the world. My main interests revolve around cultural interaction through the Ages, and I enjoy developing content on these subjects. I am a multinational business manager, with over 20 years experience working in Asia, the US and Europe. I am a fervent supporter of Wikipedia:NPOV policy, according to which all significant views should be presented in articles.

When I created the Franco-Mongol alliance article in August 2007, I soon entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (here or here for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).

Recently, Elonka again attacked the Franco-Mongol alliance page, trying to force her own rewrite, deleting 130k of content established collaboratively over a period of 6 months and over 300 academic sources, through false claims of consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). I think this conduct is unrespectfull of Wikipedia rules and unethical. She also has thrown false accusations in order to smear me (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Why is the "longer version" get even longer?), and resorted to personal attacks, calling me a lier [42], when she is actually the one lying about facts, like claiming I added 50k of new content through a reinstalment of deleted content (here). On the Franco-Mongol alliance article I have only been upholding Wikipedia's rule that is there is no consensus for a replacement of a main article by an individual's own version, then the status quo should prevail. I expect every Wikipedian to uphold these rules as well.

What the heck? I'm here to share knowledge and contribute fascinating, referenced, stuff about ancient history and cultural interaction, and I must say I am not at all interested in Wikipedia politics or lobbying day long against specific users. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wjhonson

I am not an involved editor in this case. Wikibits of this situation have deposited themselves on various other pages and it peaked my interest to take a look. My rough estimate of the problem is that there was an initial failure to strive for consensus. The catalyst appears to be a complete re-write done in user space was plopped down in situ on top of a large established article. Frankly, were that to happen to an article I had largely contributed to, I would probably react in the same way as PHG. I do not find the approach initially taken in this case to be any remote attempt to strive for consensus. As the talk page clearly shows, many editors were against the rewrite and many were for it. However in that situation, normal consensus building would be to leave the status quo article as it. "Consensus decision-making is a decision-making process that not only seeks the agreement of most participants, but also to resolve or mitigate the objections of the minority to achieve the most agreeable decision. Consensus is usually defined as meaning both general agreement, and the process of getting to such agreement. Consensus decision-making is thus concerned primarily with that process." A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were size would have been to fork the content. A more temperate approach, if the underlying issue were neutral-point-of-view would have been to take disputes to that Talk board. As well we have a reliable sources noticeboard, and a Talk page at original research. The approach taken in this case, has led, over many months, here. I think that's a fair indication, in light of the thousands of articles PHG has contributed to, that an ArbCom ruling would be effective.Wjhonson (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

I've watched this conflict from afar since the Franco-Mongol alliance FAC of last summer. History is a field where autodidacts often have trouble due to unfamiliarity with priority of sources and historiography. A fair portion of books in the field have been written by untrained persons, some of which are excellent and some of which ought to be classified as humor or fantasy. The more faciful versions get repeated by other autodidact authors because they seem interesting, so absurdities sometimes gain the illusion of a pedigree among readers whose only means of guessing what constitutes mainstream history is to count the number of published books that advance a given hypothesis. This dynamic has manifested in any number of ways at Joan of Arc although the problem is less burdensome now that the article is featured (that Joan of Arc was a man, that she escaped execution, that she was the bastard daughter of the queen of France, etc. etc.). These editors aren't necessarily intending to violate WP:NPOV; they simply lack the knowledge base and critical training to determine what's fringe and what's mainstream.

The most serious assertion at this RFAR is misrepresentation of sources. I have seen no actual evidence to substanitate this. I request that the Committee accept this case to determine one way or the other. Durova^Charge! 13:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Having now seen evidence of misrepresentation of sources, I urge the Committee to not only accept this case but to rename it PHG. The problem is greater than one article and is largely - perhaps entirely - confined to his conduct. This editor has been conducting what Wikipedia euphemistically calls original research and what the rest of the world terms academic dishonesty. That is, he has been misusing source material in order to claim that recognized experts have asserted things which they cannot reasonably be supposed to have concluded - all tending toward a hypothesis that the Mongol Empire was considerably more powerful than mainstream historians concur that it was. When other editors call upon him to step back from this extreme and novel view, he forks articles to continue promulgating it; when they identify specific misuse of one source, he changes the subject to assertions about other sources. Nothing persuades him. I've seen Adam Bishop (an actual doctoral candidate in Medieval studies) attempt to advise PHG and get rebuffed.

PHG's volunteer efforts for Wikipedia are considerable and his efforts to improve the site appear to be sincere. He has contributed multiple featured articles on various subjects, yet his conduct in this matter leaves me questioning the integrity of his other contributions. When NPA Personality Theory passed GAC before getting deleted, thoughtful Wikipedians were shaken. Franco-Mongol alliance progressed as far as FAC before an editor recognized its flaws, which raises serious questions about the eight other articles that have become FAs under this editor's guidance. This is an arbitration-worthy request, and an important one. Durova^Charge! 02:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe

I am in two minds about whether this matter is appropriate for ArbCom. On the one hand, we do have mounting user conduct issues - especially the increasingly ludicrous ownership of the central article by PHG - and a failed attempt at mediation. On the other, we have a dispute heavily routed in content that is hard to process without getting involved in those issues. Involving itself in matters of content is something ArbCom prefers not to do but where the central issues are about accuracy of information, representation of sources and neutral POV it is hard to separate conduct and content. Violation of content policies is misconduct but it is hard to determine whether such conduct breaches have occured without taking a view on the content questions. Ultimately either PHG is trying to push a misleading account of the events covered by the article or he is not.

If ArbCom is willing to have a thorough look at this issue - including the underlying problems with whether Wikipedia policies on neutral point of view and fringe theories have been followed - then there are clear merits in pursuing this case. If only the most superficial of conduct issues will be touched upon, then this will likely prove a waste of time. A general admonishment for participants to work towards consensus isn't in my opinion going to be of help here. WjBscribe 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kafka Liz

After silently following the dispute at Franco-mongol alliance for some months, I eventually got involved over what I saw as persistent problematic behaviour on the part of PHG. My initial concern stemmed from the creation of a series of forks that PHG presented as good faith attempts to shorten the main article, but in reality served to preserve and expand upon strongly disputed sections. Further examination of the article and its history convinced me that PHG's activities were in violation of two fundamental areas of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:OWN and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). Attempts by myself and other editors to work with PHG regarding these concerns have been met first with polite stonewalling and evasive answers, then accusations of "being polemical and systematically banding together, [43]" and finally silence. I now see PHG resorting to various strategies of gaming the system: engaging in slow revert wars to evade 3RR, wikilawyering [44], and simply refusing to respond directly to the concerns of others.

I concur with the statements put forth by Jehochman, Shell Kinney, Orderinchaos, and WJBscribe, and believe Jehochman's reference to the Sadi Carnot case is particularly fitting to the case at hand. Kafka Liz (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by (fairly) uninvolved Iridescent

As someone who's spent an inordinate amount of time spatting with Elonka over this — and as a former occasional collaborator with Sadi Carnot (albeit not on the problematic articles) — I do agree that Arbcom ought to get involved here. After a lengthy argument with Elonka after I accused her of edit-warring on the issue, I actually went and checked the contributions of PHG more thoroughly, and on inspection he's the very model of a true problem editor. As with Sadi Carnot, he makes enough valid and high-quality contributions that they mask the problem edits, unless one goes looking for them. On the articles in question, his "sources" seem to be a mix of mistranslations, fabrications and self-published crackpots, and he's using these sources to replace material from numerous multiple independent sources.

There's always going to be a problem with articles like this, in that they rely on sources derived from other sources far removed from the original sources (unless we happen to have an editor floating around who speaks mediaeval Armenian); however, his pet theory (that Jerusalem was captured by the Mongols) would have been so significant, one would have to assume it would be chronicled in both Christian and Islamic histories; in this case, I think it is reasonable to assume that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Normally, this would just be a content dispute on a very low-traffic article that wouldn't warrant an Arbcom intervention. However, this saga is starting to have spin-off effects on the rest of Wikipedia which in my opinion warrants a high-level intervention by either Arbcom or Jimbo to put a stop to the whole mess. Not only is this dispute starting to be used by WR et al as anti-Wikipedia "evidence", but it's already derailed one RFA of Elonka's and (almost) derailed another*, and is starting to waste a lot of time of a lot of regulars who could be more profitably be doing something useful. — iridescent 15:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

*I know I opposed both of Elonka's RFAs for other reasons, but they should not have failed for this reason and I freely admit I was wrong; the accusation of edit-warring was unfair in this case.

Statement by uninvolved TimVickers

Any editor who writes that another contributor has "attacked the Franco-Mongol alliance page" and complains about "hijacking of this page" is, in my opinion, suffering from serious ownership issues. This is not a simple content dispute, the behavior of the editors involved needs to be examined in detail. I recommend the committee accept this case. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by John Kenney

My familiarity, at this point, with what ArbCom does, exactly, is not all too clear, so I can't say directly whether Arbcom should accept this case. I do think that PHG is a serious problem editor, that his contributions are full of incredibly tendentious arguments, and that he holds ground with a tenacity that makes it difficult for normal editing practice to arrive at consensus in improving these articles. As Tim Vickers notes above, PHG has serious ownership issues with articles he creates, and, further, he is very difficult to reason with. Something certainly ought to be done about him. john k (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Adam Bishop

My problem is not so much the content, just that there is too much of it, and that PHG has no idea how to read, study, or write history. It's embarrassing to read and is a perfect example of why Wikipedia is untrustworthy. But now it is too big to fix. If it were up to me, I would recommend deleting it and everything else that has been written about it, leaving it for a few months, and then restarting from scratch...but that's just me. I'm not sure this needs to be subjected to yet another Wikipedia process, but I agree with John that PHG is a huge problem. I know that PHG has been here for a long time and had worked on a large amount of articles on obscure topics, and that is usually a great thing, but after my experience here, I wonder whether those articles are as awful as this one is... Adam Bishop (talk) 08:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Pupster21

I agree completely with what Vickers said, I think this is a dispute with a little more than content involved. --Pupster21 Talk To Me 13:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Philwelch

Whether or not this case is accepted (I have no recommendations), I think it would be prudent for Arbcom to consider the firm distinction between content disputes and user conduct issues arising out of content disputes. From what I have gathered (but not personally confirmed), the article ownership and user conduct issues revolving around PHG in this case are reminiscent of an Arbcom case I was involved with some years ago: that of Copperchair. I advise all parties and administrators to review and consider that precedent. Philwelch (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ElC

I'm a bit concerned with Elonka's third-person (addressed to others) usage of PHG's talk page today to showcase, at length, her criticism.^[45] El_C 09:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been criticized by Shell Kinney ("most unhelpful line to take" [etc.] ^[46]) for my statement here and on the talk page.^[47] On further thought, I don't see what I have to retract. Just because it seems clear that PHG has already been found guilty, does not mean everything goes; that it is some sort of a free for all; that his talk page may be turned into an evidence page (a mere day or two before we have official evidence pages set up, anyway) without his explicit consent. Once we stop guarding the rights of the accused, it's all down hill from there. El_C 21:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/2/0/0)

• Accept to look at user conduct issues that are interfering with reaching consensus. The Community has not been able to sort this out. FloNight (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept; per Flonight there is disruption of article writing; serious issues of user conduct are alleged and there has been a failure of mediation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, we are unlikely to be able to help. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. Deskana (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Decline, I'm inclined to agree with UC. I've asked a few editors to give their opinions. I may change my mind based upon further review. Paul August ☎ 18:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Accept. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• Accept, per Sam Blacketer. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Appeals and requests for clarification

Place appeals and requests for clarification on matters related to past Arbitration cases in this section. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. Place new requests at the top.

DreamGuy

Enforcing the remedy in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2 as well as having any idea when DreamGuy is editing and who he is, which is important in light of his past behavior, is becoming increasingly difficult because of his decision to edit anonymously much of the time. As CheckUser, this puts me in an awkward situation because I don't want to have to be the one to carry out all the enforcement for DreamGuy, but at the same time, I don't want to have to out someone's IP unless there had actually been a violation (which another admin should decide, but which would be a waste of time if it's not him...). I would ask that ArbCom pass a motion requiring him to edit using only his DreamGuy account. Thanks. (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DreamGuy, [48], Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dreamguy 2, Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/DreamGuy_2#Elonka.27s_DreamGuy_report, etc. for evidence of the issue.) Dmcdevit·t 21:26, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyking 3

When I made my previous appeal request a month ago, I was told to wait until February because at that point the arbitrators would have to look at whether or not to permanently lift my article parole, and that it would be more convenient for them to also review my other restrictions at the same time. I am unsure whether it is necessary to make a request about this; I was told by an arbitrator that the ArbCom intended to look at the matter regardless, but that it would still be helpful if I mentioned the appeal here. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Could you also please post a link to the prior decision(s) and restriction(s) that you would like to have lifted, since there has been a lot of turnover on the committee since the earlier cases. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I had assumed the ArbCom already knew this, but the case in question is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3. According to former arb Raul, remedies 5 and X from the original case and remedy 4 from the amended ruling are still in effect. As I have explained previously, I do not believe that the remedies as they are written provide for these restrictions to continue after Nov. 2007, but Raul did not agree with me, so I have to rely on the ArbCom to decide whether A) they have already expired, B) they are still in effect but should be lifted now, or C) they should remain in place indefinitely or until some specified later point in time. Additionally, the suspension of my parole on pop music articles in November 2007 will expire this month, so it is necessary for the ArbCom to decide whether to drop the parole permanently or reimpose it. Everyking (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, ArbCom will review and clarify as we previously stated we would address this in Feb. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)