Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators. If updates to this listing do not immediately show, try .

Decision time?

It looks like all the useful evidence and proposals have been out for a while and discussed in as much depth as necessary. At this point the workshop page is getting cluttered and people are running short on patience.

With respect to the Committee for the very difficult situation it faces on another case, the issues here are relatively straightforward. The overall caliber of editor here is among the highest I've ever seen at arbitration, and they've put superb work into this case.

Will a proposed decision be coming soon? Durova^Charge! 00:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We are currently investigating the allegations of gross misrepresentation of sources in detail; until that's done, I doubt we'll begin a formally drafted decision. Kirill 03:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that response. Durova^Charge! 03:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill is correct, as I advised another participant in the case today. One of the things that separates this case from a typical content dispute or edit-war is the allegation that an editor has made not just controversial edits but factually incorrect ones, so we are taking the time to evaluate that. Compare the Sadi Carnot case. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I remember that one. Jehochman ^Talk 22:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A dispute over inclusion of a fringe theory is probably a content dispute. An allegation of persistent misrepresentation of sources may be a behavioral problem, but it requires sending some arbitrators or trusted non-parties to the library. Hence the need for more time. Thatcher 22:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

PHG's attacks

I understand that the arbs are very busy, and that this is a complex case, but I too would like to see things move along. As it is, PHG's behavior is steadily escalating, such as deleting disambig notes,[1][2][3] tagging a disambig page as disputed,[4] and accusing other editors of lying.[5] Today, he generated personal attacks against Aramgar (talk · contribs), making references to McCarthyism and Guantanamo, and implying that all of Aramgar's edits have been destructive.[6] This is not only false, but is further disruptive because PHG's behavior is being extremely antagonistic towards one of our more valuable editors, a rather shy scholar who can actually read medieval Latin. Aramgar has even indicated that he is actually holding back from creating some content, simply because he doesn't want to get further involved in this mess.[7]

It's one thing for PHG to attack me, I've got a thick enough skin to handle it, but Aramgar most definitely does not deserve PHG's abuse.  :/ --Elonka 21:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

We are working actively on this case. I expect a proposed decision to be drafted very soon. Parties to the case should bear in mind that the committee would look very dimly on an escalation of problematic behavior while the case is pending. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect that I or another arbitrator will be posting a proposed decision this weekend. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Let it be known that the cause of the dispute referred here has now been solved, as it had been shown that a false claim was indeed being made by Elonka and Arangar about a name "Viam agnoscere veritatis" being used for a multiplicity of Papal bulls Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis#Untangling (arbitrary section break). Both were making a false claim, intentionally of not, and have been using this claim to motivate a multiplicity of editors to make depositions against me (here, here and the numerous "Viam agnoscere depositions of the Workshop page such as [8]). It's clear that the discussion heated up (on both sides) but it turns out I was right to dispute their misrepresentation of historical facts. I challenge judgements which are based on such false evidence and manipulation. Another recent case of Elonka obviously misrepresenting sources has been exposed here Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Introduction: how can we but any faith in the accusations made by such an editor? PHG (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Userspace

Newyorkbrad, thanks for your work on the current decision. I realize that the other arbs haven't weighed in yet, but I did have one question regarding enforcement. Currently PHG is maintaining a couple POV versions of articles in his own userspace:

• User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version) (PHG's 200K version, which he continues to expand)
• User:PHG/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East (previously deleted at AfD)[9]

Does anyone have a recommendation on how those should be handled? --Elonka 00:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If these pages aren't covered by the arbitrators' decision, they can be sent to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's just a matter of two pages, then they can be MfD'd, after PHG has a chance to copy them off-wiki. If there were many such pages, then it might make sense to deal with them in the decision, so let us know if there are (or become) many more. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I challenge the deletions of these two pages from my Userspace. These are highly documented works, which I spent months working on, with in one case more than 400 proper references. PHG (talk) 10:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Concern with the restriction

I am so glad to see some sanity coming out of the craziness that has been this case, but I wonder if a few tweaks might be necessary for the restriction statement. I think we're seeing the problem start to spill over to more general (but still related) articles such as Christianity in Asia, Christianity in China, Islamic science and the like. There's also the concern that since this seems to be a systematic problem of PHG's that the problem is going to reoccur elsewhere or be found in older contributions (we're only back 6 months now). Perhaps the wording "interpreted broadly" like we see in a lot of similar restrictions and a caveat that additional areas can be added by uninvolved administrators if PHG is found to be continuing the behavior elsewhere? Thanks for considering. Shell ^babelfish 06:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm recused, but I don't think any attempt to claim that the restriction would not apply to medieval "history" sections in general articles would go down too well. Blnguyen (vote in the photo straw poll) 06:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a couple of instances (diff vs. source) in which the problem has been broader than the current wording. This needn't be the major project that assembling the evidence page was; two or three examples will do. I would hate to have to ban a longtime contributor from the mainspace altogether but we will go where the evidence leads us. Views of other parties would also be helpful here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd point at Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia. Both are coatrack articles created by PHG, and were effective duplicates of each other. I've been working on some cleanup, but there are a long list of PHG-related articles needing cleanup, and I can only do so much at one time, especially since he's still making new ones almost as fast as the old ones are cleaned up (today's new coatrack is Arabo-Norman civilization, and even a simple Google search will show you that that's not exactly a wide-spread term).

Towards improving the restriction, could we perhaps extend it from "history" to "history and religion"? --Elonka 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really a shame and an obvious attempt by Elonka to try to discredit anything I can write. All my contributions are properly referenced from published sources, and if sometimes we can have differences in interpretation, nobody has been able to identify a single case of fabrication of sources or whatever (as demonstrated in User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed). These Christianity in Asia and Roman Catholicism in Asia articles are highly referenced and proper. So is Arabo-Norman civilization, although we can discuss about the appropiate title. Just because a subject has few references on Internet certainly does not means that it is improper, especially when there are numerous published sources about it. PHG (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Images

Does the Committee have any guidance with regard to image uploads? In fairness, PHG is a talented amateur photographer whose interests are highly encyclopedic. If he were responsive to feedback about the minority of his uploads that have sourcing/licensing issues then I'd be delighted with his work in that area, but his refusal to seek or accept feedback means that the instances which do cause problems become a time sink. Per my evidence from the other day, this is an issue on Wikipedia as well as Commons. If more evidence is requested regarding en:Wikipedia uploads, please advise. I will be attending a funeral tomorrow but will work out time for more research if that's what's needed here. Durova^Charge! 06:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure right now that the image issues warrant an arbitration finding, since as you note the problem appears only on a minority of PHG's uplads, but I am open to rewording remedy 3 to reflect that image contributions are appreciated but only if properly documented. Again, comments from others welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The most important part of this case are the findings of fact, not the remedies. Now that the problem has been documented, the community at large can handle it using ordinary means. Either PHG will adjust to feedback, or they will experience escalating blocks up to indefinite. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been glad to contribute a vast quantity of photographs (especially from museum from around the world). Durova duely identified some of my drawings of historical artifacts (a small fraction indeed of my contributions) could be considered as derivative work, especially as I referenced the photographed I was using for material. I wasn't aware of such issues, but it's OK, and I accept that. I will probably redraw these contributions in the future without any link to the original photographs. PHG (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)