Shell Kinney (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 513: | Line 513: | ||
:::::That's untrue Shell. All quotes are exact, and as far as I known do not omit key words or phrases. Should you have specific issues, I would be glad to review them with you. [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
:::::That's untrue Shell. All quotes are exact, and as far as I known do not omit key words or phrases. Should you have specific issues, I would be glad to review them with you. [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
::::::How many times and how many people have to point you, specifically, to Ealdgyth's very clear, unambiguous [[User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed|chart]] which, very specifically shows exactly which quotes you left words out of, which quotes you left key sentences out of and which quotes you fabricated entirely? And that's only one small area out of your more than 400 quotes in one article... [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
::::::How many times and how many people have to point you, specifically, to Ealdgyth's very clear, unambiguous [[User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed|chart]] which, very specifically shows exactly which quotes you left words out of, which quotes you left key sentences out of and which quotes you fabricated entirely? And that's only one small area out of your more than 400 quotes in one article... [[User:Shell_Kinney|Shell]] <sup>[[User_talk:Shell_Kinney|babelfish]]</sup> 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::::::PHG, nobody's perfect; any of us could misread a source when we're tired or make a typographical error. It simply doesn't hold water to say mistakes didn't happen when detailed evidence demonstrates that they did happen. And if you expect to retain any trust at all in the unchecked portion of your citations, it is imperative at minimum that you acknowledge and correct the verified mistakes. What you ought to be doing is stepping beyond that, creating your own Crusades quotes testbed parallel to Ealdgyth's, and seeking the community's opinion on your material as compared to the transcribed sources. That would be a demonstration of good faith and if you undertook it seriously I would come to your defense. <font face="Verdana">[[User:Durova|<span style="color:#009">Durova</span>]]</font><sup>''[[User talk:Durova|Charge!]]''</sup> 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) |
|||
:'''Comment by others:''' |
:'''Comment by others:''' |
||
:: |
:: |
Revision as of 07:41, 22 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. --Elonka 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --Elonka 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --Elonka 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. --Elonka 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 00:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Elonka 17:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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? DurovaCharge! 09:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 00:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed temporary injunctions
Template
1)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
2)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
3)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
4)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Questions to the parties
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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 others:
- Actually PHG's response gets into the priority of sources issue I mentioned earlier. France has some of the world's best national archives, but its Medieval chroniclers generally worked from oral reports taken decades after events and were employed by monarchs toward whom they were not inclined to be critical. So practice among modern historians is to treat chronicles generally with skepticism and seek out original contemporary documents whenever possible, preferably by individuals who were close to the relevant events. It's a nuanced undertaking too involved to explain here in any depth. So unless some early author is the only source available or generally acknowledged as the gold standard, it risks WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH to sidestep modern expert consensus and elevate earlier analyses. If this comment seems to validate another of Elonka's proposals, in a limited sense it does. Reassessments of existing consenus constitute a form of original research. DurovaCharge! 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- For purposes of Wikipedia editing, secondary sources are greatly preferred over primary sources; reading and interpreting primary sources is a job for historians, who will write articles and books, which will be judged by their peers, Those books and articles that survive peer review form the basis for Wikipedia articles. Thatcher 12:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I object to the "only" part. The intent of this policy is that use of secondary sources should be encouraged, due to concerns over original research, although proper use of primary sources should always be allowed. More importantly, as we move from the mainstream of historical research to topics which have received less attention, I expect that we will begin to encounter increasing numbers of topics where it is clear to uninvolved editors that proper use of primary sources will result in better content than using the available secondary sources. One example from my own experience is Kebra Nagast, which though an important work for understanding Ethiopian culture, has attracted very little scholarly attention, some of which I think is fair to be described as "fringe" or "crank" quality. However, due to lack of scholarly attention I am forced to include this material. If we adopt this restriction on primary sources, it will create a precedent & encourage people who enforce the letter, not the spirit, of policies, & this will handicap the intelligent discussion of these problems. While some may think I am creating a straw man here, I have found more & more that these convoluted interpretations of policy are becoming more common here on Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Good point. How about "primarily" instead of "only"? A certain amount of primary sources can definitely be used, but they shouldn't form a majority part of the article, and they definitely shouldn't be used to make contentious claims, or contradict the secondary sources. --Elonka 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I can live with "primarily", although some of your reasons have the same problem. Sometimes the secondary sources are wrong, & the primary sources have the story right. One example is the question whether there were firearms at the Battle of Shimbra Kure: some otherwise very reliable secondary sources claim that the Muslims had firearms, but the sole detailed primary account for the battle says otherwise. (My guess this contradiction is that until recently the primary source was not available in English, only in a French translation published over 100 years ago, forcing the experts to rely on each other & hope that whoever said it first had read the book.) At worse, the face value meaning of primary sources is just another opinion on the matter. And in any case, the allegation is not that PHG misused primary sources, but secondary ones; if this rule been policy previous to this, PHG would not have broken it!
- Good point. How about "primarily" instead of "only"? A certain amount of primary sources can definitely be used, but they shouldn't form a majority part of the article, and they definitely shouldn't be used to make contentious claims, or contradict the secondary sources. --Elonka 17:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is based on my experience in writing history articles: I can see too many important exceptions to this rule to know that setting a precident here will only make a bad situation worse. Instead of creating any fixed rule, & instead consider it a guideline that editors should follow unless they can set forth cogent reasons to ignore. Or to put it another way, "If you don't know why, follow the guidelines carefully; if you do know why, then tell us." -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreeing with Llywrch; another example is Joan of Arc's birthdate, which many otherwise reliable secondary sources repeat as January 6, 1412 on the stength of a single letter that had obvious hagiographic overtones, ignoring masses of more reliable primary source material to the effect that her birthdate was unknown, including her own court testimony. Nearly all of the reasoned academic debate on this point supports c. 1412 as the appropriate designation. Anything more specific is usually presented without defense, and appears to reflect either bias toward precision at the expense of accuracy or religious preference for the suggestion that she was born on the Epiphany. DurovaCharge! 23:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is based on my experience in writing history articles: I can see too many important exceptions to this rule to know that setting a precident here will only make a bad situation worse. Instead of creating any fixed rule, & instead consider it a guideline that editors should follow unless they can set forth cogent reasons to ignore. Or to put it another way, "If you don't know why, follow the guidelines carefully; if you do know why, then tell us." -- llywrch (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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:
- 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)
- 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)
- Echoing Llywrch's comment, I'll supply an unrelated example. Nobel prizewinning chemist Linus Pauling spent the latter part of his career championing vitamin C as a cure for the common cold. That's a significant opinion, but extensive later research showed minimal benefit from large doses of vitamin C. Obviously, it would violate WP:UNDUE to weight an article about vitamin C or the common cold as if Pauling's hypothesis were actually or even probably true. DurovaCharge! 07:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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? DurovaCharge! 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Elonka 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 00:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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. --Elonka 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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? DurovaCharge! 05:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Follow-up: although I disputed Elonka's proposal, if anything could persuade me to retract my objection it's PHG's response. Thucycides and Gibbon and de Toqcueville merit respect not because I or some other Wikipedian happens to like them, but because their work continues to be esteemed among experts in the field. WP:NPOV is not the average of all expert opinions that ever existed, or else Wikipedia would be giving weight to the flat earth hypothesis and the introduction to the introduction to the genetics article would name Jean-Baptiste Lamarck alongside Gregor Mendel. I might formulate a proposed principle out of this. DurovaCharge! 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Thoroughly reasonable point as an editing principle but I don't think this is within ArbCom's purview. I would support this proposal being suggested for addition to a relevant editing guideline, though. Orderinchaos 10:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Editors must accurately represent sources
9) Wikipedia relies on its editors to accurately represent the sources they use. Failure to do so seriously harms Wikipedia, and is a conduct issue which is extremely serious.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed, based on activities by PHG such as citing an author for something that the author didn't actually say (evidence), citing sources that never actually mention the topic of the article, (see Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis) or listing references in articles, when those references never mention the article's topic even once.[13][14] --Elonka 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
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:
- 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 [15]. PHG (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I would delete the word "knowingly". The important issue is that he's been misrepresenting sources. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree that knowingly should be removed, but the rest of the statement is sound. Shell babelfish 22:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- One of my reasons for using the word "knowingly", is because of multiple examples of PHG cherry-picking fragments from a book, and deliberately ignoring all of the surrounding text. I could cite multiple instances of PHG mis-using Dr. Peter Jackson's book Mongols and the West. For example, PHG claimed that Jackson supported the idea of an alliance existing, because a title of one of the chapters of the book was "An Ally Against Islam". However, if you actually read the chapter, it is obvious that Jackson is using it to argue in great detail about why the Mongols were perceived as a potential ally, but no alliance took place. From another section of the book, PHG cherry-picked from a list of rumors that Jackson presented, and then twisted this to use it as a citation that "Jackson said that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem." The list goes on and on, where PHG would read a sentence that obviously said one thing, and then he would misquote it to try and make it support PHG's own pet theory. I cannot buy the concept that PHG did this unwittingly. One or two examples might be errors of judgment, but this has been a deliberate and systematic campaign, in defiance of all other editors who were offering concerns. And in the cases where he was shown beyond all shadow of a doubt that he was completely and totally wrong, he still wouldn't acknowledge it. At best, he would simply "walk away" and start arguing on something different. Look at his actions with creating POV forks: When his information about a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem was challenged, he went and created Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. When that was challenged, he created Mongol conquests and Jerusalem. When that was deleted at AfD,[16] he dismissed the AfD results as "no big deal,"[17] he dismissed the 2-week-old RfC as "an ancient discussion",[18] and then went and made Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300). His actions clearly demonstrate that he is knowingly pushing this misinformation, in defiance of everyone else. --Elonka 17:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree with Elonka, both for her reasons and PHG's insistence that he understands proper sourcing. He makes a good point that a significant portion of his citations are unchallenged. His departures from standard practice aren't random, as one would expect from an editor who acted out of ignorance. Rather, they construct and support pet theories. He takes offense at the suggestion that ignorance accounts for these irregularities; what else can we do but hold him fully accountable? DurovaCharge! 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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) [19]. 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)
- I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would stop try to discredit others by attacking them and stick to the topics being discussed. I am afraid I am convinced that you are not using sources properly. For instance, could you please explain the discrepancies between your version of the references (User:PHG/Alliance) and the actual quotes as listed at User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed? This is just one of many examples where by selectively changing or leaving out words or sentences you've prostituted esteemed historical work to create the impression you desire. You appear to sincerely believe in what you are doing, so I am sorry that it has come to this, however, you've had many chances and many editors try to assist you in realizing the problem. Shell babelfish 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Could you actually point to specifics? User:PHG/Alliance is a set of quotes by authors who consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact. In many instances, Elonka pointed that several of these authors also say that the alliance ended in failure in the end, but that's OK: the fact that an alliance failed it not a denial of their statement that there was an alliance nonetheless (an alliance has to exist before it ends in failure). Instead of general statements, I would appreciate if you could point to specific issues you may have identified, so that we can discuss. Regards PHG (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sure we would all appreciate it if you would stop try to discredit others by attacking them and stick to the topics being discussed. I am afraid I am convinced that you are not using sources properly. For instance, could you please explain the discrepancies between your version of the references (User:PHG/Alliance) and the actual quotes as listed at User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed? This is just one of many examples where by selectively changing or leaving out words or sentences you've prostituted esteemed historical work to create the impression you desire. You appear to sincerely believe in what you are doing, so I am sorry that it has come to this, however, you've had many chances and many editors try to assist you in realizing the problem. Shell babelfish 12:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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 [20]. 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 [21]. PHG (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
- Self-evidently true. WjBscribe 06:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Frankly, I believe claiming one's innocence is a right, not something that can be held against anyone as an accusation count (except maybe during the Inquisition!). I believe my editing is normal and legitimate, especially when looking at Elonka's predatory behaviour. Defending oneself against Elonka's constant harassment is legitimate, fighting against a non-consensual replacement of a 190k article by a POV 70k summary is legitimate. This is the duty of every Wikipedian in such circumstances. PHG (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Difficult to assess in a general manner, but consistent with my limited observation. DurovaCharge! 05:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Frankly, I do know an editor (User:Elonka) who does have a huge behavioural problem in constantly Wikilayering and attacking other users [22], 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)
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:
- Elonka has been deleting 120k of content and 300 references developed over a period of 6 months [23]. 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)
- 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. --Elonka 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Jehochman, you are being totally unfair. All the information in the Franco-Mongol alliance article is proper [24], and I will be glad to discuss if you think some is not. PHG (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Argumentum ad nauseum will not succeed. You have been misusing sources and refuse to acknowledge any sort of problem. Show us please an exact quotation and page number from a reliable source where we can read that the Mongols invaded, conquered, occupied, attacked, beseiged, or otherwise harassed the city of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages. Jehochman Talk 01:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, you are being totally unfair. All the information in the Franco-Mongol alliance article is proper [24], and I will be glad to discuss if you think some is not. PHG (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 [25]. 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)
- 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. DurovaCharge! 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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 [26]. 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)
- Then you leave little doubt that you know how to use sources appropriately, and sometimes choose not to. DurovaCharge! 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- ?? Could you clarify? PHG (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Here's one example: if nothing is wrong with your research, then you could begin by transcribing the relevant passages from the original Alain Demurger that Ealdgyth was unable to find in English translation. Quite a few of us here can read French and failure to respond on point to that part of User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed is quite damning. If you expect to convince anyone that your research is proper, then stop saying it is and inserting photographs of your book collection and direct your energies into justifying, point by point, what makes each of these challenged citations correct. I'll still be quite skeptical about your application of historical method, per my comments above, but you insist you already know this field quite well, so this much explanation must already be tiresome and further elaboration would be pointless. DurovaCharge! 11:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- ?? Could you clarify? PHG (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then you leave little doubt that you know how to use sources appropriately, and sometimes choose not to. DurovaCharge! 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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 [26]. 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Actually, during these 6 months, Elonka and I had a lot of interraction, and a huge amount of material was already incorporated by her. For example all the ally/vassal disclaimers are a result of that. Elonka also added a large amount of statements and references. I mainly opposed her deleting my own references, and once write an essay-type paragraph (which was since then deleted per consensus as being non-encyclopedic), but the article really has been, and continues to be, wide open to modifications. PHG (talk) 12:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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( [27] [28]). At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blnguyen, I am afraid this is untrue. Both references are totally correct:
- [29] The Boardman quote is totally exact. It describes the beginnings of Gandharan art as coinciding with the remaining Indo-Greek. It is not supposed to give a date and it doesn't. You seem to be implying that the absence of the mention of a date renders the quote invalid, but I don't see why it should be a necessity.
- [30]: Polybius does say that Antiochus offered the hand of his daughter to Demetrius: Antiochus received the young prince; and judging from his appearance, conversation, and the dignity of his manners that he was worthy of royal power, he first promised to give him one of his own daughters [31], so I don't see what issue you might have with this quote: it is perfectly exact. Or are you challenging that "offering the hand of" is not quite the same as "married"? If it's no case I have no problem adopting the expression "received the hand of", but this is clearly not a source issue. PHG (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Blnguyen, I am afraid this is untrue. Both references are totally correct:
- 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( [27] [28]). At least on IGK article, PHG is either unable or unwilling to use sources properly. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding John Hill's (canvassed[32]) comments in support of PHG's course of action, I would point out that John Hill has a history of blindly supporting PHG. For example, when PHG initially submitted the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article for FA (only one week after creating it), John Hill rapidly weighed in with a strong support, praising the article for its excellent research and references,[33] even though the article at the time was full of pseudohistory and unreliable sources.[34] (examples: The "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" pseudohistory section with Jerusalem "captured by surprise". And even a cursory glance at the Notes section will show numerous blatant problems). I would take anything that John Hill says in support of PHG, with a grain of salt. And John, please, I would encourage you to actually take the time to read and cross-check what PHG is doing, before you say "well written and researched." We have a genuine problem here where PHG has been inserting dubious information into Wikipedia, and when other editors have expressed good faith concerns, rather than working with them, PHG has then escalated his behavior to insert the disputed information into dozens of other articles. PHG has also been creating POV fork articles, which, when they were sent to AfD, PHG responded by immediately creating even more POV forks (see my evidence section for details). --Elonka 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka, you have been inviting many people to this page, so please allow me to invite a few. I have a long history of working with John, who is highly knowledgeable of Central Asian history, a subject I am also interest in. Please do not attack him just because he agrees to give a positive opinion. By the way, your other accusations, are, as usual, untrue. PHG (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding John Hill's (canvassed[32]) comments in support of PHG's course of action, I would point out that John Hill has a history of blindly supporting PHG. For example, when PHG initially submitted the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article for FA (only one week after creating it), John Hill rapidly weighed in with a strong support, praising the article for its excellent research and references,[33] even though the article at the time was full of pseudohistory and unreliable sources.[34] (examples: The "Joint conquest of Jerusalem" pseudohistory section with Jerusalem "captured by surprise". And even a cursory glance at the Notes section will show numerous blatant problems). I would take anything that John Hill says in support of PHG, with a grain of salt. And John, please, I would encourage you to actually take the time to read and cross-check what PHG is doing, before you say "well written and researched." We have a genuine problem here where PHG has been inserting dubious information into Wikipedia, and when other editors have expressed good faith concerns, rather than working with them, PHG has then escalated his behavior to insert the disputed information into dozens of other articles. PHG has also been creating POV fork articles, which, when they were sent to AfD, PHG responded by immediately creating even more POV forks (see my evidence section for details). --Elonka 08:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- I would tend to agree with "centrally advertised for comments" indeed. On the contrary, gathering support of specific individual to get a few votes, whether on-Wiki or off-Wiki, doesn't meet this definition. PHG (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- You keep mentioning this supposed canvassing. Do you have any evidence to support this accusation? Shell babelfish 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so I will make a list here over time: Elonka invited Kafka Liz: [35], Alvestrand [36], and many others. She is known for off-Wiki sollicitations of support as well [37]. I'll quote Elonka: "The more different opinions that can be brought in, the easier it is for the Arbs to ensure that they're getting a well-rounded view of the situation." [38]. PHG (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- So she told one person who was involved in this dispute already, asked the opinion of one outside person and we're supposed to take a random editor's word that she's canvassed before, sometime, somewhere offline with not a shred of proof offered? You're kidding, right? Shell babelfish 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another misinterpretation and out-of-context statement by PHG. Yes, I posted to Alvestrand's page, but that wasn't me canvassing him, that was me replying to his comment on my own talkpage.[39] He found this case on his own, I definitely didn't point him at it, and to my knowledge he and I have never interacted before in any way. --Elonka 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Really? So here is a proof of why Elonka is misleading us here: here is another documented example of Elonka manouevering off-Wiki to obtain support: "Elonka has discussed some of the issues with this article with me privately and asked my opinion." [40]. These things are usually hard to come by and hard to prove, but here it is: the fact is that Elonka lobbies off-Wiki to obtain on-Wiki support. I can only imagine the amount of slander and disinformation she is spreading this way, covertly from the community... Since Elonka typically relies on 2-3 friendly opinions to claim "consensus" such lobbying must have a rather high success rate for her. I am afraid polls and "consensuses" built on these methods are highly skewded. PHG (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Another misinterpretation and out-of-context statement by PHG. Yes, I posted to Alvestrand's page, but that wasn't me canvassing him, that was me replying to his comment on my own talkpage.[39] He found this case on his own, I definitely didn't point him at it, and to my knowledge he and I have never interacted before in any way. --Elonka 16:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- So she told one person who was involved in this dispute already, asked the opinion of one outside person and we're supposed to take a random editor's word that she's canvassed before, sometime, somewhere offline with not a shred of proof offered? You're kidding, right? Shell babelfish 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, so I will make a list here over time: Elonka invited Kafka Liz: [35], Alvestrand [36], and many others. She is known for off-Wiki sollicitations of support as well [37]. I'll quote Elonka: "The more different opinions that can be brought in, the easier it is for the Arbs to ensure that they're getting a well-rounded view of the situation." [38]. PHG (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- You keep mentioning this supposed canvassing. Do you have any evidence to support this accusation? Shell babelfish 12:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I would tend to agree with "centrally advertised for comments" indeed. On the contrary, gathering support of specific individual to get a few votes, whether on-Wiki or off-Wiki, doesn't meet this definition. PHG (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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:
- 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)
- No, but to gain a real consensus, you need to have a rather large number of people agreeing on something. 1,2,3 or 4 is generally not sufficient to be deemend a consensus on Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Then by the logic of your argument, consensus is practically impossible at any obscure scholarly subject. Suppose for a moment that your integrity were never questioned, and you encountered someone who was editing an article into compliance with his aunt's unpublished family tree. Suppose you also caught him fabricating a citation based upon a nonexistent source, and again you caught him attempting to perform original linguistic research based upom a Medieval French poem (not even in its original state but from a 1977 translation into modern French). If all those things were happening, and you tried mediation, content RFC, and peer review without success, what could you or anyone do to stop the problem? DurovaCharge! 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, but to gain a real consensus, you need to have a rather large number of people agreeing on something. 1,2,3 or 4 is generally not sufficient to be deemend a consensus on Wikipedia. PHG (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
User harassment should be discouraged
3) We are here to "make content, not war". User harassment and disputes are useless. Some users spend a huge amount of time mounting attacks against others. This should be discouraged.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
Referenced material should be respected
4) Referenced material from proper published sources should be respected. If opinions diverge, all significant point of view should be included and presented in a Wikipedia:NPOV manner. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- This should be subject to not giving undue weight to fringe theories. Articles should make it clear if there is a primarily held scholarly interpretation. Whether a minority view is held by very few people, especially if only a lone academic advocates it, including it at all may constitute undue weight. WjBscribe 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but when about 30 scholars (from the little access I have to sources) do mention the Franco-Mongol alliance as a factual occurence, I don't think that has anything to look with "fringe": User:PHG/Alliance. Elonka has been deleting these references, but I am claiming that they deserve proper representation. PHG (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is that these sources absolutely do not report an alliance as fact, you have simply made it look so by omitting key words and phrases that otherwise discount your novel theories. Shell babelfish 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's untrue Shell. All quotes are exact, and as far as I known do not omit key words or phrases. Should you have specific issues, I would be glad to review them with you. PHG (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- How many times and how many people have to point you, specifically, to Ealdgyth's very clear, unambiguous chart which, very specifically shows exactly which quotes you left words out of, which quotes you left key sentences out of and which quotes you fabricated entirely? And that's only one small area out of your more than 400 quotes in one article... Shell babelfish 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- PHG, nobody's perfect; any of us could misread a source when we're tired or make a typographical error. It simply doesn't hold water to say mistakes didn't happen when detailed evidence demonstrates that they did happen. And if you expect to retain any trust at all in the unchecked portion of your citations, it is imperative at minimum that you acknowledge and correct the verified mistakes. What you ought to be doing is stepping beyond that, creating your own Crusades quotes testbed parallel to Ealdgyth's, and seeking the community's opinion on your material as compared to the transcribed sources. That would be a demonstration of good faith and if you undertook it seriously I would come to your defense. DurovaCharge! 07:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- How many times and how many people have to point you, specifically, to Ealdgyth's very clear, unambiguous chart which, very specifically shows exactly which quotes you left words out of, which quotes you left key sentences out of and which quotes you fabricated entirely? And that's only one small area out of your more than 400 quotes in one article... Shell babelfish 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- That's untrue Shell. All quotes are exact, and as far as I known do not omit key words or phrases. Should you have specific issues, I would be glad to review them with you. PHG (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- The fact is that these sources absolutely do not report an alliance as fact, you have simply made it look so by omitting key words and phrases that otherwise discount your novel theories. Shell babelfish 13:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure, but when about 30 scholars (from the little access I have to sources) do mention the Franco-Mongol alliance as a factual occurence, I don't think that has anything to look with "fringe": User:PHG/Alliance. Elonka has been deleting these references, but I am claiming that they deserve proper representation. PHG (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
Elonka abuses the concept of consensus
1) Elonka repeatedly claims "consensus" by just having 2,3 or 4 editors banding on her side. User:Elonka falsely claims "consensus" through minute tallying of a few editors [41], or here. In her latest effort at imposing her 70k version of the Franco-Mongol alliance article, she initially had no consensus at all [42] but kept forcing her way. Even the latest poll at 3 "yes"/ 3 "either"/ 1 "against" cannot be considered a consensus by any Wikipedia standard. Elonka is systematically violating the rules of consensus, always trying to get 2 or 3 users by her side, and push her way through claiming consensus. This is apparently a habit of hers [43]. PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- This is absolutely incorrect. The consensus was developed by all editors other than PHG who staunchly refused to consider anything other than his own version; please see the actual discussion that occurred here which is a rather markedly different picture than what is painted by this finding. Shell babelfish 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the fact is that Elonka forced her version without a consensus at all: [44]. The link you are giving shows a poll two weeks after she had been forcing her version. Even this last poll was a 3 "yes"/ 3 "neutral"/ 1 "against", which I am afraid is not really a consensus. PHG (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as we've tried to explain before, consensus has nothing to do with counting, its about discussion. While not everyone agreed whether to go with Elonka's version or just completely rewrite, clearly no one other than yourself supported a return to your version. The fact is that despite these differences of opinion, six separate editors reverted your attempts to reinstate your preferred version due to its considerable problems. Shell babelfish 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue. Elonka clearly did not have consensus as she was trying force her short version of the article. Many editors prefered working from the original, long, version [45], with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was therefore normal to resist her changes. PHG (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue? So six different editors didn't revert you? Can you show me where anyone other than you was edit warring with all the other editors active in the article? It also should be pointed out that your "six editors" were pulled by you from talk page archives and not any part of the actual discussion going on - consensus can and does change. Shell babelfish 07:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Untrue. Elonka clearly did not have consensus as she was trying force her short version of the article. Many editors prefered working from the original, long, version [45], with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was therefore normal to resist her changes. PHG (talk) 15:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but as we've tried to explain before, consensus has nothing to do with counting, its about discussion. While not everyone agreed whether to go with Elonka's version or just completely rewrite, clearly no one other than yourself supported a return to your version. The fact is that despite these differences of opinion, six separate editors reverted your attempts to reinstate your preferred version due to its considerable problems. Shell babelfish 13:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but the fact is that Elonka forced her version without a consensus at all: [44]. The link you are giving shows a poll two weeks after she had been forcing her version. Even this last poll was a 3 "yes"/ 3 "neutral"/ 1 "against", which I am afraid is not really a consensus. PHG (talk) 12:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- See talk for my comment. DurovaCharge! 02:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- This is absolutely incorrect. The consensus was developed by all editors other than PHG who staunchly refused to consider anything other than his own version; please see the actual discussion that occurred here which is a rather markedly different picture than what is painted by this finding. Shell babelfish 08:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Elonka flouts Wikipedia rules
2) Elonka edit wars by falsely claiming consensus (above), and by deleting a huge amount of referenced material (120k, 300 references) [46]. Elonka breaks promises made in Mediation [47]: how is it possible to have any respect for someone who doesn't keep her word, and dismisses it at the first occasion? This is absolutely unacceptable behaviour. This is totally against rules of collaborative editing: it is normal to make a stand against such practices. For other wrongdoings by Elonka on a different case see the sickening and ridiculous "Naming Conventions" dispute [48]. PHG (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by others:
- Doesn't this contradict a previous proposed principle that would allow editors to be bold in reverting edits that are based upon false interpretation of consensus? DurovaCharge! 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
- Heading and wording falls way outside of ArbCom's mandate - they are not here to take sides on the dispute. Orderinchaos 10:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Besides, all editors are given permission to "flout Wikipedia rules" -- see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. I'm not certain what exactly PHG believes Elonka did wrong here, so unless he wants to explain specifically what that behavior is, this proposal is a non-starter. -- llywrch (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Elonka harasses other users
3) Soon after I created the Franco-Mongol alliance Elonka and I entered into heated discussions with Elonka whether there was actually an alliance or not and other details. She first tried to have the article renamed, but failed (here). Despite the quantity of authors who specifically described this alliance (here), she kept arguing that the view was "fringe" and did not deserve balanced representation with the alternative view ("only attempts at an alliance"...). She then tried quite violently to discredit me through the Administrator notice board, but again failed (here), thanks to several users who spoke up for me. I responded by pointing out her behaviour (here), without asking for punitive action. Actually her actions in relation to this article generated many of the Opposes in her recent nomination as Admin (here). She still spends a huge amount of time leaving enormous diatribes against me on various Talk Pages and User Pages (here or [49] for example). I even had to file a claim for harassment (here). Besides, I'm glad I'm not the only one: Elonka has a huge history of dubious disputes and litigations with many other contributors as well (an example).<redacted> PHG (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed PHG (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't a proposed finding its just a personal attack. Could you tone down the rhetoric please PHG? WjBscribe 06:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that Shell also has requested that PHG cease these attacks on Elonka -- a request I concur with. PHG would help his case greatly if he would cease making accusations about Elonka like this & concentrated on the comments about his contributions to this article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, I am a very, very peacefull Wikipedia editor, and I am also very, very peacefull in real life, but when I am being attacked this way, I have to react. I have been resisting all along to Elonka's harassment and offensive editorial methods, in a way I believe many of you would have also reacted if attacked in the same conditions. When you see your hardly developed content erased in one day without proper consensus or discussion, when you get slandered repeatedly at ANI etc... there a point where you have to make a stand. I believe Elonka is a highly aggressive individual (cajoling to friends, unrelenting towards "opponents"), and my editing does have to be seen in this context. I love Wikipedia, and am delighted to devote my free time to improve its content, please help me put an end to these sad practices. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- I too am a very peaceful sort of guy, & have taken great pleasure in contributing to Wikipedia longer than perhaps anyone else posting to this page. I have also been attacked, have had significant portions of my contributions rewritten or deleted, & I have lost my temper, but when several different individuals have questioned my intents or contributions the one thing that has never occured to me to do is to single out one individual as a target for repeated complaints & personal attacks. (When two or more editors disagree with me or oppose one of my edits, my usual reaction is to recheck my assumptions because they might be right & I may be wrong in this instance.) Perhaps Elonka has acted badly in the past, but that is irrelevent here: she has been very restrained compared to you. And I suspect that were she to start a WikiBreak in the next five minutes, & be gone from Wikipedia for a few months -- or never to return -- you would still find some reason to rant about her & argue that she needs to be sanctioned. Please prove me wrong, & address only the substance of these comments, not who makes them. -- llywrch (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Guys, I am a very, very peacefull Wikipedia editor, and I am also very, very peacefull in real life, but when I am being attacked this way, I have to react. I have been resisting all along to Elonka's harassment and offensive editorial methods, in a way I believe many of you would have also reacted if attacked in the same conditions. When you see your hardly developed content erased in one day without proper consensus or discussion, when you get slandered repeatedly at ANI etc... there a point where you have to make a stand. I believe Elonka is a highly aggressive individual (cajoling to friends, unrelenting towards "opponents"), and my editing does have to be seen in this context. I love Wikipedia, and am delighted to devote my free time to improve its content, please help me put an end to these sad practices. Regards to all. PHG (talk) 00:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
Comment by clerk
- Personal attack removed. Thatcher 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Elonka deletes referenced material
4) Elonka has been deleting a huge quantity of referenced material that apparently did not match her own storyline. Her 70k rewrite consisted in deleting 120k of content and 300 academic references [50]. In the process, she eliminated the opinions of tens of reputable historians who see the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact User:PHG/Alliance. This is akin to book-burning: references material should not be deleted, but laid out and balanced in a NPOV manner. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Removing content (even sourced content) is not necessarily a bad thing. Although Wikipedia is not paper, there are guidelines about how large articles should be to be manageable for readers and reducing article size can be a very sensible editorial decision. It may also be necessary to reduce the size of an article if a large amount of it gives undue weight to a particular POV. WjBscribe 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least, I think you would need a clear consensus to do so. Fundamentally, I think removing referenced content from Wikipedia is a bad idea and goes against the fundamental orientation of the project. "Encyclopedia" means "all knowledge", not "small rounded articles with only a few selected references", nor "school texbook". We are making an encyclopedia, not a digest. Therefore all knowledge from proper published sources ultimately deserves representation on Wikipedia. This is what makes this project so extraordinary and allows to go into so much details on very narrow subjects. PHG (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are here to provide the sum of human knowledge, not all human knowledge. You could take all of the millions of articles on Wikipedia (even the fluff), print them and bind them in hardcopy and stack them on shelves, but even so, all of Wikipedia would only take up maybe 1 or 2 aisles in the corner of one floor of a university's research library. Human knowledge is vast, and it is not Wikipedia's job (or any encyclopedia's job) to reproduce all information, we're just trying to provide a basic summary. We are here to create a digest, we are not here to provide "all knowledge from published sources." Per WP:NOT#INFO, just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. --Elonka 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- You are playing on words. Wikipedia is indeed "to provide the sum of human knowledge". On a given subject Wikipedia:NPOV is very clear that "all significant views should be mentionned", and that is "non negotiable". We are not here to chose certain views and eliminate other, as long as we are talking about significant views from proper published sources. There is absolutely no reasons to delete major references such as those in User:PHG/Alliance, as you have been doing: this is POV editing with a bad reason. PHG (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We are here to provide the sum of human knowledge, not all human knowledge. You could take all of the millions of articles on Wikipedia (even the fluff), print them and bind them in hardcopy and stack them on shelves, but even so, all of Wikipedia would only take up maybe 1 or 2 aisles in the corner of one floor of a university's research library. Human knowledge is vast, and it is not Wikipedia's job (or any encyclopedia's job) to reproduce all information, we're just trying to provide a basic summary. We are here to create a digest, we are not here to provide "all knowledge from published sources." Per WP:NOT#INFO, just because something is verifiable, doesn't make it appropriate for inclusion. --Elonka 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- At least, I think you would need a clear consensus to do so. Fundamentally, I think removing referenced content from Wikipedia is a bad idea and goes against the fundamental orientation of the project. "Encyclopedia" means "all knowledge", not "small rounded articles with only a few selected references", nor "school texbook". We are making an encyclopedia, not a digest. Therefore all knowledge from proper published sources ultimately deserves representation on Wikipedia. This is what makes this project so extraordinary and allows to go into so much details on very narrow subjects. PHG (talk) 12:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- 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)
- Again, when Elonka was trying to force her short version many editors declared they prefered working from the original, long, version [51], with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was thus normal to resist them. PHG (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Somehow I don't see ArbCom using the word "book-burning" in a finding of fact wording. Orderinchaos 10:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
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 [52]!), 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)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed PHG (talk) 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- Elonka has a long history of harassment and confrontation [53]. She has also shown herself to be extremely confrontational in relation to the Franco-Mongol alliance article, as pointed out by many of the oponents to her RfA [54]: it is a recognized fact that Elonka is a highly controversial editor, and she has amply proven her partisan approach in relation to this article. I believe she is not pursuing the integrity of Wikipedia, only self-vindication and self-promotion. PHG (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Disagree - With all due respect, the Naming finding was 13 months ago. I have not seen any evidence of anything particularly notable in behaviour terms for approximately seven months. As such she appears to have learned from past errors of judgement. Agree with WJB's comments generally. Orderinchaos 10:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
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 [55] 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 [56], User:Justin [57],and myself) have expressed that they would prefer to start from the full article [58]. PHG (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- This lies outside ArbCom's power to order. The content of an article must be decided by editors in the usual manner. There are two options - consider readding material to the Elonka version, or removing it from PHG's version. The latter approach was tried for many months and PHG was resistant to all changes. The article actually grew in size. It seems to me sensible now to approach it the other way round. PHG should propose content to be readded and it can be discussed whether those additions are sound in terms of accuracy, NPOV and keeping the article to a reasonable size. WjBscribe 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have never been against split/condensing the article. There have been no proposals or discussions in that direction though, until Elonka brought her replacement. Quite the contrary, I even did the splits myself. When I split the article however to decrease its size, I was systematically pursued for POV-fork. PHG (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- This lies outside ArbCom's power to order. The content of an article must be decided by editors in the usual manner. There are two options - consider readding material to the Elonka version, or removing it from PHG's version. The latter approach was tried for many months and PHG was resistant to all changes. The article actually grew in size. It seems to me sensible now to approach it the other way round. PHG should propose content to be readded and it can be discussed whether those additions are sound in terms of accuracy, NPOV and keeping the article to a reasonable size. WjBscribe 06:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Make that 4 people now who would like to see the full article reinstated and then the contentious points discussed and kept, modified or deleted one by one (or at least in related groups) according to the merit of each point and reference. Sudden bulk deletions of well-referenced material are, I believe, totally unjustified. Moreover, this whole questionable process is wasting an incredible amount of time, effort and goodwill and certainly makes one question whether it is worthwhile trying to contribute to the Wikipedia at all.John Hill (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom doesn't weigh in on matters of content. But to point out your error here, you're accepting "well-referenced material" at face value - please feel free to join in the talk page discussion over the content where you will quickly learn that looking well referenced and actually being well reference are two different things. One can say a certain book supports the article, but if that book doesn't actually say whats in the article, we remove that text, right? Shell babelfish 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, marking academic papers you quickly learn that it's easy to meet the requirements but a lot harder to actually make and support a contention. :) Orderinchaos 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom doesn't weigh in on matters of content. But to point out your error here, you're accepting "well-referenced material" at face value - please feel free to join in the talk page discussion over the content where you will quickly learn that looking well referenced and actually being well reference are two different things. One can say a certain book supports the article, but if that book doesn't actually say whats in the article, we remove that text, right? Shell babelfish 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree - ArbCom addresses behaviour, not content. Re Matt57: he has a past history of dispute with Elonka over unrelated matters, and while not judging the strengths and weaknesses of his positions on those, I think anyone would agree he is not neutral on this (nor does he claim to be, for the record.) Orderinchaos 10:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Make that 4 people now who would like to see the full article reinstated and then the contentious points discussed and kept, modified or deleted one by one (or at least in related groups) according to the merit of each point and reference. Sudden bulk deletions of well-referenced material are, I believe, totally unjustified. Moreover, this whole questionable process is wasting an incredible amount of time, effort and goodwill and certainly makes one question whether it is worthwhile trying to contribute to the Wikipedia at all.John Hill (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed enforcement
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 Durova
Proposed Principles
WP:SYNTH
1) Innovative propositions based upon previously published sources are violations of the original synthesis clause of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Although occasional lapses may be understandable, habitual and stubborn violation of this policy is inconsistent with Wikipedia's role as a tertiary source of information.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
WP:NPOV
2) Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy is not the average of all opinions that ever existed; it reflects the weight of current expert consensus. Experts from previous eras deserve to be weighted in proportion to the esteem they receive from modern experts.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Maybe I'm too enamored with my own version above -- "All other considerations being equal, modern sources should be given preference to older ones" -- but I think Durova's version will lead to unintended harm. As I also wrote above, Wikipedia's coverage is increasingly encountering topics where the expert consensus is ...indeterminate. Either there are too few experts -- or none -- to provide a consensus. If no expert consensus can be reasonably determined, obviously we should favor the latest expert conclusions -- but be willing to also accept older ones if an editor can provide a reason to do so. (An example of this is how Fut.Perf. handled an unusual claim at Talk:Chaonians: although the material one user cited was more recent, Fut.Perf. patiently provided several reasons why the view of older sources -- some of them primary sources -- should be prefered.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- In medicine, mathematics, and the hard sciences this is easy to demonstrate. Euclid and Archimedes are still relevant to mathematics, but Ptolemy is obsolete to geography. We don't discuss phrenology or bloodlettings as if these were serious issues anymore, just because long-discredited experts used to advocate these things centuries ago. DurovaCharge! 02:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm too enamored with my own version above -- "All other considerations being equal, modern sources should be given preference to older ones" -- but I think Durova's version will lead to unintended harm. As I also wrote above, Wikipedia's coverage is increasingly encountering topics where the expert consensus is ...indeterminate. Either there are too few experts -- or none -- to provide a consensus. If no expert consensus can be reasonably determined, obviously we should favor the latest expert conclusions -- but be willing to also accept older ones if an editor can provide a reason to do so. (An example of this is how Fut.Perf. handled an unusual claim at Talk:Chaonians: although the material one user cited was more recent, Fut.Perf. patiently provided several reasons why the view of older sources -- some of them primary sources -- should be prefered.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Tu quoque
3. Violations of Wikipedia policies or other standards of proper behavior by one editor or individual, however serious, do not excuse violations by another editor. However, in appropriate circumstances, provocation or the like may be considered as a mitigating factor.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Inmproper sourcing
4. When a significant portion of an editor's contributions are demonstrated to be improper citations by any research standard, and when that editor stubbornly refuses to correct or even acknowledge the problem, then at the Committee's discretion that editor's research may be deemed untrustworthy in its entirety, and removed from active article space wholesale as if it were unreferenced, until such time as editors in good standing reverify the purported citations.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
Proposed findings of fact
PHG persistently uses improper sourcing
1) A significant proportion of PHG's citations are improper by any research standard. PHG persistently refuses to correct or acknowledge the problem.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
PHG violates WP:SYNTH
2) PHG's contributions violate the no original synthesis clause of Wikipedia's no original research policy.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- 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.
Reverification
1) Cited edits made by PHG in article space may be reverted as if they were unreferenced material, until individually verified as properly researched by editors in good standing.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
Template
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
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 Kirill Lokshin
Proposed Principles
Editorial process
1) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Standard stuff. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Neutral point of view
2) 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. Minority views should not be given as much or as detailed a description as more popular views.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Condensed a bit from Elonka's, above. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Use of sources
3) Determining both the reliability of sources and the relative prominence of their views is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- The crux of the issue. Applying NPOV is a bit more complex than counting up the number of authors in each column and dividing the word count proportionately. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Agreeing with the comment more than the proposed principle. The challenge is to precipitate nuggets of enforceable NOR and NPOV from an otherwise nebulous solution of content dispute. People who abuse sources often get away with facile claims that the entire problem is mere disagreement; articles suffer and good editors quit because of it. DurovaCharge! 11:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not entirely certain this is the way to word it, but like Durova, I agree with the comment and intent here. We see too many times where editors toss common-sense and judgment out in favor of blind obedience to their perception of NPOV; somehow we need to correct this gross misunderstanding. Dispute resolution doesn't currently handle more complex issues well and many issues are being dropped because good editors get discouraged or simply decide not to wade in knowing the kind of commitment that is required. Case in point: this issue has gone on for more than 6 months and required constant vigilance by many editors; its a shame that their time couldn't have been put to better use. The cleanup from this issue is likely to take even longer, assuming we can even find editors who can and want to rewrite and check hundreds of articles. Shell babelfish 07:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Role of the Arbitration Committee
4) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors, nor to issue detailed judgments on matters of article content and sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- More standard stuff. Kirill 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
Detrimental editing
5) The core purpose of the Wikipedia project is to create a high-quality free encyclopedia. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Originally from Stefanomencarelli; not quite sure whether this will be applicable yet. Kirill 19:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
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:
- 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
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
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 WJBscribe
Proposed Principles
Ownership of articles
1) Editors are not permitted to claim ownership over articles, even where they have contributed significantly to their creation or development. Overly defensive editing of articles is disruptive and may lead to users being blocked by an administrator.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
- Agree. DurovaCharge! 11:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed per WP:OWN. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Status quo
2) The content of an article at any one time enjoys no special status over later versions. Where consensus is unclear, reverts should cease being made until it can be established. Those advocating changes have no greater onus to demostrate consensus than those advocating the status quo.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that's untrue. According to Wikipedia, a consequence of Consensus decision-making is the Preservation of the Status quo, giving "an enormous advantage to anyone who supports the existing state of affairs". In case there is no consensus for a major change (such as article deletion, content replacement etc...), the Wikipedia approach is to keep the status quo. The principle you propose would allow anyone to make a major change to an article and block everything until a new consensus is established, leading to a huge amount of litigation (as is happening here). Much better to start from the main article, discuss, and improve progressively. PHG (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- In reply to Durova, I think the fact that the status quo enjoys no special privilege is a logical result of WP:OWN and the fact that this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. One should not give a special place to those who "get to an article first" if we're seriously going to have a collaborative model for editorial decision. Also, it is generally the case that where the accuracy of a reference for a statement is challenged, the onus is on the person wishing inclusion to demonstrate a consensus that it meets the relevant policies. The discussion you refer to are in my view different from discusions about article content - we do not claim that anyone can delete articles or decide what content is featured. Both of those are requests for something out of the ordinary to happen, whereas consensus forming discussions about what should be in aricles should be happening all the time. I think this article is a good example of the problem if one were to give preference to the status quo - a lack of interested editors could lead to original research and POV content remaining in an article simply because that content used to be in it. WjBscribe 08:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Is this intended to set articles apart from other consensus discussions such as deletions, featured content reviews, etc. where no consensus = status quo? DurovaCharge! 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that WP:V places the onus on an editor to justify inclusion, and that the difficulties in getting a large consensus at arcane topics shouldn't stop editors from acting upon the best consensus they're able to muster. Leave it as it is for the time being is usually a good working model during consensus development, yet that's prone to gaming if an editor stalls at one article and maneuvers a claim of ownership over new POV forks. So I suppose the principle is sound. Thank you for articulating the differences. DurovaCharge! 09:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Is this intended to set articles apart from other consensus discussions such as deletions, featured content reviews, etc. where no consensus = status quo? DurovaCharge! 11:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Editorial judgment regarding reliability
3) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed - adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Would seem to cover claims such as the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see how it is possible to establish expertise on Wikipedia, as contributors are essentially anonymous and don't have formal credentials. I think the only legitimacy to mentionning an opinion is that it has been published by a number of reputable sources. This is easy to implement, easy to verify, highly NPOV, and allows to avoid endless disputes. PHG (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed - adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Would seem to cover claims such as the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Addresses part of the matter. Would prefer to see a principle that articulates how WP:NOR requires fidelity to one's sources. Otherwise, what's to stop an editor from citing Crick & Watson while expounding on the triple helix? Pick enough cherries and you can bake any pie. DurovaCharge! 11:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Fringe theories
4) Where articles discuss subjects that are disputed, the weight of relevant opinion on either side should be clear. Where a theory is held by a small minority this should be made clear. In some cases, it may be appropriate not to include the theory at all so as to avoid giving it undue weight.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is probably very hard to impossible to give a proper weight to each opinions on a subject. There is the matter of the number of publications, but also that of the influence and popularity of each one. When about 30 scholars (from the little access I have to sources) do mention the Franco-Mongol alliance as a factual occurence, I don't think that has anything to look with "fringe": User:PHG/Alliance. Elonka has been deleting these references, but I am claiming that they deserve proper representation. According to Wikipedia:NPOV all significant views should be listed, and this is "non-negotiable". There is no need departing from this most fundamental (and I think remarquable) of Wikipedia rules. PHG (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Agreed. DurovaCharge! 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - self-evident. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Forking of content
5) Articles should not be split into multiple articles so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. Consensus on one article should not be evaded by creating a new article with the disputed content.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka herself repeatedly requested that the article be split/condensed and threatened that she would take the matter in her own hands if it did not happen ([59] [60]). I complied and created several splits in order to accomodate content from the main article. Now, don't tell me that was a wrong thing to do. However, Elonka chose to attack me immediately with POV-fork accusations. This is totally unfair. PHG (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Endorse. DurovaCharge! 11:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed - consistent with WP:POVFORK and past ArbCom decisions. Orderinchaos 10:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed findings of fact
PHG has edit warred
1) PHG reverted Franco-Mongol alliance to his prefered version instead of editing cooperatively with others. [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68].
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka clearly did not have consensus as she was trying force her short version of the article. Many editors prefered working from the original, long, version [69], with 6 editors specifically disagreeing with her actions. Her actions were therefore contrary to Wikipedia editorial rules, and it was therefore normal to resist her changes. In the absence of consensus, the rule at Wikipedia is to return to the status quo. PHG (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- He's written a proposed principle that would validate this conduct; so the fact that it occurred appears undisputed. DurovaCharge! 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree - fair conclusion to draw. Orderinchaos 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Whether Elonka had a consensus or not is moot. Constantly reverting back and forth is by definition an edit war. Have to agree with this. Justin chat 05:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
PHG has attempted to own the Franco-Mongol alliance article
2) PHG's extreme resistance to change to the article breaches the policy that Wikipedia articles are not owned.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, the Franco-Mongol alliance article has incorporated all along large contributions from Elonka, such as the "Interpretation by modern sources" chapter, many new sources and rewrites by her, all the disclaimer style alliance/submission phrasings etc... This article has never been closed to anybody. PHG (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Endorse. DurovaCharge! 11:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Agree. Orderinchaos 10:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
PHG has created POV forks
3) PHG has created POV forks including: Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, Mongol alliances in the Middle-East, Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) and Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300). These articles were deleted through the Articles for Deletion process.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- These are not POV-fork, only legitimate articles:
- Mongol conquests and Jerusalem what created to outsource from the main article content related to the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300. The corresponding content is in the full article here: User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300 It is perfectly documented by a number of reputable historians.
- The other articles (such as Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)) were only an attempt to split the main article following Elonka's insistent requests. As the "Franco-Mongol alliance" title had long been accepted by the community, they only used the same title with the addition of a date. I don't think this constitutes POV-fork at all. As a first step, these splits permitted a reduction of the main article to 140k, with a neat structure. The articles were finally deleted because many editors said they wanted to have all the content in one place. However, Elonka then again used the large size of the full article (190k, 400 references) as an excuse to force its replacement by her own 70k/100 refs article, defeated the purpose of having all in the same place to discuss properly. PHG (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- These are not POV-fork, only legitimate articles:
- Proposed. WjBscribe 07:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Endorse. DurovaCharge! 12:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Again, the difference between a POV fork and content fork is intent. Given we can't prove intent, calling it a POV fork is a misnomer. Justin chat 05:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. When Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol alliances in the Middle-East starts out by claiming that it is a POV fork, all the "delete" comments call it a POV fork, and the closing admin declares consensus to delete, I am willing to call it a POV fork. I don't have to judge intent to come to that conclusion. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Endorse. Editors shouldn't be creating a myriad of articles in an attempt to have their POV stick somewhere. Shell babelfish 07:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposed remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
PHG placed on probation
1) PHG is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive editing, such as edit warring, original research, and POV forking.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Proposed - from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2. Seems the best way short of an outright ban to allow the issues with PHG's conduct to be dealt with. WjBscribe 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Looking over the Ed Poor case, I have to disagree. See Shell Kinney's evidence and Blnguyen's comment at this workshop page. PHG goes far beyond a non-neutral point of view; he cherry picks sentence fragments and, from the look of User:Ealdgyth/Crusades quotes testbed, in several cases even attributes things that the source doesn't say at all. DurovaCharge! 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'd strengthen to a topic ban personally, but wouldn't oppose this solution either. Orderinchaos 10:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposals by Orderinchaos
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.
1) PHG (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Franco-Mongol alliance and related articles and their talk pages.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Well, yes, it'll help, but I'm afraid that this isn't strong enough. It'll definitely address the problems with the FMA articles, but PHG's activities have been disruptive in other topic areas as well (such as Indo-Greek Kingdom). While this situation has ArbCom's attention, I think it would be worthwhile dealing with the full problem (PHG's editing behavior in general) rather than just focusing on his behavior on one single set of articles. Otherwise we're going to need another PHG-specific ArbCom case in the future, which is going to waste even more time from good editors. The amount of time that I have had to spend on this issue over the last six months is staggering. It bothers me that I could have been working on many other articles in the meantime (which I did do, but not as much as I would have liked). And indeed, I often questioned whether I should be spending time documenting PHG's bad behavior -- it was often tempting to just "walk away" and let it be someone else's problem. But then I'd come back after a few weeks and see that he was continuing to escalate, and that it was still a "complex" escalation which other editors were having trouble dealing with.
- The biggest problem with PHG's disruption is that it's so complex, and that he uses sources which are difficult to obtain and verify. If he were someone misquoting online sources, it would be much easier for other editors to identify the fraud. But when someone is misquoting offline hardcopy sources, it becomes much more difficult to see what they're doing. This is multiplied when they start quoting sources in other languages. For example, PHG has occasionally quoted something in French, or Latin, and said that it backs up what he just said. Most other editors don't read Latin, and so they can't argue with it. But here, on this particular FMA dispute, we do have other editors with access to the hardcopy sources that PHG is misquoting. We do have other editors who can read these other languages, and who are challenging PHG's statements. And the really scary thing, is that even with multiple other editors pointing out that PHG is flat-out wrong, even with this entire ArbCom case expressing concerns with his behavior, he is still refusing to back down, he still refuses to acknowledge any type of consensus different from his own opinion. This just isn't the kind of person we want on Wikipedia. So let's take this opportunity to deal with an exceptionally disruptive editor, in a clear and unambiguous way. Otherwise we're just filling in one hole in the garden, and ignoring the fact that we still have a pest who's going to be digging other holes. :/ --Elonka 18:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- You make a very good point; even though there is unambiguous evidence that PHG has grossly misused sources, he is still not only pleading innocence, but also continuing to plead ignorance of the problem. This problem certainly isn't contained to just one subject he edits - we already know of at least one other subject area and editors are concerned enough that they're looking through PHG's other contributions too. Banning him from one area isn't going to resolve this problem, especially when he refuses to even admit there's an elephant in the shower with him. Shell babelfish 19:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Proposed. (Note that a formulation of this would probably need to spell out "related articles" with more clarity, but I don't know enough on the topic to do so.) Orderinchaos 10:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- Where has this editor participated in a reliable manner elsewhere, that would justify the risks of this leniency? As Jehochman argues above, persistent misuse of sources is much harder to identify and fix than toilet humor vandalism. If this passes I'll sit back and wait for the WP:FAC on Ostrogothic conquest of Ethiopia. DurovaCharge! 21:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like it won't pass anyway, but the option wasn't on the table and I felt it should be available. The editor does seem to do good work in unrelated areas and I didn't see any reason to get in the way of that. Orderinchaos 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adam Bishop has serious concerns about his work with the Indo-Greeks and I have licensing concerns about dozens of his uploads. In what area (if any) is this editor's work reliable? DurovaCharge! 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think that was a couple of other people...I just extrapolated from this incident that his other work might be suspect. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Adam Bishop has serious concerns about his work with the Indo-Greeks and I have licensing concerns about dozens of his uploads. In what area (if any) is this editor's work reliable? DurovaCharge! 00:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It looks like it won't pass anyway, but the option wasn't on the table and I felt it should be available. The editor does seem to do good work in unrelated areas and I didn't see any reason to get in the way of that. Orderinchaos 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Durova, that article would simply be a redirect to Second Italo-Abyssinian War. On the other hand, there are some particularly bizarre theories & ironies about Ethiopian history; I ought to retell some of them on my blog. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- For instance, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indo-Greek Kingdom, and see the article history to see how many {{failed verification}} turned up on the checkable sources. Only some of the sources were accessible. Blnguyen (photo straw poll) 05:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- Just the fact that there are several editors working through PHG's articles right now (currently its limited to the Mongol, Templar and other ancient Chinese related topics) is a sign that this isn't going to resolve the problem. Blnguyen has pointed at another article with identical sourcing problems -- again, that's a scary thought and pretty damning. Work is ongoing at locating other experts on wiki that can help out in some of the other obscure areas PHG has chose. Shell babelfish 07:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
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}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed findings of fact
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:
- 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
2) {text of proposed remedy}
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Proposed enforcement
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:
Analysis of evidence
Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
Template
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others:
General discussion
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Comment by parties:
- Comment by others: