Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:47, 20 February 2008

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

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

Motions and requests by the parties

PHG advised to stop creating articles in this topic area

1) While this Arbitration case is active, PHG (talk · contribs) shall cease creating any new articles in the topic area of Franco-Mongol relations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, because despite dozens of complaints, PHG is continuing to make more POV forks and coatrack articles. Most recently he created Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar,[1] The latter especially is an effective copy/paste from Franco-Mongol alliance, including a long list of sources which have nothing to do with the new article's topic. Each of the new articles could probably be covered with 2-3 sentences, but instead covers paragraphs of non-relevant information. I am requesting that the Arbitrators formally forbid PHG from creating more articles in this topic area, at least until this case is resolved, because each time he creates another one, it just wastes more time from the rest of us who have to move in for cleanup. Several of PHG's creations have had to be put through XfD (evidence), and we still have dozens of other POV forks that we are already working on, we don't need him making even more. --El on ka 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible given that PHG seems incapabe of seeing how disruptive this is becoming. As Mackensen below, I hope this could be a voluntary undertaking. WjBscribe 20:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much through with content creation in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance, and I'm currently quite busy in real life anyway. My two most recent articles Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar are very straightfoward and fact-based articles, so I really don't see what the fuss is about "not creating new articles". This seems quite ridiculous. I compiled over a period of 6 months about 200k of material and 400 academic references on this subject (Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)), I am very proud of the work that has been done, and I strongly dispute any claim that this information is not legitimate. It is all sourced from proper published sources, and if there are disputes, it should be balanced with competing sources in a Wikipedia:NPOV manner, not just deleted abusively claiming "consensus" in small-scale polling. I am willing to discuss specific issues, but I find rather disgusting to see Elonka and a few of her friends band together and just throw false accusations to try to block a goodwilling and generous user such as myself in order to have their point-of-view prevail. This is bullying and politicking to the extreme. Regards PHG (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sensible, and similar in concept to the fait accompli principles from the Episodes and Characters arbitration. While a particular mode of conduct is disputed it makes sense to refrain until the matter is settled. It would be better if PHG could give such an undertaking voluntarily. Mackensen (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this, though I'm not sure this goes far enough. While we'd all like this to be voluntary, PHG appears to be unable to see the amount of disruption his behavior is causing. For instance, see his comments about his latest block [2]. Shell ^babelfish 21:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a pretty clear misinterpretation of the results of the poll. I agree with Shell, that PHG has never seemed willing to voluntarily moderate his behavior, or even to acknowledge the concerns of other editors. He just keeps plowing ahead on his own course. --El on ka 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment is highly dishonest Elonka: the poll in question does not give you a "consensus" to delete 120k of material and 300 references. As far as I know a 3 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "against" is not considered a consensus by any standard on Wikipedia. You are simply violating the rules. PHG (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely doubt ArbCom is going to grant this request (and consider it even more unlikely that PHG is going to agree to it willingly). The problem is, on the surface at least, PHG seems entirely convinced that what his writing is sincere and weighted appropriately. Whether or not that's true is NOT something that anyone but PHG can know with 100% accuracy. While I initially supported PHG's version of the main article, it seems that several competent folks with considerably greater knowledge than me disagreed with many of his assertions.

Whether or not PHG's articles are really violating NPOV is out of the realm of ArbCom restrictions, whether preemptive or at the conclusion of this request. In light of that, ArbCom is likely going to ignore any requests for sanctions based on content issues. I'd highly recommend that everyone keep their focus (both here and at the /Evidence subpage) on behavioral problems. At the conclusion of this ArbCom review, if you feel the sanctions aren't broad enough, take the content issues to the community at-large (which has, and can, impose sanctions for constantly adding improper content).

While I realize you all are trying to prevent problems, in reality, this only obscures the problems that ArbCom can deal with. While initially I didn't feel the behavioral issues warranted ArbCom involvement, it seems they do. So perhaps it would be best to keep focus ON the behavioral issues, and not the content problems. Justin ^chat 05:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should try to speak for ArbCom. Falsifying sources is totally out of bounds, and needs to be stopped. This isn't a subtle issue. It's not a dispute about NPOV. It's about a user perpetrating hoaxes in Wikipedia. PHG's intentions don't matter, only the results and his failure to modify behavior after receiving feedback. Jehochman ^Talk 16:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, with all due respect, I think you may be confused on the difference between "content issues" and "conduct issues." A content issue would be where we had one group of editors saying "There was an alliance" and another group of editors saying, "No there wasn't," and then we'd ask ArbCom to rule on which group was right or wrong. That's content. However, when we have nearly every editor saying, "Stop making POV forks, stop misrepresenting sources" and one editor keeps on making forks and cherry-picking sources, then that's not a content issue, that's a conduct issue. Yes, the editor is making content, but the real problem is user conduct. When one editor willfully ignores the cautions of everyone else, that's a conduct issue. Which is exactly within ArbCom's purview. --El on ka 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also in reply to Justin, one of the core issues of this arbitration is whether PHG presents legitimate citations of expert research or whether he ransacks sources for passing mentions and vague phrases to construe into accordance with his own pet theories. In terms of site policies this is a question of no original research; if Wikipedia were a university it would be called academic honesty and treated with the utmost seriousness. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I was going to ignore this, but decided to bring up a couple of points. I never once spoke for ArbCom. I gave an opinion that ArbCom wouldn't grant this motion, which they have not. And my original point stands: this IS a NPOV issue. Calling it a POV fork but not a NPOV issue is absurd. So I maintain my point... let ArbCom deal with the behavioral issues, let the community handle content issues, but more importantly, why not drop all of this nonsense until ArbCom has a chance to review it all? Justin ^chat 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all no editor should ever feel discouraged from writing articles or adding new content unless they are a blatant vandal. It is important that no editor is made to feel like they shouldn;t contribute and certainly nobody should ever gives orders to another editor to stop their work. However factual accuracy and reliable sources are very important to our encyclopedia. Shouldn't you be discussing how to agree on what is reliable and gives an accurate view of the topic and come to an agreement civilly with PHG to ensure that content is accurate and of a high standard? Does he use reliable references? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to discuss sources and matters with PHG on the talk page of the articles in question. Some of my concerns get answered, some are still waiting for PHG to return to the subject that he promised to return to "soon". In my view, some of his sources are reliable, some are of lesser quality, but might be able to be replaced with better ones, and some of his usage of the sources is questionable. He has addressed a few of those concerns, but others still are not being addressed. I like to think I've remained civil and constructive, and hope that nothing I've said would be considered a personal attack. Ealdgyth | Talk 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ealdgyth. As I said, I'll be glad to keep on discussing sources stuff. As I said, my free time is limited, so it is very hard for me to edit decently and respond to the kind of stupid accusations we have here. I must say you also have been working on the shorter version (70k) anyway, so I hardly see the point of having me working on the references of the longer version when Elonka and her supporters keep deleting it. PHG (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I strongly suggest that you identify those sources and information which you all agree is reliable and work around this. I seriously doubt PHG would write a bluff article. I would suggest that one of you including Elonka when you have a spare moment draw up a list of references or sections which you believe evades an accurate description of the topic and discuss how to replace it or affirm that the existing ones are accurate. It just isn't a good solution to make an editor feel unwelcome, particularly when they are trying hard to write an article they believe is good. Wikipedia needs as many constructive editors as possible. I;ve seen the picture of the books PHG is using and they look academical enough but somebody believes he is adding original research which isn't in the book? Mmm that complicates things if true but either way I'd try to find the root of the problem and try to filter out any books or sources which you believe are less than adequate. If PHG you are concerned about having your work deleted, why not write an article in your sandbox and then discuss with the others what should be done to make it the best possible. Then when you come to some form of agremeent add it to the mainspace when most people are happy with it. This will save having your work wiped and further trouble, time also is precious but it can be avoided if you discuss it ALL through and try to work together and assume good faith. I hope you can find a solution peacefully and without further conflict as working in an environment like that isn't a good thing for anybody. Love ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PHG
I'm pretty much through with content creation in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance, and I'm currently quite busy in real life anyway. My two most recent articles Aïbeg and Serkis and Samagar are very straightfoward and fact-based articles, so I really don't see what the fuss is about "not creating new articles". This seems quite ridiculous. I compiled over a period of 6 months about 200k of material and 400 academic references on this subject (Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)), I am very proud of the work that has been done, and I strongly dispute any claim that this information is not legitimate. It is all sourced from proper published sources, and if there are disputes, it should be balanced with competing sources in a Wikipedia:NPOV manner, not just deleted abusively claiming "consensus" in small-scale polling. I am willing to discuss specific issues, but I find rather disgusting to see Elonka and a few of her friends band together and just throw false accusations to try to block a goodwilling and generous user such as myself in order to have their point-of-view prevail. This is bullying and politicking to the extreme. Regards PHG (talk) 07:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you appreciate that Adam Bishop is a doctoral candidate in Medieval history, and doesn't trust your research? Do you appreciate that I hold a degree in history from an Ivy League university, and have serious concerns about your use of sources? Anyone who wishes is welcome to check my bona fides. Are you willing to entertain the possibility that perhaps you are neither being bullied nor politicked, but instead you might possibly be an autodidact with mistaken notions about historical method and historiography? Durova^Charge! 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Durova. I have an MBA from an elite French school and a leading Japanese University, and did receive some of the best secondary and tertiary education in these countries. All the material I contribute to Wikipedia is from proper published sources. I know the subjects I tend to like and write about are extremely arcane (Indo-Greek kingdom, Franco-Mongol alliance to cite a few), but I have absolutely no doubt about the quality of my contributions. Regards PHG (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, I am beginning to question why you write about extremely arcane subjects - is it because you think you can get away with it? You can write any sort of nonsense because no one is going to be able to question you? Perhaps this is true for the Indo-Greeks, but you have met your match now. I bet you never thought you would come across so many people who knew something, anything, about the crusades. You weren't arcane enough this time! The more you repeat your mantras of "proper published sources", "400 academic references", "non-negotiable policy", the less credible you are. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Adam. You will easily see that many of my contributions are not so arcane either (User:PHG#Created articles) :) My main interests revolve around cultural interaction through the Ages, and I enjoy developing content on these subjects. These are generally little-known subjects, and I enjoy bringing light to them. Some other examples are: Indo-Greeks, Boshin War, Hasekura Tsunenaga, Christianity among the Mongols, Sino-Roman relations, Roman trade with India etc... Like it or not, all my contributions are based on proper published material. I will be delighted to discuss if you have issues with them. PHG (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what someone said on the talk page once, just because someone says they are "academic references" doesn't make them so. Some are, some aren't. I too, studied history in college, and while I didn't finish an advanced degree, I did take the classes. I have concerns, that I've detailed on the evidence page, with the use of sources and the sources used, and those concerns remain unaddressed. Ealdgyth | Talk 15:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrees are moot at Wikipedia. It doesn't matter who a doctoral candidate is or isn't, since any information on that basis is original research. To be perfectly honest, I think you all look foolish for attempting to make a point with it. All of you have obscured the main purpose of this RfA, and turned it into some odd "my qualifications are better than yours" competition. To be blunt: grow up. This isn't about Harvard being better than Yale, or a doctorate in history making you a better editor. This is about behavioral issues related to several articles, and thus far, you've obfuscated that with this degree nonsense. Justin ^chat 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG opened the door to a credentials discussion by repeatedly insisting that the people who disagreed with him were incompetent partisans. He continues to claim full confidence in his article writing even though half of his featured articles have been defeatured. One does not mediate with a habitual violator of WP:SYNTH because there isn't any policy that allows for Wikipedia:Some original research. The questions have been whether he violates WP:NOR deliberately and whether he can stop. I would very much like to see him adjust to feedback and become a more successful contributor. He is prolific and works in highly encyclopedic subjects, but his methods are unsound. Durova^Charge! 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one who "opened the door to a credentials discussion" Durova, you did, by giving Adam Bishop's credentials and suggesting I was an "autodidact". And I never said that those who disagree with me are "incompetent partisans". Stop lying Durova, this is quite a shame that you should misrepresent the comments of others in such a way. Your other accusations are also totally unwarranted. PHG (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, please review your formal evidence statement here where you first state that Elonka didn't understand copyright, and then specifically name me as "another one of Elonka's friends" in a context that implies I don't know what I'm doing either. I politely requested you to modify that and you didn't. That compelled me to submit formal evidence; what I've presented so far is the second draft--the short version. Please withdraw the the accusation that I am lying. I am not lying, and if you insist upon making honesty an issue here I can post the full statement I have already written. You would really serve yourself better if things didn't go there. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Durova. I removed the speculation that you were one of Elonka's friend (I had a question mark there), but as far as I know the rest is true. Elonka made huge attacks on me based on a defective understanding (intentional or not) of Pd-Art [3] [4]. You actually owe me an apology for falsely claiming above that I "opened the door to a credentials discussion", that I call those who disagree with me "incompetent partisans", or suggesting that I was an "autodidact". I am fed up with your gratuitous attacks. Correct yourself. PHG (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've struck through my evidence. Durova^Charge! 19:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Justin that this degree stuff is a red herring. The only reason anyone ever brought up their history degrees (or whatever) was because doesn't know how to research and write history, and we were trying to help. (But this will lead me to a rant on the inherent failures of Wikipedia that have nothing to do with Arbcom, so I'll stop.) (And if I am to be used as an example, well, the article has been critiqued and rewritten by many others with basically zero input from me at all.) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Proposed final decision

Proposals by User:Elonka

Proposed Principles

No original research

1) Wikipedia is not a venue for publishing, publicizing, or promoting original research in any way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Sadi Carnot case. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my source material for the Franco-Mongol alliance. All I write if from proper published sources. PHG (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an obvious Wikipedia rule. All contributions should be sourced from proper published material, which is the case of all my contributions (although nobody is safe from seeing some of his sources being disputed once in a while). I actually sourced the Franco-Mongol alliance article with 400 references [5] so that nothing could be construed as original research, but in her rewrite Elonka deleted 300 of them [6], thereby creating a much less documented article. PHG (talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

No falsification of sources

2) Deliberate attempts to misrepresent or falsify the content of sources are extremely harmful to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a basic Wikipedia rule. Quite ironically, Elonka has been caught misrepresenting sources on numerous occasions: Here Here, Here Here. Elonka also repeatedly emended and corrupted a quote by the French historian Laurent Dailliez to try to discredit him, trying to have him say historical untruths that he never said Summary/Full discussion. Elonka doesn't just misinterpret: she openly falsifies content to suit her intent. PHG (talk) 16:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Even longterm editors must be held to a positive standard of behavior

3) Positive contributions in one area of Wikipedia, do not excuse disruptive behavior in another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is talking about disruptive behaviour here? Elonka breaks promisses made in Mediation: here, Elonka keeps making false accusations inspite of being desmonstrated she is wrong (like falsely claiming I added "50k of new content" as I reinstated the original version of the article here), Elonka deleted 200k of content and 300 academic references [7], falsely claiming "consensus" through minute tallying of a few editors [8], here. I am only upholding Wikipedia rules that all significant opinions should be represented per Wikipedia:NPOV, and that in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail.
Since Elonka is speaking about the actions of longterm editors: it is a fact that she has repeatedly been involved in the most lurid disputes all along, leading the most violent personal attacks [9]. For my part, in four years of Wikipedia I've never had to experience ANI, or Requests for arbitration, or any kind of block until Elonka started to take me as a target. PHG (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Broadly applicable. Durova^Charge! 05:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession

4) Users who display rigid or obsessional editing behavior may be fully or partially banned from editing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Copperchair case. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Windsurf22Philippines.JPG

Obsession? Talk about yourself Elonka. I am a highly balanced guy with a great personal life thank you (here windsurfing in the Philippines), and some very balanced contributions to Wikipedia.

As a matter of fact, I am afraid Elonka has an obsession against me :) Her obsession is even bordering on dellusion [10] [11]. I even had to file a claim for harassment here. The very broadness of the subjects I contribute to (more than 200 created articles on a great variety of topics User:PHG#Created articles) speaks against any notion of me being obsessional about any given subject. I am actually highly eclectic. There are some subjects I am very interested in, and I love to spend some of my free time researching it. I am a highly balanced guy, with a great familly life, a very succesful carreer as an international business manager, and I practice a lot of sports!! I don't spend days and night gathering dirt against other editors as Elonka seems to love doing. PHG (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reliability of sources

5) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, from Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who can define "expertise" on Wikipedia? This is ground to huge arbitrariness and lobbying by some editors. Per Wikipedia:NPOV all significant views should be expressed, and the criteria of where these views should come from is simple: proper published sources. PHG (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Secondary sources

6) Per No original research, Wikipedia articles should only rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with that. I think a limit case would be contemporary historians or chroniclers, whom I think often deserve to be represented. PHG (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

7) Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy requires all encyclopedic content to be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly and without bias all significant views on a topic. Where reliable secondary sources disagree, per undue weight, views should be represented in proportion to the prominence of each. Minority views should not be given as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this is what Wikipedia says. Per Wikipedia:NPOV "all significant views" should be mentionned, and this is "non negotiable". Elonka has been using her above view to deny representation of a multitude of historians who describe the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance): she essentially deleted all reference to them in her 70k rewrite [12]. Such partisan behaviour is completely against NPOV policy: we should balance existing sources, not destroy those one dislikes. PHG (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The above proposal represents fairly current NPOV policy as it is expressed in the section & as it has been implemented. "Significant" is usually understood as referring to a large number of people, especially if they are expert in the field. "Minority" is understood to refer to a smaller number, or less influential group, of people. I haven't seen the term "tiny-minority" before, but I assume it refers to "fringe" or "unique" opinions; in any case there are some opinions that can be omitted from Wikipedia on good grounds, & doing so does not necessarily violate NPOV. -- llywrch (talk) 04:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern sources are preferable to older ones

8) History is a steadily-evolving body of knowledge, as historians build upon earlier work, debate interpretations, reach a consensus, and move forward. For the purposes of Wikipedia, where there is disagreement between reliable secondary sources, preference should be given to modern sources which go into a subject in-depth, as opposed to older sources which cover a subject in a minor way.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is essentially a content decision, I think, regardless of how it's couched. It's somewhat simplistic for my taste, as well—the needed examination of sources is rather more complex than "newer is better", particularly if this is applied to areas where revisionist historiography is more common—but that's a minor point in comparison. Kirill 05:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think modern sources should probably have primacy over older sources, but I think this is no excuse to eliminate older sources altogether. As per Wikipedia:NPOV all significant views should be mentionned, and, as far as I know, there is no discrimination between old and new. PHG (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Too many exceptions to formulate as a useful principle. Do we deprecate de Tocqueville on the French Revolution? Gibbon on Rome? Thucydides on the Peloponnesian War? Durova^Charge! 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this may be beyond the scope of this particular case, but just to answer the question regarding Tocqueville (1805-1859), Gibbon (1737-1794), and Thucydides (460 BC - 395 BC), what it boils down to is, "What is the prevailing consensus of modern historians"? For example, the Templar of Tyre (c. 1300) is considered a major primary source for events during the Crusades. He was a historian, he was published, and he is often cited. But he is also often wrong. Many of the "at the time" historians were also under pressure to write for propaganda purposes, or were working from limited information and dubious sources themselves. I can point to plenty of examples of medieval historians who were working in all good faith, but still got dates wrong, battles wrong, parentage wrong, etc. So if Thucydides said something about a battle, vs. a modern historian talking about that same battle, Wikipedia should stick with the modern scholarship, rather than trying to give equal weight to Thucydides, who is over two thousand years out of date. Now, for non-controversial information, older historians may be perfectly acceptable, but if there is any dispute about a theory, Wikipedia should stick with the consensus of modern scholarship, rather than trying to give "equal weight" to theories from hundreds or thousands of years ago. --El on ka 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a simple and general sense that is usually a good idea. It also gets into issues of historiography that go well beyond ArbCom's mandate and could lead to nonsensical outcomes. I'd hate to see a journal article by some random graduate student get preference over L'Ancien Régime et la Révolution for a to discuss the concept of a revolution of rising expectations. Durova^Charge! 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the longer formulation is a reasonable principle - perhaps it could be scoped even further down by more text, such as adding "Where a reasonable consensus exists among modern historians, there is no need to give equal weight to older secondary sources, even if they espouse what was the historical consensus at that time". That would give us backing to say that we CAN ignore a single revisionist historian. --Alvestrand (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a poor idea to paint a topic as rich as history with such broad strokes (as User:Durova pointed out). User:Alvestrand's suggestion is even worse, because that makes this a very FIRM content issue, which is outside the scope of ArbCom. Fringe theories by "single revisionist historians" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE anyway. Justin ^chat 23:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Durova states above, this principle would be so difficult to implement (& as a result, vulnerable to wikilawyering) that I believe we would be better off not adopting it -- at least as part of a ArbCom finding. (A discussion in the appropriate fora not only would be a better way to obtain its adoption, but might find a more useful way to express its intent.) However, if a statement similar to this one needs to be included, I suggest that it be qualified, viz. "All other considerations being equal, modern sources should be given preference to older ones." This wording would encourage editors who prefer, say, a source written in 1940 over one written in 2002 to explain why the older one is better than the newer. -- llywrch (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

PHG promotes original research

1) PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has for an extensive period of time engaged in knowingly misrepresenting sources in order to promote his original research on Wikipedia. This behavior has spread to dozens of different articles and POV forks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my contributions are from proper published sources. Here are my own "Indo-Greek" books. PHG (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely untrue and a total lie. All my contributions are from proper published sources. I take great pain in sourcing all my material, whether litterary or photographical. This is to the extent that I can end up with an article with 400 references and a quantity of scholarly quotes, occupying up to a third of total article size [13]. PHG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I see little evidence that suggests PHG has "knowingly misrepresented sources" and in fact, stating as much is a little silly, given that only PHG knows if he misrepresented sources intentionally. According to the relevant policies, the difference between a content and POV fork is intent. And we can't really prove intent. Justin ^chat 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete the word "knowingly". The important issue is that he's been misrepresenting sources. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base your accusations on? All my contributions are based on proper published sources. As far as I know, I never mis-represent sources, although there may be instances where interpretation can be disputed. In this case, we find an agreement, we reword, and that's it. PHG (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that knowingly should be removed, but the rest of the statement is sound. Shell ^babelfish 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shell, this is disgracefull. You have been already been accusing me falsely, like saying "I added 49 new paragraphs" as I reinstated the original article, and I have properly shown this to be totally false (I was essentially only reinstating the main article before the split attempt and Elonka's deletions) [14]. You haven't even apologized despite the obvious slander Here. I will gladly discuss however what you think might constitute misrepresentation, but until you succeed in demonstrating your point, this is gratuitous. I do not misrepresent sources: I stick to what they say exactly and most of the time go so far as quoting them in extenso. I work with academic sources about the same way I have been working in taking thousands of Museum photographs for Wikipedia: I take exactly what they say, to the point of bordering paraphrase. I am not a historian (just a down-to-earth MBA-wielding business guy), so I have no interest in formulating theories: I just take what historians say, and that's it. Now, we can have endless debates about exact interpretation, and that's OK, but I believe I am one of the most factual and meticulous editors around in using references. Check User:PHG/Alliance for background, or the 400 academic references I have been putting forward in the main article. PHG (talk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG has not acknowledged problems with his behavior

2) Neither complaints from other editors, nor blocks from uninvolved administrators, have been effective in moderating PHG's behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. One major factor in this dispute is that PHG has never acknowledged any wrongdoing, and has never even given any indication that he is capable of acknowledging that community consensus may be different from his own opinion. Further, each time that he has been blocked, he has still been unable to acknowledge even a basic understanding of why he was blocked. He continues to argue, and makes statements which imply that he is going to continue with his own course of behavior, regardless of consensus or the fact that he has been blocked. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the heart of the problem; the fact that PHG is disruptive seems well documented and in my experience the reason other avenues were unable to resolve the problem is that PHG is either incapable or uninterested in moderating his behavior. He has yet to show a single instance where he chose to change his behavior based on feedback and instead, argues vehemently his behavior is proper and all feedback has been incorrect or doesn't apply because of his interpretations of policy. Shell ^babelfish 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have received several barnstars for my work on the Franco-Mongol alliance and many other topics (visible on my User page). PHG (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my contributions are from proper published material. Elonka has been deleting 120k of content and 300 references developed over a period of 6 months [15]. It is only normal that I fight to have this content preserved. She, and a few of her supporters have criticized me for this, but I have also received several barnstars from other users for my work on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Regarding some edit arguments, I am only upholding Wikipedia rules that all significant opinions should be represented per Wikipedia:NPOV, and that in the absence of a consensus, the status quo should prevail. I am actually quite a cooperative editor as also ackowledged by other users [16]. PHG (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-evidently true. WjBscribe 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Difficult to assess in a general manner, but consistent with my limited observation. Durova^Charge! 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just scanning PHG's responses in this thread seems to me like a convincing argument that this is a fact. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I do know an editor (User:Elonka) who does have a huge behavioural problem in constantly Wikilayering and attacking other users [17], and I have no intention to accept this kind of bullying. It is our role as Wikipedians to fight personal attacks and constant slandering. We are a group of volunteers with a love for knowledge sharing, and we are not here to be submitted to the repressive politics of a power-hungry self-promoting individual. Just share the knowledge, and fight vandals, not well-meaning and generous contributors such as ourselves. PHG (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG has violated WP:OWN

3) PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), has repeatedly defied talkpage consensus, by edit-warring to restore his preferred version of an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka has been deleting 120k of content and 300 references developed over a period of 6 months [18]. It is only normal that I fight to have this content preserved. This is not about OWN, this is about respecting the work done by other users (me in this case) and respecting Wikipedia rules of cooperative editing. Elonka's actions are not only rude to me and a terrible insult to so many scholars who write about the Franco-Mongol alliance (User:PHG/Alliance), they are also flouting Wikipedia rules that content should be discussed collaboratively, not just erased for another version, trying to obtain a consensus after the fact. PHG (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

PHG banned

1) PHG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Further, I would add a condition that even after one year is up, that he should not be allowed back unless he is able to state that he understands why he was blocked, and he must be able to promise that he will adopt a better standard of behavior in the future. If he cannot do this, then the block should be made indefinite. --El on ka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is comical. I believe Elonka should be reprimended for constant harassment of users she has an obsession with (and I am apparently not the first case), constant misrepresentation of facts, constant politicking trying to get support online and offline. Her behaviour is predatory to the extreme, and highly disruptive to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most regrettably this is necessary. Subtle perpetuation of ahistorical information causes great damage to the encyclopedia, is much worst than inserting potty humor into articles, because obvious mischief is easily corrected. The damage and loss of volunteer time has been very substantial in this case. Some people are not compatible with the project and must be politely asked to leave. Hopefully they do so with their dignity intact. I do not think PHG is a bad person, but they misunderstand what Wikipedia is for, and they stubbornly refuse to listen to any advice. I see no other option. If they eventually have an epiphany, they can apply for the ban to be lifted. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, you are being totally unfair. All the information in the Franco-Mongol alliance article is proper [19], and I will be glad to discuss if you think some is not. PHG (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sorry, but this is comical. A one year ban is a typical remedy for someone with a history of problematic behavior. I think your findings of fact are embellished (at best) but even if they were all true, this would NOT be the proper remedy for this case. I think PHG needs to be reminded to avoid edit warring, and ownership, and the Franco-Mongol alliance be put on article probation (which I think it already is). Justin ^chat 23:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe banning is the only appropriate action when all attempts at getting the participant to moderate his behaviour have failed. We have wasted enough Wikipedia resources already on dealing with PHG. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are or where you come from, but the 400 and so references in the Franco-Mongol alliance article are all proper [20]. If you thinks that numerous scholars don't consider the alliance as fact, just look at User:PHG/Alliance. This is only about Elonka and a few of her supporters trying to bully an honest and generous editor who loves the subjects he writes about, and tries to go into as much in details as possible on a given subject for the love of Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot where misrepresentation of sources after warning was also an issue. Ultimately, the question of intent renders itself immaterial: an editor who cannot use references appropriately is as harmful to Wikipedia's reputation as one who knows how and refuses to. If Wikipedia were a university I would be bringing PHG to formal academic discipline and recommending expulsion. Durova^Charge! 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be delighted to discuss your accusations that I "cannot use references appropriately". This is totally ridiculous and untrue. Please discuss content rather than keep making false accusations. For a start, look at the 400 and so proper references which I have accumulated for the Franco-Mongol alliance article [21]. If you thinks that numerous scholars don't consider the alliance as fact, just look at User:PHG/Alliance. All these references are true and proper. Stop making false accusations! PHG (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you leave little doubt that you know how to use sources appropriately, and sometimes choose not to. Durova^Charge! 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is really going too far! PHG has made many excellent and detailed contributions to the Wikipedia and I am distressed to see a proposal that he be banned from the Wikipedia even being considered.

Unfortunately, I know little about the Franco-Mongol alliance except what I have read here - so I don't feel qualified to comment on the historical validity of PHG's points, or the criticisms of them. However, articles that I have checked which he has written - and which fall into my own area of expertise - seem to have been interesting, well-written and researched and provided a real contribution to the Wikipedia.

I certainly don't know how to resolve all the issues - it seems that we have come up against a brick wall. Perhaps it would be best to reinstate PHG's article as it was before the deletions (is there a "sandbox" or similar place where this could be done?) and then try to deal with one point at a time? It does not seem productive at all to make major deletions of many referenced points at one go. What a waste of everyone's time and patience this has turned out to be! Please, let us try to make this process productive and stop accusing each other of bad motives. Best wishes, John Hill (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much John for your testimony. I truely appreciate! Six months of hard work went into creating 190k of highly referenced material (400 references, mainly academic) on the relations between the Franks and the Mongols. The full article (before the deletions of 120k of content and 300 references initiated by Elonka) is still available here: FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE (FULL VERSION), ready to be reinstated. Every time I tried to split content to make the size of the article more reasonable, Elonka pursued me with "POV-Fork" accusations. I am, as always, ready to discuss any issue raised, one by one if necessary, until we have a balanced NPOV article that can satisfy everybody. PHG (talk) 09:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6 months -- that's exactly the problem here; numerous editors have spent 6 months attempting to help PHG understand why the sourcing problems, original research via synthesis and general article ownership were a problem. He's not been willing to change his behavior and as shown by his statements and proposals here, he clearly intends to continue on the same course. Regardless of intent, the harm to the project is the same and needs to stop forceably if he refuses to do so willingly. If John Hill is correct and PHG's work elsewhere is sound, it may be that only a ban from this topic area is needed to resolve the behavioral problems. Shell ^babelfish 08:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I retract my suggestion that John Hill may be correct based on his response to PHG's request to reinstate the original article below; if he's that easily taken in despite all the evidence given here, I have to assume that he applied a similar standard to PHG's other work and is likely incorrect there as well. Shell ^babelfish 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indo-Greek_Kingdom/archive1 also discussed a former FA, in which a large proportion, 30% + of the footnotes looked up in books that were in libraries accessible to Pmanderson (talk · contribs) and myself, proved to not back up what was in PHG's article. After the FAR finished, PHG snuck in the incorrect/fake refs again( [22] [23]). At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals by User:PHG

Proposed Principles

The rules of consensus should not be abused

1) Consensus should not be claimed abusively. Having 2,3 or 4 editors banding against another in a discussion does not constitute consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. PHG (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to depend on the number of people involved. If after the question has been centrally advertised for comment, there are only 5 editors involved and there has been a full debate of the issues 4 agreeing would seem to be an acceptable consensus. It would create stalemate if the minority view could prevail indefinitely simply because insufficient participants have been interested by the discussion, or have the necessary subject knowledge to comment. WjBscribe 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedians must uphold Wikipedia rules

2) If some users blatantly edit in a POV manner, or try to impose their own version of an article through a false consensus, other users have the right to be bold and dispute their edits, and in some instance revert them.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. PHG (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a consensus to be judged a "false consensus" whenever it is one that PHG disagrees with? WjBscribe 06:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This pretty clearly shows that PHG has no intention of abiding by consensus unless he agrees with it. Shell ^babelfish 08:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content question and one that was resolved by consensus on the talk. What is actually of concern here is PHG's edit warring to maintain his version against more than six other editors. Shell ^babelfish 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Elonka reprimanded

1) Although Elonka is a smart contributor, her aggresive behaviour is highly predatory and detrimental to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. She mounts huge attack campaigns on other users (an amazing case here [32]!), and keeps editing in a POV manner and leverages her efforts by falsely claiming consensus. She should be at least reprimanded. I also think that her lack of ethical behaviour should open her to recall as an administrator. I think that her predatory behaviour should be severely controled in the future. PHG (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed PHG (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka should not be reprimanded for doing her utmost to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia. She has worked tirelessly to bring to attention the problems with this article, facing the difficulty that many others simply did not know enough about the subject matter to get involved. PHG's accusation of a lack of ethics is unfounded, and her admin status is not in issue here. None of the participants in the dispute used their admin tools in the course of it. WjBscribe 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reinstate article status quo

2) The Franco-Mongol alliance article should be reinstated to its original 190k/400 refs condition before Elonka tried to force her 70k rewrite in mid-January (FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE: FULL VERSION). A huge amount of data has been deleted, and all this without an actual consensus [33] or even a proper discussion of what was being deleted. In the absence of consensus, the status quo should prevail. We will then be able to edit the full article cooperatively, by condensing/ splitting or rewriting it. 3 users have already stated that they were neutral about this, and 3 users (User:Matt57 [34], User:Justin [35],and myself) have expressed that they would prefer to start from the full article [36]. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:Z

Proposed Principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed principle}

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

@@ Line 354: / Line 354: @@
 ::I retract my suggestion that John Hill may be correct based on his response to PHG's request to reinstate the original article below; if he's that easily taken in despite all the evidence given here, I have to assume that he applied a similar standard to PHG's other work and is likely incorrect there as well. [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
+::[[Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Indo-Greek_Kingdom/archive1]] also discussed a former FA, in which a large proportion, 30% + of the footnotes looked up in books that were in libraries accessible to {{User|Pmanderson}} and myself, proved to not back up what was in PHG's article. After the FAR finished, PHG snuck in the incorrect/fake refs again( [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Greek_Kingdom&diff=173556653&oldid=172877068] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Greek_Kingdom&diff=next&oldid=173556653]). At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly. '''[[User:Blnguyen|<font color="GoldenRod">Blnguyen</font>]]'''  (''[[User talk:Blnguyen|<font color="#FA8605">bananabucket</font>]]'') 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 <!--