User talk:Per Honor et Gloria

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here's some tips:

• You can introduce yourself on the new users page
• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
• Remember to use the show preview button before you save a page.
• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

Other useful pages are: how to edit, how to write a great article, naming conventions, manual of style and the Wikipedia policies.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Angela. 12:22, Mar 7, 2004 (UTC)

Archives

User talk:PHG/Archives1
User talk:PHG/Archives2
User talk:PHG/Archives3

Mongols

Hey, PHG. I have placed another response on Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance that you should see. Also, I think you should cease editing the article (like everybody) until we get discussion going on the talk page. This article is wrapped up in too many disputes to be helped by any editing whatsoever. Everything hinges on dispute resolution, so all editing ought to just be halted until that occurs. I am trying to work out an acceptable process that all involved/interested parties will accept. Your help would be appreciated and remember: consensus will be necessary to get that annoying accuracy tag removed and to stop a recurring edit war. Srnec (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello PHG, I concur with Srnec. I would really like to get down to resolving some of my concerns.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

I've noticed that the recent discussion on the talk page seems to be upsetting to you. I understand how difficult it is to see others condense a great deal of what you've written; I know I've had a few gut wrenching moments when I've looked back at articles where I contributed the majority of the original text. After careful consideration though, I've realized that other editors aren't trying to destroy what I've created, they're trying to improve it. Sometimes, I've needed to go back and engage the editors about some errors in the changes they made or discuss further improvements to the article, but I've done that by talking things out with them, not reverting their edits.

What can we do to help you feel comfortable discussing the article and changes with other editors? The past few days of edits by both sides of the dispute just haven't been productive as they could have been and I hate to see everyone spinning their wheels waiting for this to play out. Shell ^babelfish 23:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to take a look at this; if it were a group on each side, or doing so wouldn't hamper ongoing work on the article, I'd probably just protect and force discussion. As is, this seems to be kinda disruptive. It's regrettable that a more mutual compromise hasn't been reached, but is there something that could be done to stop this edit war? Perhaps we could create two subpages, one to continue work on each version, while the debate continues? (Currently my talk page is under a bit of a vandal attack, so feel free to reply here.) – Luna Santin (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I already added a RFPP request, so if you do protect the page you might want to update my request. That being said, I think both Elonka and PHG are being a bit disruptive. I really don't feel Elonka had a consensus to make the change to the shorter article, especially given how decisive this has gotten, and PHG has probably made the problem worse by making the article even larger. I really like your idea of sub pages to work out differences, but I think a page protect might be a good idea to "force" the editors to work on the sub pages. But that's just my opinion :). Justin ^chat 08:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Per Honor et Gloria. You have new messages at Kafka Liz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for the reasons listed below. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

PHG, I am sorry that it has had to come to this given your history of quality contributions, but it appears that you did not heed my earlier warning about your conduct at Franco-Mongol alliance. The issue was called to my attention again yesterday by two separate editors, and after having reviewed the article and talk page history, as well as the AFDs of the POV forks you created, it is apparent that you do not wish to work with other editors to improve the article. Your recent actions there have been deceptive, biased, antagonistic, generally disruptive, and show that you are increasingly trying to express ownership of and manipulate the content. It is for those reasons I have decided that a 24 hour block is in order. If you, or a reviewing administrator wishes to know exact instances of these charges, please post here as I will have your talk page on my watchlist. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ioeth. It's just unbelievable that you can let a user such as Elonka impose her personal version of an article inspite of the fact that she has no consensus whatsoever (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#False claim of consensus). I am only upholding Wikipedia's rules here that if there is no consensus for a change, the status quo should prevail. Please take action against the initiator of this disruption, not the one who is trying to correct it. Regards PHG (talk) 20:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, once you come back from your 24-hour block I hope you'll investigate ourdispute resolution procedures. I think it would really help out the process! Have a great day. Wjhonson (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, if you are not the initiator of the disruption, I doubt that multiple users would have come to me yesterday independently to bring the situation back to my attention. Elonka, as it turns out, was the last one to do so. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 21:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Those editors were not neutral parties.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Without looking at the situation very closely, I don't think that an unannounced block against a well-established and normally highly productive and valued editor is the right approach. This is exactly what WP:RFCs and page protection are for. It's weirdness of the highest degree that we actually allow SPA's and purely disruptive editors multiple chances until they are finally dragged before the ArbCom, but do not extend the same consideration to someone like PHG. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This is unacceptable.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG has been recreating deleted content after AfDs, and he's been adding unverifiable, original research to the encyclopedia at an alarming pace. He's been on notice for a long time that this behavior is unacceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 21:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on "...notice for a long time that this behavior is unacceptable", because everything else you mentioned is highly subjective.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I can elaborate by showing any administrator all of PHG's deleted contributions. It will be evident that he is gaming the system to get around consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 21:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is hardly the only editor to have trouble working with PHG. Other users and I have tried talking to him on several occasions and met with initially with polite stonewalling, then evasive answers that fail to address the points raised, next accusations of "being polemical and systematically banding together, [1]" and finally silence. I have been hesitant to edit the article itself because a glance through the history show that PHG not only began the article but has made dozens of edits almost every single day from its inception on 26 August 2007. All major edits by other editors or attempts at condensation have been speedily reverted. I see a severe ownership issue here, even apart from PHG's remark here [2] reminding us that "I created this article and most of its content." Kafka Liz (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I agree that there is a possible failure to strive for consensus. An RfC on this issue would be most productive to the project. If PHG does not want to create one, than other involved editors should. The situation should be presented *neutrally* and not with bias toward any editor. Wjhonson (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. An RfC is needed to stop the pattern of adding unverifiable information to Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 21:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, and I'm sure all editors will agree that if such a blank assertion were presented as an accurate intro-summary, they would be poisoning the well. The entire RfC would be pointless. So hopefully there is some editor who thinks they can present a truly *neutral* view of the situation as the RfC opener. Wjhonson (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We have already tried multiple steps in WP:DR, without effect. RfC,[3] talkpage consensus-building, polite messages to PHG's talkpage from multiple editors (see above threads, and talkpage history), ANI threads, and even a try at mediation.[4] Even with all these efforts, PHG's behavior just continued to either stonewall or escalate, including camping on "his" article in violation of WP:OWN. He has also inserted biased information into about 50 other articles,[5] which is going to require weeks of cleanup effort. Most recently PHG was creating multiple POV forks, nearly all of which were deleted by overwhelming consensus at AfDs.[6] But instead of heeding the AfDs, PHG responded by creating other POV forks (which have also been deleted), continuing to edit war, and he has most recently been flat-out using deceptive edit summaries, such as saying he's "reverting" an article when he's actually inserting more and more biased information that was never in the article in the first place (50K of information!).[7] He's been doing these reverts every day for about a week now, around 5-6 a.m. GMT.

It saddens me, because I agree that PHG has indeed done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past. But over the last few months his behavior has become, for lack of a better word, bizarre. So we can't deal with him based on what he used to do -- instead, we have to deal with him in terms of how he is behaving now. When all other good-faith efforts to deal with a disruptive editor have failed, it is unfortunately necessary that we just have to remove the disruptive editor from the project. Now, if PHG could acknowledge that his behavior has been a problem, apologize and promise to do better, meaning no more deception, no more edit-warring, and a promise that he's going to seek talkpage consensus before inserting controversial information into articles, then I would be willing to give another try at working with him. But so far his actions over the last few months have shown a pattern of someone who is completely unwilling to work in a good-faith fashion with other editors towards compromise. In which case, Wikipedia really isn't the right place for him. --Elonka 22:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot agree that your above is necessarily an accurate presentation. Any RfC or Mediation should be broadcast for uninvolved parties to review. It certainly appears like there are broader guideline and policy issues here which should be brought forward to a larger community. As for consensus building, multiple parties are at fault. Attempts to pin the blame on a single editor are not going to achieve a wide acceptance.Wjhonson (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) While I agree User:PHG was being disruptive, I think the consecutive reverts by User:Aramgar, User:WJBscribe, User:Shell Kinney and User:Elonka weren't helpful either. I truly don't feel there was a consensus to revert to Elonka's shorter version of the article (although, I've stated a more concise version would likely be better).

What I'm failing to understand here, is why my request for page protection was ignored until another admin blocked PHG. Then an involved admin responded to my WP:RFPP commenting that the issue was "one disruptive editor that has been blocked," resulting in denial of the page protect. The blocking admin noted that he read the talk page, which should have clearly indicated that this controversial issue has no standing consensus. Clearly, User:PHG is guilty of POV pushing with his reverts, but I think that (to a lesser degree) Elonka's version of the article is also POV.

IMHO, this could have been handled much better. The WP:RFPP should have been granted, and User:PHG (among others) should have been warned about baiting, flaming and ownership. The fundamental problem here, is that neither side is willing to compromise on anything, and it's resulted in discussion turning into a flame war, turning into a revert war. It's clear that PHG was disruptive here, but I have to question the validity of the claim that he's the only disruptive editor involved in this.

So, I must again ask that the article be protected (in it's current version, whatever that is) and those editors wishing to, may create subpages and work on their versions from there. The current action has done nothing more than make a heated debate more heated. I doubt that was the intent, but it's clearly the outcome. Justin ^chat 00:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps people who are a bit more involved (for the record, I've touched the article *once*) and understand what's been going on for the last four months have a bit of a clearer picture of what the problem really is. For instance, see the last reply to Wjhonson on my talk which goes in to detail about some of the problems, or the message I left for Ioeth that resulted in the block. The other "side" is compromising, collaborating and has made scads of improvements to "Elonka"'s version since it was put in place and we all managed to get along just fine. Elonka has been perfectly happy to even make suggested changes herself and hunt down source improvements when requested. Other editors are waiting on some reference material to help flesh out or tighten up other sections. There's even a strategy to hammer out any remaining disputes over the article. All of this looks rather productive and its going along in a congenial manner.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that everyone else is actively working on the article, PHG walks in every day and reverts all the work to his preferred version. He is the only editor who is refusing to compromise and has been unable to join in the discussion productively. Somehow, when I'm looking at 6 or more editors working in one direction and one editor reverting any and all changes for four straight months, I don't see a two sided problem. Why would we full protect an article actively being worked on in good faith when stopping one editor will stop the revert war? That's certainly what the protection policy suggests for these sort of situations. Shell ^babelfish 00:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I also question this block since it appears this was an editorial dispute with stubbornness on PHG's part offset by stubbornness on the other side. There does appears to be a lack of consensus extending beyond just PHG, although PHG's comments on the article talk page seems to overstate the extent of the lack of consensus. When I compare PHG's behaviour with our Blocking Policy's requirements, I just don't see disruption anywhere close to the sort of stuff the policy describes. Furthermore, this block appears to be a one-sided step since no opposing editors were sanctioned.

I submit that the appropriate way to address this is through our dispute resolution mechanisms, not the stigmatization and marginalization of one side of a content dispute. An RFC bringing in outside editors might be a good start. Note that I "don't have a dog in this fight" and I am not saying PHG is right or has always done the right thing; I just want to see the proper processes followed here. --A. B. ^(talk) 00:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been an article RfC, discussion on the talk page, discussion on PHG's talk page, warnings on PHG's talk page from uninvolved admins and even a stab at formal mediation. What area of dispute resolution would you suggest? Formal restrictions from the community or ArbCom would certainly be more restrictive than a 24 hour block... Shell ^babelfish 00:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Shell, the very fact that two other editors involved with this article, Justin and Eupator (Ευπάτωρ), disagree with this block:

1. Tells me he problem extends beyond one problematic editor.
2. Indicates that there's more than one side to this story.
3. Confirms for me my assessment that this block was a mistake.

Please read WP:BLOCK again -- I do not see "failure to come to consensus" as one of the allowable reasons for blocking (unless arbitration's involved).

--A. B. ^(talk) 01:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also add that blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. I don't see how this 24 hour block has prevented much of anything. "Cool-down" blocks are specifically precluded by our policy. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A.B. thanks for the outside opinion, but let me try and get you to look at it from a different perspective.

• First, WP:BLOCK does cover this, specifically the section on "Disruption." PHG has been coming in to do a revert every 24 hours, like clockwork. The block prevents him from continuing with that practice, for at least one day. The block is also a useful deterrent, per WP:BLOCK, to try and prevent such behavior in the future: "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment."
• Justin is only peripherally involved with the article. He's posted a few times on the talkpage over the last week, but I do not feel that he understands the extent of the situation
• Eupator is also a newly-involved editor in the situation, and I would point out both that he is already under ArbCom restrictions for this topic area, and that he was specifically (and recently) canvassed to come in by PHG.[8] So I would take Eupator's comments with a grain of salt.

Elonka, just letting you know that I reserve the right to use your continued personal attacks directed towards me against you in the future.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• PHG's behavior has been in clear violation of WP:OWN for months now. He has been editing tendentiously, and fighting a battle against anyone else who would edit what he often refers to as "his" article. We can supply multiple diffs which show PHG saying things like, "I am the primary editor. I created most of the content." Which "most" was often true, because he would be systematically deleting anything that anyone else added.
• Good faith is gone, because PHG was deliberately lying in edit summaries.[9] See WP:AGF, and that's one of the specific examples of where good faith no longer has to be applied, is as soon as a user starts blatantly lying: "Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."
• When all other attempts at dealing with a disruptive editor have failed, and it is clear that the editor has every intention of continuing with the disruptive behavior, then a block is appropriate. --Elonka 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) I do not feel that the above summary is an entirely accurate view on the situation. Regardless, there appears to be a breakdown on any attempt to reach consensus, to such an extent as to involve peripheral editors in the spillover. In that situation, an RfC is what is called for to elicit wider community involvement. Warnings, blocks and other forms of focus on one editor with a productive history, make the situation look, to outsiders, as a concerted attack to silence an opponent. Surely you would have no issue with a wider community RfC where all side could present the situation in a fair and non-threatening venue. Wjhonson (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I find your presence here highly suspicious, considering that you have never edited in this topic area, and that I was recently cautioning you about unethical behavior in a different dispute. It is my feeling that your suggestion for an RfC is not a genuine attempt to help resolve things, but because you want to escalate this dispute.

Right now the article talkpage is humming along just fine, with multiple editors working together in a cooperative manner to resolve any last remaining issues with the article. I don't see that another RfC is needed, and indeed, I think that an RfC would just become the "Dispute du Jour" and bring no actual benefit. It is instead my hope that when PHG returns, that he will opt to work in a good-faith and cooperative manner with other editors, towards the goal of providing a neutral article which accurately depicts the consensus of modern scholarship. Which is why we're here, right? As long as he does that, no further escalation of dispute resolution should be required. --Elonka 02:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. Right now the article is the basis for escalation which is counter-productive to the project. In that situation an RfC is standard operating procedure. My call for an RfC is not because I want to escalate the situation, but because the situation calls for impartial observers to comment on it. And contrary to your assertion, you had an opinion that something I had done off-Wiki was unethical, and I had the opinion that it was not. None of which has any bearing on the issue at hand. PHG may have been working all along in a good-faith manner. Characterizing the situation here is not working toward the betterment of the project and serves no purpose except to drag other uninvolved editors into it because it has gotten this far without finding common ground. I really don't think you of all people, want to pull out the history drawer. I suggest that the focus should be on this article, so I don't have to wander across driblets spilling over into other areas on a daily basis.Wjhonson (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance

I have filed a request for arbitration where you are named as a party. Please feel free to make a statement. Jehochman ^Talk 15:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I think your best bet right now, is rather than going to multiple user talkpages with demands, that instead you focus on preparing a statement for the ArbCom case, which you can post at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance in your own section. Right now the Committee is debating whether or not to accept the case, and your statement would probably be useful to them. For examples of statements, you can read what other editors are posting. If you are unclear on ArbCom procedures, please let us know, and assistance can be provided. --Elonka 10:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Elnoka recall request

Hi. Please rephrase or withdraw the word "perjury"; it is not an acceptable term here, on several fronts. Thx. El_C 18:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed - "perjury" isn't mentioned anywhere in policy, and Wikipedia is not a courtroom. Frivolous recall requests like this undermine the entire process. Orderinchaos 23:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:EducationalScores2003

A tag has been placed on Template:EducationalScores2003 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Poverty in India

PHG, in your talk page this user has made wild accusations on me. I will request you please read the relevant sections on Talk:Poverty in India to give you an inside in this user and to understand who is incivil. You please read the texts like these [10], [11], [12]. The Bodggaya beggar image is more appropriate than others because:

• You may know, many beggars live a condition like this, many of them have various disabilities.

There is no "typical" definition of poverty, or beggar. There are abled beggar, disabled beggar. The purpose of the article is depicting poverty. The other beggar images which this user want to place deleting the Bodhgaya beggar image are not good quality, one is B&W, and the other depicting a beggar girl in Ladakh. But my objection here is that Ladakh is quite different from rest of the country because of its geographics. Majority Indians live in plain. And this Bodhgaya beggar image is showing poverty at its most extreme level. It is not right to conceal the situation of poor men like this, it is the truth, the reality. This image touches the heart of the reader, which is a real situation. Yes not all beggars are disabled, but is this an argument? On the other hand it also can be said that not all beggars are abled. Our job here is not to understand who is abled, or who is not. But to find a good image which is representative of many.

• This user is repeatating his arguments and has taken a densive position by his ad hominem attack on me. Any one do not agree with him, here I am trying to depict poverty, and he is labelling me as Indophobic. There are other editors who honoured me for my contributions. The only reason given against this image that "since all beggars have not messed up legs, this image is undue". But it is an anti-individualistic argument. So what if not all beggars do not have messed up legs? The fact is that such secenes is a reality and it would not be right to conceal it. Such scenes exists, it is the truth. If it is reality, if such scenes exits, then an article depicting poverty i.e. "the condition of lacking full economic access to fundamental human needs such as food, shelter and safe drinking water", only those images should remain which clearly illustrate this fact.
• This user has informed many partisan editors, like User:Bakasuprman about the image. This user also informed this to banned Hkelkar socks. I will also request you check this user's contributions. Please remember the article is not about India, but the article is about poverty. This article is not depicting India, depicting poverty in India. So such image is not deriding India, it is illustrating the poverty in India. This image, I think, will be very appropriate. Your right judgement will be appreciated. I have told you why I am supporting the includsion of this image. Regards. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Licensing issues

Hi, after reviewing about three dozen of your pencil sketches I've found a serious problem that appears to apply to just about the whole collection. Fortunately it's a solveable problem. Multiple levels of copyright are involved so I'll address this with bullet points.

• Original historic artworks - all public domain.
• Photographs of those historic artworks - copyrightable. Since the original artworks were three dimensional, angle and lighting and resulting shadows/tonal balance comprise a significant creative contribution on the part of the photographer. (Photographs of two-dimensional artworks are non-copyrightable reproductions, but your sketches were all based upon coins with raised surfaces, bas reliefs, and other three dimensional works).
• Sketches based upon those photographs - derivative works of the photographs, unless multiple original photographs were drawn upon as inspiration to create a sketch that's significantly different from all of them.

Out of 30+ sketches of yours reviewed so far, every one I've been able to verify fully is a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. Nearly all of the rest are sourced to photographs in copyrighted books. A couple of instances are indeterminate, such as this author where your description is incomplete and it isn't possible to tell which of two similarly titled books by the same author served as the basis for your sketch: the public domain 1921 work or the copyrighted 1951 book.

So unless I'm very mistaken, these sketches of yours should all (or nearly all) be transferred from Commons to Wikipedia where fair use material may be hosted, and have the license tags changed to copyright/fair use. Things are tense onsite right now so I'm coming directly to you; this looks pretty straightforward to regularize. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 21:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. You've made dozens of edits since I posted this query. Do you intend to respond? Durova^Charge! 19:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you on Commons for 3 days as a result of this. Please take that time to re-upload the images to Wikipedia, so that they can be deleted when this is done. Regards, ^{commons:user:giggy} dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 05:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Archive Your Page

Seriously my friend. You're going for the world's record on number of sections! Have a great day! Wjhonson (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cilician Armenia

Thanks. I already had some info prepared in my user sandbox and when I saw you at work I decided I'd finally add it. I'll try not to read on your toes though and I'll let you do your stuff first. Then I'll see if I can add anything else from Hovannisian. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Misinterpretation of sources

PHG, I am concerned with your recent creation of the article Viam agnoscere veritatis, as you appear to be using it once again as a Coatrack to push this POV about a Franco-Mongol alliance. The sources that you have listed on the article do not make any mention of Viam agnoscere veritatis, and the description that you posted of the document does not have any resemblance to what is actually in the Latin!

As I am sure you know, many editors have expressed strong concerns about your editing in the topic area of the Mongols, and the relations between the Mongols and Europe:

• Many of the articles that you have created, have been deleted as POV forks
• You have engaged in edit wars to maintain your preferred version of the Franco-Mongol alliance article, which edits have been reverted by multiple other editors
• You have been cherry-picking and misquoting sources
• Many other articles that you have edited, have also been identified as containing biased information, and now other editors are having to waste time cleaning things up: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review
• You have engaged in deceptive editing practices, such as saying you were "reinstating" an older version of an article, when in actuality you were using the revert to insert new biased information which had never been in the article in the first place.
• Many editors have issued statements saying that something needs to be done about you, as you may have seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance

But even despite all the concerns that have been expressed, you are still continuing to add more controversial and biased information to Wikipedia.

PHG, I didn't want to take this step, but I feel it necessary to ask you to stop editing in the topic area of the Mongols. You have engaged in many valuable endeavors on Wikipedia in the past, and I do not want to see you completely leave Wikipedia, but I think it is best if you just stop editinnything related to Western-Mongol relations for awhile. Will you please voluntarily abide by my request? If not, I am afraid that there may be further consequences, such as further sanctions on your behavior and editing privileges. Please, stop this before it gets to that point. --Elonka 01:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Just because I have discussions with you surely doesn't mean I should stop edit on a given topic. Just evaluate articles for what they are. Viam agnoscere veritatis is fully referenced and legitimate. Stop slandering and making false accusations, just discuss specific facts you would like to challenge. I'll be glad to have the discussion. PHG (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this has gone beyond Elonka's request. I assume you've read the comments on the Arbitration request; there are many editors who feel that you are having difficulty following Wikipedia's editing policies when it comes to this topic. You have been very unwilling to heed the concerns of other editors and engage productively on the topic; you seem unable to consider that if this many editors feel there is something wrong, perhaps there really is something wrong. Wikipedia is a collaborative project which requires editors to work together and if you can't do that due to your strong feelings on this topic area, it would be better if you chose to work on other topics where you do not have similar problems. Ignoring other editors and their discussions simply isn't an option. Shell ^babelfish 11:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PHG, it is very clear by the talkpage discussion that there is absolutely no consensus to revert back to your longer version with serious source and POV problems. Please revert yourself instead of continuing to disrupt the article. Shell ^babelfish 14:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you please tell me which rule you keep referencing to justify your reverts? Shell ^babelfish 14:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, there is no such rule. The status quo is maintained in deletion discussions when no consensus can be reached, however, this method does not extend to editorial decisions. The other major problem I see is that there is certainly no consensus to revert to the version you prefer, in fact, even those who do not specifically suggest keeping the shorter version mention that perhaps an entire rewrite is necessary. Continuing to revert to your version is not going to change the fact that editorial work on the article is going forward. Please stop trying to force your will on all of the other involved editors and work with us. Shell ^babelfish 14:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, but what is happening to the article is not a deletion; article deletion is clearly defined in our deletion policies. What is happening is simply ongoing editorial work and improvement. It is very clear that you are upset at having your work edited, but this editing is part and parcel of submitting content to Wikipedia. There is absolutely no standing in Wikipedia policy or other community consensus which allows you to continue reverting against all other involved editors. Shell ^babelfish 14:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Viam agnoscere veritatis

PHG: There are two serious problems with the abbreviated Latin letter you have posted at Viam agnoscere veritatis. I have transcribed the full text of the letter on the talk page. How do you account for the discrepancy of date between the citation of the letter and the text of the article? How do you account for the fact that this letter mentions neither persecution nor an alliance? It should be clear even to those with no Latin that this letter was carried by a certain Laurentius of Portugal. This Laurentius departed Rome in 1245 about the same time as Ascelin of Lombardia and Simon of St Quentin left for the East by another route. Aramgar (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I echo Aramgar's concerns. And there are already multiple editors complaining at the article talkpage, but for the record I'll say it again here. PHG, what you did was take bits and pieces from different history books, and because of your innate bias, you made the assumption that they were talking about the same thing, and then you wrote a Wikipedia article as though they were talking about the same thing, and in the process you wrote an article that not only violated WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE, it was just plain wrong. This is not the first time that you have done this. Further, as should be painfully obvious to you and anyone else following your activities, you are deliberately ignoring everyone's good-faith cautions to you. I am also disappointed to see that despite a clear consensus at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll, that you are still trying to edit-war there in defiance of the talkpage.[13]

It is my opinion that you should be blocked from Wikipedia, and that the block should be kept in place until you can at least acknowledge that you understand the problems that your behavior has caused. It is also my opinion that unless you can promise to stop disrupting, that the block should not be lifted. However, that's not my call. I'm obviously involved in this dispute, and as such, I should not use my admin tools. But I can and will make recommendations. In short, I am really tired of having to follow along behind you and clean up your messes. You are damaging Wikipedia, you are expressing every indication of someone who's going to keep on damaging Wikipedia, and since you will not stop voluntarily, you will have to be stopped by force. --Elonka 01:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be on the opposite side, seeking every means available to stop the application of force to silence dissent. Our goal is not to smother editors with whom we disagree, but to find common ground. Some editors refuse to make a significant attempt to seek common ground and instead throw out threats whenever there is disagreement. That is disruptive to the project and cannot be tolerated. Wjhonson (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, you are not a neutral observer, can you please stick to your own disputes, rather than stalking my edits to find someplace else that you can stir the pot? PHG's actions have been enormously destructive to the project, and I'm disappointed that you would be willing to tolerate such behavior. We have tried every possible means of finding common ground. Request for comment, mediation, and months of talkpage discussions. PHG refuses to compromise, refuses to acknowledge any consensus that disagrees with his own opinion, and further, continues to insert false information into Wikipedia. Enough is enough. --Elonka 02:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wjhonson, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of the situation. I don't think Elonka is trying to stifle dissent: numerous editors have tried hard to work with PHG and met with absolute inflexibility. His ownership issues seem to have made it impossible for him to collaborate with other editors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kafka Liz (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Kafka as you can see Elonka claims I'm "stalking" her, which is completely untrue as you can see from my own contribs list. She claims falsely that I'm stirring the pot, when it's herself that starting throwing out threats. She claims falsely that PHG's edits are "enormously destructive". That kind of language is prima facie evidence that she is unable to find any common ground with PHG and will not. The claim that "every possible means" is false. I do not see that occurring. That PHG refuses to compromise is false. That there is such a thing as "false information" is not in accord with project guidelines. We do not report the truth because we report sources, not truth. Reviewing PHG's comments to others, it's fairly plain that he can work with others, he just chooses not to work with others who resort to attacks and abuse and insults. I think Elonka should leave these pages, her approach is not helping the situation. I've been monitoring this page, not all of Elonka's contribs. I'm monitoring this page in order to stop the very sort of attacking that was posted. Period. I don't have a care about the content issue, but I'm not going to sit by and let a valued editor be addressed by threats.Wjhonson (talk) 03:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Elonka is grasping for a way to describe a host of issues in a small space. I'm not sure what you should call it when an editor misrepresents sources, attempts to disrupt consensus building activities, creates POV forks, reverts instead of discussion, reverts against consensus... the list goes on. Whatever you'd personally like to call it, feel free, but don't defend it without knowing the full extent of the last 6 months worth of history on these issues.

Wjhonson, you are developing a habit of defending editors despite their poor behavior, like the recent ANI thread in which you argued against many administrators that a spammer and troll didn't deserve a block. Its always a good thing to make sure that the little guy isn't getting picked on, but please take a bit more care to know the back-story before making your choices. Shell ^babelfish 03:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm developing a habit of preventing useful editors from being attacked by threats. Turning around, when I defend PHG and attacking me on baseless charges, is no way to try to win my sympathy. It is however reminescent of a few choice events from the past. This has to stop. User talk is not the place to issue threats over these sort-of long running content issues. I have seen talk of his behaviour, but no specific diffs are presented to highlight exactly where he did anything wrong. We have RfC/U as I've mentioned several times, issued over a user's conduct should be taken there, not here. The wider community can then weigh in, while few people watch any particular user talk page. I've been following the back story a bit, I commented on it, in the recent ArbCom case. My perception of what occurred matches some editors, and not others. That does not make my perception wrong, nor others right, just different. Dickering this out on user talk is not the appropriate venue imho. If Elonka or anyone else wants to file a RfC/U on PHG then they should do so.Wjhonson (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, thanks to Elonka, you have a great deal of material to peruse below and as you should be aware, if you're reading things like you say, there is a case before the ArbCom about PHG's behavior, so dispute resolution is being followed. If the fact that we have the courtesy to discuss matters with him and try to stop him from further hurting himself is to be held against us in your opinion, then so be it. Shell ^babelfish 08:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No Shell, I'm all for discussion and courtesy. That is how wikisociety should ideally operate. His behaviour on content issues should be brought before the relevant boards and mediators if that's an issue and then all sides can be given a fair and impartial hearing. Thank you for maintaining a cordial atmosphere and I will try to read through the diffs that Elonka has so graciously provided. They would probably do more good however in an RfC/U or at the ArbCom Evidence page.Wjhonson (talk) 09:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Diffs

For anyone reviewing this page, who for some reason has neither the time nor inclination to actually review the related talkpages for themselves, here are relevant diffs which indicate some of the problems with PHG's behavior over the last few months. For a few paragraphs that summarize the content dispute, see User:Elonka/Mongol quickref. For the user conduct issues, see below:

• PHG has been exhibiting WP:OWN behavior on multiple articles, most notably at Franco-Mongol alliance, an article which he has increased in size to around 200K. He has been systematically reverting anyone who attempts to condense it. He never violates 3RR, but instead does reverts every 24 hours:
  • January 20, 06:17 (reverted by Shell Kinney)[14]
  • January 21, 05:33 (reverted by Elonka)[15]
  • January 22, 06:07 (reverted by Elonka)[16]
  • January 23, 06:00 (reverted by WJBscribe)[17]
  • January 24, 05:16 (reverted by Aramgar)[18]
  • January 25, 05:07 (reverted by Aramgar)[19]

  (page protected from January 26 - February 3)

  • February 3, 13:57 (reverted by Kafka Liz)[20]

• A clear consensus has been confirmed at the article talkpage to condense the article: Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Consensus poll. PHG, however, continues to deny that there is consensus, and continues to edit-war, trying to revert the article to his 200K version.[21]
• PHG has been creating many POV forks and WP:COATRACK articles, into which he is continuing to put biased and highly questionable information. See Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#List of articles for review.
• PHG ignored the results of an article RfC
• PHG ignored the consensus about the article's introduction sentence
• Several of PHG's POV forks have had to be put through XfD to be deleted:
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (includes "Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282)" and "Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)")
  • Mongol alliances in the Middle East
  • Template:Mongol alliances
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)
  • Mongol conquests and Jerusalem
  • Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) (new title created by PHG in an attempt to dodge an earlier AfD)
• Many editors have taken the time to post at PHG's talkpage, expressing concerns about his behavior: (Elonka)(Geogre)(Adam Bishop)[22](WJBscribe) (Ioeth)[23] (Aramgar) (Kafka Liz)[24](Srnec) (Eupator) (Shell Kinney)[25] (Luna Santin) (Jehochman) (Orderinchaos) (Durova) (Dihydrogen Monoxide)
• PHG has engaged in deceptive behavior, such as saying he was "reinstating" an article, when in actuality he was using the edit to insert information that had never been in the article in the first place (inserting nearly 50K of information).[26]
• PHG was blocked for 24 hours for disruption and edit-warring.[27][28]
• Many editors expressed strong concerns about PHG's behavior, in statements at a Request for Arbitration: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance

We now have dozens of articles which need complex cleanup, and PHG is continuing to cause more problems on a near daily basis. Most recently, see Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis, where he is being criticized for original research and misinterpretation of sources. An attempt was made to cleanup the article, but PHG simply added the information right back in.

All other appropriate dispute resolution techniques have been tried, without success. PHG refuses to even acknowledge that his behavior has been a problem, and he simply continues to argue and edit-war.

The thing that is of most concern about all this, is the longterm damage that PHG is causing to Wikipedia. The really dangerous part to Wikipedia, is not just that PHG is defying other editors, but that he seems to have a talent for inserting biased and false information into Wikipedia, and making it look well-sourced. With all of these problems that we have discovered just in his work about the Mongols, I think it is very likely that similar problems will be found in other of PHG's efforts as well, but it is going to require someone actually digging in and looking at the sources to find the truth and identify the areas that need cleanup. For example, it was recently discovered that he has been uploading dozens of images which are copyright violations. Again, this is going to require hours of cleanup time.

In summary: PHG is one of the more dangerous types of editors that we can have on Wikipedia. He inserts false information into the project, in ways that make the information difficult to identify, and difficult to remove. He refuses to work towards consensus. He ignores all good-faith warnings. He wastes the time of many other good editors, who could be spending time on far more productive pursuits than having to clean up after him. I do appreciate that PHG has done some good work on Wikipedia, but I do not think that this balances out all the damage that he is causing at the same time. It is my opinion that unless he agrees to change his behavior, that he should be removed from the project. --Elonka 07:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first set of diffs and they are disappointing. From the beginning, the short-version vs long-version has been a content issue. This sort of reverting is not bad behaviour. It represents a long-standing content issue, which should be taken to a wider community level if the editors cannot find common ground. That is standard procedure, we have many boards for it. There is an awful lot of WP:KETTLE in the above which doesn't help your argument, it hampers it. I'm certain you could come to some sort of agreement if you really think about putting the project first. I'll take a look at the rest of the diffs in a bit. Wjhonson (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you seek PHG's permission to use his talk page to showcase this? It's unconventional, also speaking about him in third person, etc. El_C 09:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)